Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 151

Fri, 31 Jul 2009

• 1. Re: Hashgahat Kashrut for M'halelei Shabbat (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: tisha baav is a moed (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. we live in good times (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 4. learning kinot (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 5. At the time of the 2nd Beis Hamikdosh... (SBA)
• 6. asara harugei malchut and mechirat yosef (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: At the time of the 2nd Beis Hamikdosh... (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 9. learning kinnot (Eli Turkel)
• 10. tisha baav as a moed (Eli Turkel)
• 11. tisha baav as moed (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: we live in good times (Stuart Feldhamer)
• 13. Re: we live in good times (Ben Waxman)

Re: Michael's post

Note:
It's not only the food that is cooked on shabbos that is a problem
The keilim are a problem, too.

Baked goods may remain for many days

Lou G. Siegel remained open Friday nights but IIRC stopped new cooking
and served what was already heated. For observant Jews they allowed
them to prepay.

So hot food was served, but food that was cooked before Shabbos

Perhaps if a Jewish "kosher restaurant were to be open on shabbos they
would/should serve cold sandwiches, salads, etc. Not hot food.
Then the violation would be reduced to handling money, etc. And avoid
Mevashel and Mavir eish - which AISI is a marked improvement.

We should merit nechama
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha
> Eikhah 1:15, "... qara alay mo'eid libhor bachurai ..."

> Peshat clearly is about the lives lost during the churban itself, not a
> future festival.

Indeed I concur - the peshat is as Micha noted..

Hypothesis about this "future festival"

Since we pray on Seder Night 
"... Miyagon lesimcha
And me'eivel leYT

So this sad day which during the pre-moshiach epoch is a "mo-ed" for Edom

Will be - during the Messianic era - turned into a "Mo-ed" festival
for Israel.

Like Purim, Tisha B'av will undergo a parallel "v'nahafoch hu"
 
So the peshat is as Micha noted
And perhaps the passuq is a REMEZ - pointing towards this future Mo-ed
bimheira beyameinu.

May we merit Nechama
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

"There are sources saying that the walls of Jerusalem were
destroyed on separate days, but we fast only one day because the tzibbur
can't handle fasting too many days. Granted these two days (9th and 17th of
Tammuz) are close together, but if we were to fast for every tragedy, then
the effect would be similar."

I just heard a shiur this past Shabbat in which it was explained that it is
a machloket Bavli and Yerusalmi as to whether the walls of Jerusalem were
destroyed on the same day of the month for both Temples (17th of Tammuz) or
on different days (9th and 17th).

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090729/15815dc3/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW: "I seem to recall the Rav not over-intellecutalizing but rather expounding
and was well within the parameters of understanding the dynamics of the
day and of the qinnos

<snip>

Now READING those same lectures may lack the "gefeel" of hearing them
from the Rav. The Rav was - as I saw him - more touchy-feely in person
than on tape or written page."

R. J.J. Schacter's book, "The Lord is Righteous in all His Ways" is pretty
much a transcription of many of the Rav's presentations on Tisha B'Av.	He
purposely kept the feel of an oral presentation rather than making them
into written essays.  Anyone who ever heard the Rav speak can hear, in
his/her mind while reading the book, the Rav giving these talks.

Joseph Kaplan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090729/933abf3b/attachment-0001.htm>

Bizman shebeis hamikdosh [hasheni] hoyo kayem..
(how) did Jews commemorate Tisha B'Av?
====
Since first sending this out to some on my email list a few days ago,
I have received the following replies;

 * I don't think they did.

* there are two opinions whether the Jews fasted on 9 av - the rambam says
they did  the tashbatz says no 

* the same way they did during beth rishon - so methinks

* The Gemoro in Taanis says that they fasted.

* "Ochlin veshosin umishtakrin" - Eicha Rabba / MA 652

* Ayen Sefas Emes al Shas - RH 18

*  Peirush Hamishna leRambam RH 1:3:  Tisha B'Av they fasted - but the other
taneisim was up to them.

* Look at Mishnayos Rosh Hashonoh Perek 1 Mishnsh 3 and the Meforshim there

Over tisha Baav I read several midrashim that make clear that asara harugei
malchut was a kapara for the sale of yosef

1. Medrash Ele ezkarah (anyone know anything about it?)

The Caeser is learning Torah and learns about kidnapping
He send a message to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asking the punishment
for a kidnapper
they answer - death. In that case he answers they deserve death for the sale
of yosef and gave them 3 days for an answer.
Yishmael Cohen Gadol goes to heaven and meets MeTatron. MetTaron asks what
difference it makes and Yishmael answers that if it is not decreed from heaven
he will use the Shem Hameforash to save everyone.
Metratron explains there was a debate before Hashem.
Samuel (angel of Rome) said the sons of Jacob sold Yosef and were never punished
In response G-d decreed that the 10 chachamim would be killed.
No generation had 10 sages worthy enough to be a substitute for the brothers

When he returned the 10 were happy and mournful - mournful because they were
to die but happy that they were considered equals of the 10 tribes

2. Rabbenu Bachya = Bereshit 44:17, Bereshit 50:17, Bereshit 38:1
Connects ketonet hapasim with a bodily punishment which ened up on the 10 sages.
The word "anashim" appears 10 times n the parsha as a remez to the 10
harugei malchut

Yosef never gave mechila to his brothers and so they died in sin and
so the need for the death of the 10 sages

He then asks that only 9 brothers sinned since reuven was not in the conspiracy.
He answers that the 10th brother is Yosef!!
He caused the whole story by his behavior and so he also deserved a punishment
Another answer is that Reuven was included because of the sin with
Bilhah not the sin with Yosef

3. Tikunei Zohar p110

The 10 harugei malchut were copies (diyuknayhu) of the sons of Yaakov
Yosef was punished also in that he should have had 10 tribes from his
descendants

4. R Chaim Vital parshat Vayeshev

Reuven looked with ruach Hakodesh that the 10 harugei malchut were to
be killed for
the sin of selling Yosef by his brothers and G-d would avenge on them

-- 
Eli Turkel

SBA:
> * Look at Mishnayos Rosh Hashonoh Perek 1 Mishnsh 3 and the Meforshim there

Tangent:
The mishna says 6 times a years shluchin went out - including Av

Then it adds that during the miqdash also Iyyar for pesach qatan..

Q:  Well that makes 7!

Teirutz:
During the miqdash it's still 6! In those days we added Iyyar AND
subtract Av

Problem with Teirutz:
Iqqar chaseir min hassefer -nevertheless I like it :-)
 
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> RMB
>
> Rather than state every point in a shaqla vetarya, I want to again try
> to take a step back and spell out my position from square one. I am it
> would be a more clear format. I'm going to go really far back,  
> because I
> think RMS's consternation is evidence of our coming from fundamentally
> different paradigms.
>
Actually, our paradigms are not that different.  I think you  
misunderstand my concerns on this issue.  Let me rephrase the order of  
the arguments.

Let us separate into several different issues:
1) How do we approach change?
There is little in what you say that I would disagree with.  Halacha  
is essentially conservative (small  c), and changing the social  
structure can have major unforeseen consequences about our ability to  
transmit the mesorah.   I would add two points
        a) Sometimes, if changes have occurred, proceeding without change is  
itself a change - because the meaning of the actions change due to the  
changed circumstances - and then, doing the same thing is a radical  
change, and change can actually be a conservative response.  (Whether  
this applies to a given circumstance is to be debated.)
        b) Some of the more "modern" values may actually represent an  
implementation of authentic torah values (as has been argued, for  
example, by hagaon rav eliezer berkovits zt"l.)

2.   The notion of a political psak.  While the the issue of ligdor  
milta is clearly a factor, RYBS, in the one example that is most  
relevant to this discussion, objected to it. That is, WRT to women's  
tefilla groups, it is by now fairly clear that he objected strongly  
(and many of the objections that you raise are related to what were  
his objections).  It is also clear that he was extremely careful and  
medakdek not to use the language of issur v'heter (as has been  
documented by R Mayer Twersky - who argues that his opposition on meta  
halalchic grounds means that functionally, they are assur - but that  
is a different discussion).  He objected to the YU 5s, and RHS's  
position - that tried to put the opposition in classical halachic  
terms.   This discussion started with my point that RHS sometimes  
uses, for political psak, ideas and positions that are difficult to  
defend..(eg, arguing that WTGs violate the magen avraham on women and  
kriat hatora - when it is the mainstream not to follow the magen  
avraham...)

3.   Women's roles.  One of the things that has clearly changed in the  
twentieth century is the public role of women, and the major debate  
has been (within the parameters of the first issue above), about what  
the proper halachic and hashkafic response should be to that - and  
whether that should change what role women play in religious life.
As part of that discussion, there has to be an understanding of what  
the halachic and hashkafic underpinnings of the traditional role of  
women - because only then can we discuss the permissibility and  
desirability of any change.

As part of that discussion, RHS made the following argument(?psak):
There is an inherent conflict between the value of modesty (he used  
tseniut, but that is also used in terms of the pritzut connotation -  
and the part of tzeniut that he was emphasizing is better translated  
by modesty) and public actions.  This is suggested by the rule that  
someone asked to be a shliach tzibbur is supposed initially to  
refuse.  What is mattir (and his argument was essentially a brisker  
argument) us to transgress the value of modesty is that there is a  
hiyuv inherent that someone has to fulfill a role /do the action - but  
absent this mattir, one should not violate modesty.
As women do not have such a hiyuv (for many of the actions  
contemplated), therefore they should not violate their modesty - and  
not assume a public role.

You adopted this argument, and out of this Brisker argument developed  
a far reaching theory of modesty - and one practical implication of  
this is the consequence for women - and positions such as maharat.

My objection is not that the maharat and other similar positions do  
not represent a social change.  There is a legitimate discussion about  
the parameters and needs of change, and of the underlying values that  
we are trying to preserve - including as well the effects on the  
tramsmission of the mesora (as per issue 1).  My objection is that  
this position about tzeniut/modesty is inherently untenable, for for 4  
different reasons (the first three are generally applicable - without  
regard to the discussion about women that was the subtext)

Objections.
        a) This model of modesty is one that in practice is not followed by  
the general Jewish community. (I and many others have pointed out many  
examples)
        b) Not only is it not followed in practice, it is not viewed as an  
ideal that we are unable to fully implement, and there is literature  
against it.
        c) Not only is it not viewed as an ideal, it actually represents an  
ideal that is profoundly immoral, dangerous to the Jewish community,  
and of foreign origin.  ((t is this last point that made the  
discussion so heated - and I confess that I find it difficult to  
understand how someone so morally sophisticated and sensitive adn  
Micha could adopt such a position)
These three objections have nothing to do with the underyling  
discussion about women - but reflect that this position cheapens and  
warns against public service.
lastly
        d) Even if one were to accept this definition of modesty with its  
restrictions as an ideal, it actually doesn't solve the issue of  
women's roles - because the underlying issue of public roles for  
women, such as yoetzet halacha, to'enet, high school tanach teacher,  
or maharat (all revolutions in some form or other), is not satisfying  
the base need for public adulaton of the individual - as viewed by  
some of the critics - but satisfying a communal need that has been  
identified by its leaders.  The question then becomes of what are the  
needs of the community.

Again, the fact that this argument for modesty is rejected does not  
mean that one is compelled to accept all modern changes - it means  
that one has to search deeper for a true understanding of the  
hashkafic and halachic underpinnings of women's roles, because this is  
not it.
It does suggest that whoever initially suggested it may not have such  
an understanding, and therefore his ability to influence further  
discussion.

Let me just summarize my objection c.   The question is what is meant  
by modesty.  You have raised (and I agree) with you, that this is  
related to anivut. However, our prime example of anivut is moshe - who  
is also the prime example of a leader - whose majesty (hod) and public  
role noone denies.  This more than suggests that anivut and modesty  
are not compromised by the fact that one is a public figure or in the  
public eye (although it is true that publicity and power can corrupt -  
they are not intrinsically opposed to modesty)

Indeed, there is no Jewish literature to suggest that modesty/tseniut  
requires abandoning public life and actions.  Rather, tseniut/modesty  
here reflects to how one is public - that one still keeps a private  
personae while being public. To use an example from tanach, when david  
hamelech was dancing in front of the aron, he was tsanua.  I would  
argue that he did violate modesty in his over mourning of avshalom.
Ie, modesty reflects the private sphere.  Yes, there is an oppositon  
to celebrity qua celebrity.  there is also very little in Jewish  
literature that would correspond to St Augustine's Confessions -  
because such public parading of one's inner self is a violation of  
tseniut.  That is exactly how RYBS  defines it in the citation that  
you brought from nefesh harav.  That is quite different from  
opposition to public roles and actions

Moreover, your definition is, as I said, profoundly immoral and  
dangerous.  It imports into yahadut the profound emphasis on the  
individual self perfection rather than communal obligations.  It  
implies that unless there is a clearly identified need - and you are  
the only one - one shoud retreat from the public sphere.  This is  
highly dangerous to the survival of a jewish community - both  
established institutions and many initiatives that have been  
undertaken by individuals, later recognized by the community as  
necessary, where, in the beginning, not so recognized.  I am called to  
serve on the school board - sorry, others can serve, and it will hurt  
my tseniut.  I am thinking of a new initiative for (name communal  
goal) - sorry, not clear it is necessary, nor that I am the right  
person.  Rather than emphasizing the value of public service (vechol  
hasokim betzorche tzibbur be'emunah) - it puts roadblocks in front of  
such service.

I would add that this is one area where I have gotten support from  
people who normally are wholly opposed (eg, RTk (welcome to the  
light :-)), and clearly not opposed to it because of the impact on  
women's issues.

Meir Shinnar

<<>>>>
Any tefilla mumbled off without understanding is worth less than the same
tefilla said with understanding.  How can you keep a Tisha B'Av mood of
melancholy if you mumble off the kinos with no understanding >>

Basic understanding of the words is of course desired.
The question was about a deeper study of the kinnot

-- 
Eli Turkel

<<On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 01:56:58PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I have always been bothered by the characterization of tisha baav as a
: festival (moed)

I think of "mo'eid" as "an appointment". As in "ki eis lechenena ki va
mo'eid", bimheirah beyameinu, amein.

9 beAv is a time for a particular kind of encounter with the
Aibishter. Not the happiest of encounters, but still, we are moved by
tragedy to turn to Him. And because it's a day of encounter, we will
continue to do so in the future, when the tragic is behind us.

I would say therefore that the pasuq is being used to teach that 9 beAv
is a time for reflecting on the message of 9 beAv to the exclusion of
the personal baqashos of tachnun.>>

Sounds similar to RYBS explanation that we dont say tachanun because of the
pasuk "satam tefillati" that it is a day when we dont ask for requests

OTOH I saw somewhere recently that someone (kabbala?) says that Tisha aav
is an auspiciousness day or at least afternoon for requests.
I also believe that Tisha Baav as moed is used in other contexts than Tachanun

-- 
Eli Turkel

>I have always been bothered by the characterization of tisha baav as a
>festival (moed)
>which is certainly not pshat in the pasuk

Which pasuk? >>

Eichah 1:15
karah alai moed lishbir bachurai(partial pasuk)

Artscroll translates this as

He proclaimed a set time against me to crush my young men

nothing to do with any holidays


-- 
Eli Turkel

I believe it's an explicit pasuk in Nach that the walls of Y"M were not
destroyed on 17 Tamuz for the first destruction. Do you have any sources for
the shiur?

 

Stuart

 

From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Joseph C. Kaplan
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:06 PM
To: Avo...@aishdas.org
Subject: [Avodah] we live in good times

 

"There are sources saying that the walls of Jerusalem were
destroyed on separate days, but we fast only one day because the tzibbur
can't handle fasting too many days. Granted these two days (9th and 17th of
Tammuz) are close together, but if we were to fast for every tragedy, then
the effect would be similar."

 

I just heard a shiur this past Shabbat in which it was explained that it is
a machloket Bavli and Yerusalmi as to whether the walls of Jerusalem were
destroyed on the same day of the month for both Temples (17th of Tammuz) or
on different days (9th and 17th).

 

Joseph Kaplan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090730/e49593a8/attachment.htm>

I was glancing at the Kaf Hakhayim before Maariv and he brought the sources
in a very concise manner. There is a source that indicates that the walls
were breached on two different days, but since people couldn't handle two
fast so close together, we fast on the second day (i.e. 17th of Tammuz)
only. However a ba'al nefesh might feel that it would be proper to fast on
both days. However the Yerushalmi indicates that the two breaches were both
on the 17th of Tammuz and therefore there is no need for a ba'al nefesh to
fast both days. And then the Kaf Hakhayim adds that there is a Gemara in
Baba Batra (60:B I think, but don't quote me) that indicates that a ba'al
nefesh need not be makhmir in any situation where most people could not be
makhmir.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph C. Kaplan 
  To: Avo...@aishdas.org 
  Cc: Ben Waxman 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:06 PM
  Subject: we live in good times


  "There are sources saying that the walls of Jerusalem were
  destroyed on separate days, but we fast only one day because the tzibbur
  can't handle fasting too many days. Granted these two days (9th and 17th of
  Tammuz) are close together, but if we were to fast for every tragedy, then
  the effect would be similar."

  I just heard a shiur this past Shabbat in which it was explained that it
  is a machloket Bavli and Yerusalmi as to whether the walls of Jerusalem
  were destroyed on the same day of the month for both Temples (17th of
  Tammuz) or on different days (9th and 17th).

  Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090730/b36f65a4/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 151
***************************************

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..."