Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 180

Mon, 07 Sep 2009

• 1. Re: Boruch She'amar (Allan Engel)
• 2. Re: Boruch She'amar (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: pirkei avos v. chochma yevanit; see mekoros...... (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Boruch She'amar (Gil Student)
• 5. Re: Kol kevudah: a woman's place is in the home (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Boruch She'amar (Micha Berger)
• 7. limits of self-sacrifice; shimshon hagibor?? (Harvey Benton)
• 8. kol kevuda (Eli Turkel)
• 9. morphing of the siddur (post akhagedolah); vlamalshinim, baruch sheamar, prayer for the state...etc. (Harvey Benton)
• 10. baruch sheamar -from shamayim? but not torah???? (Harvey Benton)
• 11. Adam Ha'rishon (Cantor Wolberg)
• 12. Re: morphing of the siddur (post akhagedolah); vlamalshinim, baruch sheamar, prayer for the state...etc. (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (T6...@aol.com)
• 14. Re: lo plog (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: lo plog (T6...@aol.com)
• 16. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

We wear two tzitzis in front and two behind so that we are "mesuvav
bemitsvos".
If you kiss all four tzitzis, this is no longer the case.

Incidentally, can anyone confirm which communities do not have the minhag of
kissing tzitzis for Boruch She'omar and Kerias Shema?



On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>wrote:

> *Hilchos Pesukei D'zimrah**
> *
> Why do we hold 2 tzitzis in front instead of all four?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090904/076135a8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 02:56:18PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
: We wear two tzitzis in front and two behind so that we are "mesuvav
: bemitsvos".

As it was handed down to me (via RYBS and my father), the Gra was
against kissing tzitzis during Shema as an affecatation that isn't
saying Shema, and thus a distraction.

However, if someone did insist on taking tzitzis in hand for Shema,
he should only take the front corners, for this reason.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

Harvey: 
> 1. are pirkei avos considered by us to be halachot, or just good
> advice? (and what were they considered to be in previous generations??)

My take on this is simple 

Avos was the advise to Avos Beis Din -- a private Masorah within the
community of Beis Din Hagaddol

It was then morphed into a handbook of advise to the society at large. 

This is alluded to by the introductory mishna "kol yisroel" 
And reinforced by "haamidu talmiddim harbei" 

If Torah remained the property of the few, then the fear grew that enemies
could easily hold it hostage or destroy it -- as in Babylonian Captivity.

So over the course of bayyis sheini, torah was more widely disseminated,
sacrificing the quality of talmiddim in favor of quantity.

Note this must have gone back and forth 

EG 
Hillel could not afford the price of admission and Rabban Gamliel of
Yavneh was also restrictive

Good Shabbos 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> Why do we hold 2 tzitzis in front instead of all four?

See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 24:5.


Gil Student

RJR writes:

> So you are saying that if the entire outside world decided  
> that a woman's  pinkie finger  were considered the ultimate 
> female ervah, that Jewish women would not have to cover their pinkies?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of, if the entire outside world
decided that it was mandatory to walk backwards, and nobody is allowed to
walk forwards, we would not necessarily adopt that practice (and in fact
might regard it as darkei emori).  The question is, when do we say that we
do adopt the practices of the outside world, and when do we flat out reject
them and in fact ban their adoption based on darchei emori.  My sense is
that the answer lies where the practice gells with some aspect of
yiddishkeit - and for that, one can use a pasuk in Nach to demonstrate such
a linkage.  I think that the pinkie issue would fall into the latter
category, because we would say, as a general rule of thumb, ideas of
covering and ervah do gell with yiddishkeit.

> KT&ST
> Joel Rich

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:13am EDT, I wrote:
: As it was handed down to me (via RYBS and my father), the Gra was
: against kissing tzitzis during Shema as an affecatation that isn't
: saying Shema, and thus a distraction.
: 
: However, if someone did insist on taking tzitzis in hand for Shema,
: he should only take the front corners, for this reason.

I should have been clearer -- the Gra's objection was to kissing them,
which doesn't really mean he had a problem with holding them. My "did
insist" could be misleading. (For once I caught it before someone
emailed me a correction.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

?
HB: RYitzchak, 

?
what are the mekoros, delinating the proper bounds (in both time and money)
for self-sacrifice.......BTWay, would chabad-shluchim and their life-long
tasks of helping other jews (for a panrassa no less) fall under this
cagegory??? And what about people who serve in the army (Israeli, or
other)? or peace-corps, doctors without borders???etc, would these activies
go against the prohibition of giving away more than 20% of one's income to
tzedaka, if by working for?such an orginiza ti?pn one would earn 20%
less????
And finally what about war-tine; is one allowed to, or even commended to go
beyond the call of dut if one has a family back home that would suffer
c"veshalom by some heroic duties>>> hb
RSRH writes

It is permissible to take
compensation for t'ena. So, too, the duty to store lost property without
taking compensation devolves only on someone who has no other employment,
but a person who is employed is not obligated to neglect his
own livelihood without appropriate compensation. These halachos are
deeply characteristic of Jewish law's outlook on the fulfillment of duties
in society.

Jewish law does not subscribe to that extravagant zeal which demands
complete self-abnegation as a general rule in communal life, and
which equates virtue with self-sacrifice. Jewish law does not accept such
a philosophy, because it could never become a universal standard. Indeed,
if it were to be put into practice, it would spell the end of all
social commerce. If such an impracticable ideal were to be accepted as
the standard for everyday 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090905/b384058f/attachment-0001.htm>

<<I"m wondering why you felt a need to repeat yourself yet again. Does
Rashi's opinion become less authoritative if you repeat the Rambam's
in reply? Nu, I replied to your point with a statement that it's a
machloqes rishonim.>.

historians generally assume that this is dependent on the differences
in attitudes towards women in medieval Muslim and Xtian countries

-- 
Eli Turkel

hb: what is allowed to be in our siddur (post anshei k. hagedolah) etc.,
vlamalshinim, was put within the shemoneh esreh itself afterwards; why
is/was that allowed? aleinu and other tefilos now exists; ari tefilos;
lecha dodi; some verisons of kaddish include a prayer against what the
gemaniyim did to us, etc.
who and what are the guidelines for inclusion into the siddur...or will it continually morph throughout history???

from; http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/mb/26mb.htm
[hb:source of baruch she'amar]
In any case, the berakha of Barukh She-amar is not referred to explicitly 
anywhere in the Gemara.? The Peri 
Chadash (R. Chizkiya DiSilva) notes this fact in wonderment (OC 51): "And I am 
amazed, for after the Talmud was sealed and canonized, how could the Ge'onim, 
may their memory be blessed,? have 
instituted a brand-new berakha?" 
 ? 
However, many disagree with the Peri Chadash and locate early sources for 
Barukh She-amar.? The Mordekhai (at the end of Pesakhim in his "Seder
Bi-ketzara")indicates that it was enacted by Anshei Kenesset Ha-gedola ?
the men of the Great Assembly.? The Shiltei Gibborim (Berakhot, fifth
chapter) cites it in the name of the Yerushalmi, as does the Avudraham; it
does not, however, appear in our version of Yerushalmi.? Similarly, the Taz
citing the Tola'at Yaakov in the name of the Or Zaru'a writes, "This piece
of praise was formulated by Anshei Kenesset Ha-gedola from a note which
descended from heaven 
......." 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090906/651dfb18/attachment-0001.htm>

hb: why the concept of "torah lav be'shamayhim hi", but not for a tefilah
like baruch sheamar???? A similar question might be asked of "unetana
sokef" and it's source,......anyone with mekoros prior to SA and Mishna
Berura as to the parchment falling, please provide......hb

From: Cantor Wolberg 
To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
Hilchos Pesukei D'zimrah

The Nusach of Boruch She'amar was
 established by the Anshei Kenesses? 
Hagedolah after a parchment with the 87 words came down from heaven.? 
Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berurah 51:1


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090905/f7049e92/attachment-0001.htm>

It is brought down that the names of the creations of Hashem well  
define them. This was Adam Ha'rishon's incredible power. He understood  
the purpose of every creature, its function and uniqueness. Thus, he  
was able to give them names and was blessed with an unparalleled  
ability to understand everything there is to know about every creature.

Therefore I ask how it was possible for Adam Ha'rishon to have been  
enticed by the nachash through Chava? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090906/eeba93be/attachment-0001.htm>

HB:
> The PeriChadash (R. Chizkiya DiSilva) notes this fact in wonderment
> (OC 51): "And I amamazed, for after the Talmud was sealed and canonized,
> how could the Ge'onim,may their memory be blessed,? haveinstituted a
> brand-new berakha?"

See SA 46 and the Taz on "Hansoein Layo'eif Ko'ach" for the best
exposition of how brachosmay be added after the Talmud. WADR to Pri
Chadash

Also see Rambam MT hil. Shabbos 5:1 and the Maggid Mishnah there.
Myth: No new brachos may be added after Talmud

Fact: Gaonim either added or proposed to add many additional brachos.

Better Formulation :
A] Brachos in the Talmud are [almost always] axiomatic
B] While Gaonic brachos depend upon Minhag

+++++++++++++++

Re: Yerushalmi - Rishonim find a number of brachos that we do not have.
There is more to this Yerushalmi...

Re: "Hansoein Layo'eif Ko'ach"  - Bach posits
It stems from [a non-extant] Bavli...

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 169 dated 8/17/2009  
_rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com_ (mailto:rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)   writes:


>> This actually happened to a chaver of mine  "Avi"

It's YT in Wash Heights.

A Black Man approaches  Avi

Please!  I need money to feed my baby milk!

Avi  silently procrasinates

BM follows up: I'm Jewish from Israel and  repeats his request in Modern
Hebrew!

What would YOU do?
What  does the halachah say?

(Note: handing him money is probably only a  direct violation of
muktze. Mesayei'a lidvar aveira?)  <<



>>>>>
What is your friend Ari doing walking around on Yom Tov with money in his  
pocket?!  Or does he take the beggar home with him and invite him in while  
he gets his wallet?! 
 
So what would I do?  I would say, "I'm sorry, it's a Jewish holiday  and I 
don't have any money on me."  If the guy seemed to be fluent in  Hebrew I 
would say it in Hebrew.  If he seemed likely to knife me, I would  offer him 
any jewelry I happened to be wearing and then run for my  life. 
 
BTW "my baby needs milk" is an old sucker ploy.  Another one is, "My  wife 
is in labor and I have no money for a taxi."  Some of these guys are  
phenomenal actors.  But choosing obvious Jews as your mark  and speaking in Hebrew 
is a creative twist.  He had to have lived in  Israel at some point, 
unusual for a con man on Manhattan streets.
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090907/64989be2/attachment-0001.htm>

 
In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 171 dated 8/19/2009 R' Eli Turkel  
<elitur...@gmail.com>
asked:  
 

>> Since it is brought I have asked people for years for any  rules when
lo plog applies.

....More generally in some cases we say X  is different than Y and so the
prohibition of Y does not apply and in other  cases we say lo plog <<

>>>>>
I am behind in my  Avodah reading so others may have responded to this 
before, but my impression is  that it is not possible to give a general rule 
about when "lo plug"  applies.  Not even theoretically possible.
 
In general, when X and Y are similar cases we try to be consistent and keep 
 the same rules for both, and therefore say "lo plug."  When X and Y are  
sufficiently dissimilar, we say that the two cases are so different from each 
 other that "lo plug" clearly does not apply, these are two entirely 
different  cases.   
 
However, there are not just two possibilities, yes/no or on/off for "X  is 
almost exactly the same as Y" and "X is entirely different from Y."  
 
Rather, there is a smeared, fuzzy continuum of possibilities all the way  
from "X is 99% the same as Y" to "X is only one percent the same as Y."  At  
the extremes all poskim will agree that X and Y are so similar that Lo Plug 
(or  all will agree that X and Y are so different that Lo Plug does not 
apply).   In between, along the smeared continuum of possibilities, reasonable 
people will  reasonably differ as to precisely where the preponderance 
changes from "Lo Plug"  to "Lo Plug is not applicable."  
 
Therefore there cannot be a simple rule, an on/off or yes/no rule, for when 
 Lo Plug does or does not apply, no simple algorithm that could be  applied 
to every single X and Y.   This is why you need a posek and  not a computer 
to answer halachic questions.
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090907/1a06045e/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 171 dated 8/19/2009  "Rich, Joel"  
<JR...@sibson.com>
writes:




More generally in some cases we say X is different than  Y and so the 
prohibition of Y does not apply and in other cases we say lo plog  [--RET]

_______________________________________________
>>  imho this is a specific case of a more general question - is the 
halachic  process reproducible? <<

KT
Joel Rich
 
>>>>
The answer is no, not absolutely reproducible, because  the continuum of 
possibilities is often fuzzy rather than yes/no (as I just  wrote about the Lo 
Plug question).  Consider this (admittedly inexact)  metaphor:  You could 
compare the halachic process to the game of  chess. Given the rules of chess, 
will every game between two world chess masters  end exactly the same way?  
Will the configuration of pieces on a chess  board be exactly the same 
after every game?  Of course not.  Some  configurations, of course, will never 
occur because the rules of chess preclude  them.  But within the constraints 
allowed by the rules, there are many  possible configurations of the end 
game.  Still, there are definite  constraints on what is and what is not 
possible.
 
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090907/e2c07fa3/attachment-0001.htm>

RTK
> What is your friend Ari doing walking around on Yom Tov with money in
> his pocket?! Or does he take the beggar home with him and invite him in
> while he gets his wallet?!
 
Avi had no money with him -- rather he was just outside his apartment
building He was not into inviting the "beggar" upstairs -- rather he
was wondering if he should fetch some cash from upstairs
 
Shana Tova 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 180
***************************************

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..."