Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 49

Thu, 12 Mar 2009

• 1. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (D&E-H Bannett)
• 2. ein mevatlin issu lechatchila (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: ein mevatlin issu lechatchila (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (D&E-H Bannett)
• 5. drinking on Purim (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: Women covering hair (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (Micha Berger)
• 9. Some interesting facts about the Avnet (Silverman, Philip B)
• 10. Re: Choshen (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: Women covering hair - Megillah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (D&E-H Bannett)
• 14. wife is a honey (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Re: Women covering hair - Megillah (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: FWD: "When Was Ta'anis Esther Established?" (AKatz of Beurei HaTefila) (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 18. Re: Purim Question (Michael Poppers)
• 19. Re: Seudah on Purim Night (Michael Poppers)

Re: << the sefer Al HaGeulah ve'al HaTemurah (p.25) you 
would have seen that it quotes the Bach (OCh 118)  who 
discusses this very matter "...shehaya mefakpekim beNusach 
birchas Velirushalayim.>>

But this is only a teirutz after the fact. The AHVH doesnt 
even consider the possibility that there was only one 
b'rakha in E"Y and, after they were separated, for some 
reason a piece of one got stuck in the other.

David 

<< technicallly you can ask a Gentile to do it but the product would
be assur see SA Yd 99:5 vkChen lemi shenisbatel bishvilo
See ba'eir hetev 10

Reductio ad absurdum:

Let Gentile mix up 1 neveilah with 2 kesheira pieces lechatchila.
Guard him from bringning in extra meat from outside and you can make a
ta'aroves with bittul lechatchila.>>

The key word is  bishvilo . When a company makes a product
with a small amount of treif they are not adding mayterial in order
to be mevatel the issur for any Jew. Since the purpose is not
bittul but rather this the way of making the product these problems do
not arise and one can have a hechsher lechatchila to supervise that
everything is okay

It would only be problematical if the rav hamachshir wooul suggest to
the company to add some ingredients for the purpose of bittul

-- 
Eli Turkel

> The key word is  bishvilo . When a company makes a product
> with a small amount of treif they are not adding mayterial in order
> to be mevatel the issur for any Jew. Since the purpose is not
> bittul but rather this the way of making the product these problems do
> not arise and one can have a hechsher lechatchila to supervise that
> everything is okay

> It would only be problematical if the rav hamachshir wooul suggest to
> the company to add some ingredients for the purpose of bittul

> Eli Turkel

Sources?

I would say bishvilo means in anticipation of a future user. If that
future user is Jewish then...

Also to me: by giving hechsher the rabbi is giving "his blessing"
(metaphorically) to the process

If there is any hana'ah for the questionable product then imho its
chashivus is not batteil just like a spice is not. Bateil if its ta'am
is desired.

As one rav hamachshirt told me re: dairy; if you desire the prsence of
x and x is dairy it is not bateil. Only unintentiol ta'aruvos are or
can be b ateil not those desirable lechatchila.

Simchas Purim
RRW

PS: now if an ice cream maker had minute/negligible amounts of unkosher
gelatin left from one flavor
and was too lazy to clean it for the next batch
and did not care to have the gelatin as an ingredient for that 2nd flavor
Then I would agree he COULD be mevateil lechatchila because the minute
amount of issur left-over is not being used consciously to be mashbiach
the ta'am and therefore serves no positive purpose....

RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Re:  <<I once heard (I know, this is usually not a good 
introduction to a
reliable source) that Kallir purposely omitted a q'rova for 
the bracha
of "Et tzemach David" on Purim.

That's what the commentary in the Artscroll siddur states>>

Another teirutz to explain the mystery to those who seem to 
think that the number 18 for the 'Amida was commanded by H' 
and given to Moshe be-Sinai.

I was not very surprised that Artscroll backs such 
teirutzim. What is the halakhic or other justification for 
ignoring the evidence of the Yerushalmi, the nusach of the 
combined b'rakha in the nusach E"Y found in the geniza and 
the lack of a krova for the extra b'rakha.

Another teirutz as yet not mentioned on list is that the E"Y 
nusach was put in the geniza because it was a non-halakhic 
chiddush.  If so, shouldn't the Yerushalmi also be put in 
geniza to prevent non-frum MO ideas from spreading. Who 
volunteers to compose another krova?

If one looks at the evidence there is no need for teirutzim. 
What is wrong with there having been tov b'rakhot instead of 
chai b'rakhot? If there is something very wrong with having 
had 17, should we, perhaps, combine two brakhot to return 
the present 19 back to the holy 18?


bivrakha,

David 

ROY discourages getting drunk on Purim and advocates a little drink and
falling asleep. I was told that R. Chaim Kanievsky does the same

Is there any modern posek who says one should get drunk on Purim?
(still seems to be popular in some yeshiva circles)

-- 
Eli Turkel

> If one looks at the evidence there is no need for teirutzim. 
> What is wrong with there having been tov b'rakhot instead of 
> chai b'rakhot? If there is something very wrong with having 
> had 17, should we, perhaps, combine two brakhot to return 
> the present 19 back to the holy 18?
> David

Perhaps nothing wrong but IIRC the gmara in brachos links 18 with Psalm
29 having 18 hazkoros. And FWIW so does Baruch Hashem l'olam

The way it was taught to me is that the original 18 went 2 ways:
Up to 19 or maintaining 18 by contraction

Saying. In EY they contracted 2 brachos to preserve 18 supports the idea
that tefillah "yud cheis" is a long-standing term.

The kasha is really more on minhag bavel that maintained the terminology
of shmoneh esrai w/o really having 18
(Lich'ora) since before rabban gamliel. And lich'ora baruch Hashem
should have been 19.

While David may be correct historically I prefer the logic of the way I
was taught because it all fits together. 17 doesn't seem to fit as well.

Simchas Shushan Purim
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Marty Bluke <marty.bl...@gmail.com>
>>The Gemara in  Erchin 3a writes that
hakol k'sheirim likros hamegilla is marbeh women that  they can read
the megilla. Rashi writes explicitly that women can read for  men. It
is clear from Rashi that there is no problem of Kol Isha with a  women
reading the megilla. In fact, reading the Megilla is worse  then
speaking as the megilla is read with the trop which is a form of  music
and yet women can still read for men.<<
 


>>>>>>
 
But the posek (ROY?) who was quoted recently as permitting women to read  the 
megilla for men (in the extremely remote case that no man could do it) was  
also quoted as saying IIRC that the woman who leins for men should read the  
megilla without the trop.
 
--Toby  Katz
==========

--------------------




**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219671244x1201345076/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID<
/a>
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090310/7b199041/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 03:00:24PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: RMF has a teshuva allowing ice cream even though it contains small
: amounts of Gelatin which might be davar hamamid.
: Thus, it was obvious to RMF that once it is batel by the company
: one can buy it lechatchila and give a hechsher,

Is there any case where bitul can be undone? (And we perhaps need to
delve into rov as birur vs batul berov.)

E.g. erev Pesach, bitul because of a gezeira is strong enough to
continue even after issur chameitz de'oraisa is in effect!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Marty Bluke writes:

"Tosafos in Erchin 16b states that the Kohen wrapped it around 2 times,
the Shita Mekubetzes there states 32 times (kneged lev). Both of these
opinions seem very difficult."

 

If I can take a shot at reconciling these views (and on Purim, shots are
easy to come by), 

could it be that the avnet was wrapped around the body twice, and the
ends of the avnet

was wrapped around the *avnet* 32 times (I suppose 16 times for each
end)?

 

Philip 

 



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090311/6473f20d/attachment-0001.htm>

[bcc'ing several people who may be interested in / able to shed some
light on this.]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:11:14 -0500
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I had my student look into it:
> > 
> > the meaning is unknown. bdb speculates it is from Arabic "beautiful", "an 
> > ornament"
> 
> A Hebrew word can't have come from Arabic.   It may be cognate to an
> Arabic word, both deriving from a common ancestor, but Arabic isn't old
> enough to have influenced Biblical Hebrew, or even Mishnaic Hebrew.

This past Shabbas, my father happened to mention Rashi's comment on the
word 'yizah' (Shemos 28:28):

"lashon nituk, ve'lashon Arvi hu, ke'divrei Dunash ben Labrat"

http
://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=2&;perek=28&am
p;mefaresh=rashi

Knowing that RZS is generally right about such things, I wondered: how
can Rashi claim that this is an Arabic loan word, if Arabic was not yet
invented!  I checked Dunash, and sure enough, that is *not* what he
actually says:

"u'pisron lo yizah ha'hoshen lo yimad [yud mem ayin daled] ha'hoshen,
ke'mashma'o be'lashon ha'Arvis ..."

Sefer Teshuovs Dunash ben Labrat (London-Edinburgh 1855) pp. 60-61

So he is merely saying that it is a cognate of the similar Arabic form,
and Rashi's rephrasing seems quite misleading.

[Incidentally, it is interesting that Rashi's grandson Rabbeinu Tam, in
his "Hachra'ah" to the above passage, rejects the interpretation of his
grandfather and Dunash.]

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

David
> And 19 fits?

Lesheetasi no.
If it were up to me I would restore the Qaliirian format

You might have pointed out that birchas haminim - as originally formulated
- could also be seen as obsolete.

Simchas Shushan Purim
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Toby:
> But the posek (ROY?) who was quoted recently as permitting women to
> read the megilla for men (in the extremely remote case that no man could
> do it)

True but that is AIUI ROY was factoring in -IOW chosheish - for BEHAG etc.
So he would not permit it lechatchila

Shushan salutations
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[RRW:]
> the gmara in brachos links 18 with psalm 29 having 18 hazkoros.
> And FWIW so does Baruch Hashem l'olam

and the gemara in brachos was written in Bavel where the tradition had
always been that they had 18 before minim was added. Similarly, the
gemara Yerushalmi that I quoted was written in E"Y so it is no surprise
that it speaks of 17 before the minim was added.

> The kasha is really more on minhag bavel that maintained the terminology
> of shmoneh esrai w/o really having 18

And still more of a kasha on us Ashkenazim who have continued calling
it shmoneh-esrei for an additional 1500 years. And we even call the 7
of Shabbat shmoneh-esrei as well. And we even have a shmoneh-esrei in
musaf on rosh-hashana.

The Sefaradim seem to have more sekhel than us because they use the name
'amida for the sh'moneh-esrei. While in y'kum purkan we still say a prayer
for the reish galuta in Bavel, the sefaradim don't. Since the gulf wars,
has no one noticed that there is no longer a gaonate in Iraq.

> 17 doesn't seem to fit as well.

Why not? I always thought that 17 is TO"V.

And 19 fits?

17 -> 18 -> 19 ??             7 =9=18  ??

Oy. Such thoughts. Shver tzu zein a Yid.

Brakhot and such to you and to those who live in Shushan or in cities
that were walled in the era of the ancient Yehoshua' bin Nun.
David

I learned tonoght why one should call his wife honey
From R. Zilberstein quoting R. Yonasan Einschutz

Honey never spoils and has the power to remove spoilage
from other foods. The gematria of devash = 306
which equals the gematria of isha because a woman has the
same characteristics

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 04:54:28PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Toby:
:> But the posek (ROY?) who was quoted recently as permitting women to
:> read the megilla for men (in the extremely remote case that no man could
:> do it)

: True but that is AIUI ROY was factoring in -IOW chosheish - for BEHAG etc.
: So he would not permit it lechatchila

ROY being ROY, he's not so much being chosheish for the Bahag and a
bunch of Ashkenazi rishonim, as much as the mechabeir giving it as a
yeish omerim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 04:34:40PM +0200, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
: Didn't some list members wonder at times about the unusual nusach in our
: Boneh Yerushalayim brakha? We say, come back to Jerusalem and live in it
: as promised and rebuild it soon ... and speedily prepare David's throne
: there. Why does David appear here when the next b'rakha is specifically
: about David.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:07:35AM +1100, SBA wrote:
: The AHVH goes on "...vetamtsis devarav - deshapir haveh chasima me'ein
: hap'sicha deBinyan yerushalayim veChisei Dovid chada milsa....she'ein anu
: mevakshin al binyan yerushalayim - ela be'ofen sheyihye raui leKisei Dovid
: - lo be'ofen achar.."

I did, and here was what I thought was going on. Not quite the same as
the AHVH, but not all that different.

If one leaves the order of phrases alone, then the "besokha" that kisei
David would be established would be the same as the previous phrase's
subject -- "uvnei osah beqarov beyameinu binyan olam".

IOW, this isn't so much about the melukhah directly, but about the aspect
of the BHMQ that includes the presence of the melekh. For that matter,
"Kisei David" is arguably a seat in the lishkas hagazis as well.

At least, that's what I'm thinking when I say it.

Then, after having the discussion of keser melukhah as part of the BHMQ,
ben David's presence as a human expression of the ideals of the
shulchan, we move on to the value of melukhah as melukhah itself.

This is binyan Y-m -- keser kehunah, keser melukhah, keser Torah,
vekeser shem tov oleh al gabeihem.

...
: Why is this remnant of David in Boneh Yerushalyim? Was it in the original
: Bavel nusach which had separate b'rakhot for Yerushalayim and David?
: Or, perhaps, someone looked in the Tosefta or Yerushalmi and interpreted
: the statement that one is kolel David b'voneh Yerushalayim as applying
: also to a nusach other than that of E"Y.

My kavanah would explain why, even if they were split, the phrase was
left in what would otherwise be the wrong berakhah.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:28:19PM +0200, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
: Another teirutz to explain the mystery to those who seem to 
: think that the number 18 for the 'Amida was commanded by H' 
: and given to Moshe be-Sinai.

Wasn't the basic structure of the Amidah cointed by Anshei Keneses
haGedolah? Now, that's not as far back as Sinai, but still ancient history
by the time we get to Shemu'el haQatan and the Kerem beYavneh asking
him to write birkhas minim. Chazal not only attribute the chasimos to
AKhG, they also tell us that it was said by the kohanim in bayis sheini
(along with the 10 diberos and Shema).

: I was not very surprised that Artscroll backs such 
: teirutzim. What is the halakhic or other justification for 
: ignoring the evidence of the Yerushalmi, the nusach of the 
: combined b'rakha in the nusach E"Y found in the geniza and 
: the lack of a krova for the extra b'rakha.

This is the bit I don't get. Who was in Bavel at the time? The berakhah
dates back to a period when we don't hear of too much halachic authority
in Bavel. In contrest, "Maaravah" had a somewhat-functioning Sanhedrin,
fully capable of making gezeiros and taqanos. How would Bavel evolve a
different response to the new berakhah than they had in Yavneh itself?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:35:03AM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Perhaps nothing wrong but IIRC the gmara in brachos links 18 with Psalm
: 29 having 18 hazkoros. And FWIW so does Baruch Hashem l'olam
...
: While David may be correct historically I prefer the logic of the way I
: was taught because it all fits together. 17 doesn't seem to fit as well.

Why would AKhG choosing to correspond to David' mizmor make it David
haMelekh's idea any more than corresponding to bones in the spine (as
we count distinct bones) make it HQBH's?

It's like gematria cha"i vs gematria to"v. A choice of Remez.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

R' ZS: 
> Taanis Esther is the 13th of Adar, because only Esther fasted then.
> The rest of the Jews were either fighting or had to be prepared to flee
> if the fighting should go badly, so they were not allowed to fast.  Only
> Esther, who was safe in the palace, was allowed to fast, and surely she
> did so, praying for the success of the Jewish forces.
> 
> I don't know what the source for this is, but this is what I was taught
> in school, and it makes perfect sense.

MB (686:2) indicates that others fasted as well. 

KT,
MYG

In Avodah Digest V26#46, RCRW quoted and asked:
> <<Before going to shul for Megillah at night one should get dressed in
Shabbos clothing.
Candles should be lit in the home (without a bracha) and the table
should be set just as on Shabbos.
Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berura 695:1 <<
> If the above is in the S.A., what about the minhag of dressing up in
costume? <
AFAIK, the above is in MB, not SA (and that's undoubtedly what was meant by
whomever wrote "SA w/ MB," even though personally (a) I would consider it
more confusing and less accurate than simply writing "MB"; and (b) I would
have written "BH" ;-)).

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090311/7049c4e4/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah Digest V26#47, RAM asked:
> Mishne Brura 695:3 writes: "Even when the 14th falls on Motzaei Shabbos,
where one made a Seudah Chashuvah as the third meal, nevertheless he has to
have a bit more (leharbos ketzas) at night l'kavod Purim..."
> Why does the MB refer to Shalosh Seudos? Wouldn't it be simpler and
better to mention Melaveh Malka? <
Not if he explicitly meant the 3rd Shabbos meal ;-).

> After all, Shalosh Seudos is merely an illustration of why one might not
be hungry, and might not want to make a seudah on Purim night. But, if the
case concerns Motzaei Shabbos, then the problem is not that he isn't
hungry, but that he is already making a seudah anyway. Even if his Shalosh
Seudos was a minimal one, he should still "have a bit more" in order to
distinguish his regular Melaveh Malka from this combined "Melaveh Malka on
Purim Night". <
Who says the problem is not that he isn't hungry?

> So what is the point that the MB is making? Thanks. <
That he isn't hungry, yet he should still do something lichvod Purim.  See
the comment of L'vushei S'rad ("shesava' mis'udah Gimel [i.e., shlishis
--MP]") to MA 695:1.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090311/a908d4fc/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 49
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."