Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 190

Thu, 17 Sep 2009

• 1. Re: shofar on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: the nature, definitions, and obligations of a brit in the Torah... (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: YT Sheini Shell Golah and the Internet (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Tiqun Olam (Micha Berger)
• 5. l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Dov Kaiser)
• 6. Re: RH/sour/sharp/bitter (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: RHS and dairy (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: RHS/Dairy (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: RHS and dairy (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: RHS and dairy (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Allan Engel)
• 12. Re: RHS and dairy (Zev Sero)
• 13. 100 kolot & Sisera's mother's (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Machnisei Rachamim (Michael Mirsky)

Here is RYAmital's take on the question of shofar on Shabbos and why we
have a minhag on "such a far fetched concern" (as R' David Strauss
translates it).

It also include a reference to Medrash Seikhel Tov that attributes the
gezeira to Anshei Keneses haGedolah, thereby mooting our attempts to
reconstruct R' Yochanan ben Zakai's life to see if he could have made
the gezeira when the Sanhedrin was still in the lishkas hagazis, or at
least still in "Miqdash" -- ie within chomos Y-m.

-Micha

(In case people who received the original are wondering about the
formatting, this is after I ran it through my "reformatter for Toras
Aish" script. It reduces everything to ASCII, changes block quotes to
have quotation marks (complete with fixing nested quoting), etc...)



VBM-SICHOT69 -53: Rosh Hashana
Based on a sicha of Harav Yehuda Amital
Translated by David Strauss
Yeshivat Har Etzion

"Your Love is Better than Wine":
The Meaning of the Decree against Blowing Shofar on Shabbat

In Pesikta de-Rav Kahana (23:3), we read: "Yehuda bar Nachman opened in
the name of Resh Lakish: 'God has gone up with a shout; [the Lord with
the sound of a shofar]' (Tehillim 47:6): When the Holy One, blessed be He,
goes up to sit on the seat of justice, he goes up with justice, as it is
written: 'God [Elokim] has gone up with a shout.' And when Israel take
the shofar and blast, the Holy One, blessed be He, gets up from the seat
of justice and sits on the seat of mercy, as it is written: 'The Lord
[the Tetragrammaton] with the sound of a shofar.' And He becomes filled
with mercy for them and He shows them mercy and He turns the quality of
justice into the quality of mercy for them. When? 'In the seventh month'
(Vayikra 23:24)."

We don't fully understand what is stated here. What precisely are the
qualities of justice and mercy, and how does the sounding of the shofar
turn the quality of justice into the quality of mercy? In any event,
what we have here is clearly an exceptional situation: Amoraim explicitly
discussing the impact of the mitzvot upon the heavenly order, the Divine
attributes. The talmudic authorities generally avoid such discussions,
leaving contemplations of this sort to the masters of Kabbala.

On Rosh Ha-shana that falls on Shabbat, we content ourselves with the
Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot blessings, and abstain from sounding the
shofar. This is the way that Rava explained this law (Rosh Ha-shana 29b):

"[When] the festival of Rosh Ha-shana fell on Shabbat -- in the Temple
they would sound [the shofar], but not in the provinces... From where
do we derive this?... Rava said: By Torah law it is permitted [to blow
the shofar on Shabbat], and it was the Rabbis who issued a decree, in
accordance with Rabba. For Rabba said: All are obligated in sounding the
shofar, but not all are proficient in sounding the shofar. [Therefore
the Rabbis issued] a decree, lest a person take [a shofar] in his hand,
and go to a person who is proficient in order to learn [how to blow
it], in the course of which he will carry it four cubits in the public
domain. And this is also the reason for [the rabbinic prohibition of
taking] a lulav [on Shabbat], and this is the reason for [the rabbinic
prohibition of reading the] Megilla [on Shabbat]."

We see, then, that by Torah law blowing a shofar on Rosh Ha-shana that
falls on Shabbat is permitted. But the Sages forbade this because they
were concerned that a person who does not know how to blow a shofar may
go to a person who does know in order to learn how to blow it, and he
will end up carrying the shofar in the public domain -- something that
is forbidden on Shabbat.

Who were those Sages who had the courage to prohibit the sounding of the
shofar on Shabbat owing to such a far-fetched concern? Is it realistic to
think that a person will not prepare himself in advance, but rather will
try to learn how to blow the shofar on the very day of Rosh Ha-shana,
and thus come to carry the shofar in the public domain?

Midrash Sekhel Tov (Bereishit 22:18) cites Rabbi Zera: "The Anshei
Keneset ha-Gedola (the Men of the Great Assembly) decreed about [the
mitzvot of] shofar, lulav and megilla, that they should not be observed
on Shabbat." It was, then, the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedola who decreed that
the shofar not be sounded on Shabbat.

This was not the only decree that the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedola issued
in order to avoid the violation of the prohibition of carrying on
Shabbat. The Anshei Keneset ha-Gedola demonstrated great sensitivity
regarding this issue, and because of this concern they forbade the
handling of objects that are muktza. Thus we find in Shabbat (123b):

"Our Rabbis taught: At first they [the Sages] said: [Only] three utensils
may be handled on Shabbat [and all others are forbidden]: a fig-cake
knife, a soup-pot ladle, and a small table-knife...

"Rabbi Chanina said: This Mishnah was taught in the days of Nechemya
the son of Chakalya, for it is written: 'In those days I saw in Judea
some treading winepresses on Shabbat, and bringing in sheaves' (Nechemya
13:15)."

The baraita, however, continues by informing us that this decree underwent
changes, leniencies being added three times: "Then they permitted [other
articles], and they permitted again [still more], and they permitted
still further." Why did the Sages do this? Because they saw that the
people needed to use these utensils.

Thus the question arises: Why did the Sages permit only the handling of
objects that were required for the satisfaction of material needs? Why
didn't they also permit the handling of a shofar? Is the turning of
the quality of justice into the quality of mercy not a sufficiently
important need?

The answer is that the Sages were confident that just as the observance
of the Torah's mitzvot impacts upon heaven, so too their own decree that
we should content ourselves with the Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot
blessings and not sound the shofar on Shabbat, can turn the quality of
justice into the quality of mercy. They were confident in this despite
the fact that there is a fixed order in heaven:

"Every year that there is no blasting [of the shofar] at the beginning,
there is shouting at the end." (Rosh ha-Shana 16b)

The Tosafot comment on this:

"'That there is no blasting of the shofar at the beginning' -- the
Halakhot Gedolot explains: Not that [Rosh Ha-shana] fell on Shabbat,
but rather that there was some unavoidable interference."

That is to say, this order is metaphysical -- even if the failure to sound
a teki'a was due to circumstances beyond anybody's control, it will bring
about evil consequences. But nevertheless, when this metaphysical order
encounters the rabbinic decree not to sound the shofar on Shabbat --
the decree overcomes it!

From where did they derive this confidence? The answer to this question
is found in the Yerushalmi (Avoda Zara 2:7):

"'For your love is better than wine' (Shir ha-Shirim 1:2) -- Rabbi Ba bar
Kohen said in the name of Bar Pazi: Know that the words of the Scribes are
dearer than the words of the Torah, for Rabbi Tarfon, had he not recited
[Shema], would only have violated a positive commandment. [But] because he
violated the words of Bet Hillel, he became liable for his life, owing to
'Whoever breaks through a hedge, a snake shall bite him' (Kohelet 10:8).

"Rabbi Yishmael taught: The words of the Torah include prohibitions and
allowances, some are light, while some are serious. But the words of
the Scribes -- all of them are serious....

"A prophet and a sage -- to what may they be likened? To a king who sent
two of his seals to the provinces. On one he wrote: 'If he does not show
you my signature and my seal, do not believe him,' and on the other
he wrote: 'Even though he does not show you my signature and my seal,
believe him.' So, too, regarding a prophet, it is written: 'And he give
you a sign or a wonder' (Devarim 13:2). But here [regarding a sage]:
'According to the sentence of the Torah which they shall teach you'
(Devarim 17:11)."

The words of the Sages work even without seals! When the people of Israel
express their love of God through their observance of the decrees enacted
by the Sages, this itself turns the quality of justice into the quality
of mercy. And indeed, the decree not to sound the shofar on Shabbat was
accepted, and the prohibition spread throughout all of Israel.

How did the Sages know that their words are so dear? In order to answer
this question we must return to the Yerushalmi passage cited above. The
mishna there relates:

"Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael put this question to Rabbi Yehoshua
when they were on a journey: Why did [the Sages] forbid the cheese of
non-Jews? He said to him: Because they curdle it with the rennet of an
animal that was not slaughtered in the proper manner."

The mishna reports that Rabbi Yishmael did not accept this answer,
and that the two Tannaim continued their discussion -- Rabbi Yehoshua
offering explanations of the decree and Rabbi Yishmael raising objections
against them -- until Rabbi Yehoshua decided to change the topic of
their conversation:

"He diverted to another matter, saying: Yishmael, my brother, how do you
read the verse -- 'For your [masculine] love ['dodekha'] is better than
wine' (Shir ha-Shirim 1:2), or 'For your [feminine] love ['dodayikh']
is better than wine'? He replied: 'Your [feminine] love is better.' He
said to him: This is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [verse]:
'Your [masculine] ointments have a goodly fragrance [wherefore the
maidens love you].'"

The Yerushalmi asks: "Why did [Rabbi Yehoshua] not reveal to him [the
reason for the Sages' prohibition of the cheese of non-Jews]?" And it
answers: "Rabbi Yochanan said: Because they had recently forbidden it,
and Rabbi Yishmael was young." The Bavli (Avoda Zara 35a) formulates
the answer in a more understandable way:

"Ulla said: When an ordinance is made in the west [=Eretz Israel], its
reason is not revealed before a full year passes, lest there be some who
might not agree with the reason and would treat the ordinance lightly."

Rabbi Yishmael, who according to the Yerushalmi was still young at the
time, did not participate in the process of establishing the decree,
and therefore it was forbidden to reveal its rationale to him.

It seems, then, that Rabbi Yehoshua's question, "How do you read," came
"to divert him to another matter," because it was still impossible
to reveal to Rabbi Yishmael the rationale underlying the decree. The
Yerushalmi raises an objection against this understanding: "Rabbi Chunyah
asked in the name of Rabbi Chama bar Ukva: If he wanted to push him off
with words, he ought to have diverted his mind by one of the five puzzles
in the Torah...." Already in the Torah we find questionable verses;
why then did Rabbi Yehoshua raise a question about Shir ha-Shirim? Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi explains that the verse which Rabbi Yehoshua asked about
contains an allusion to Rabbi Yishmael: "There are things on which
you must seal ('meshikin') your mouth. As it says: 'Let him kiss me
('yishakeni') with the kisses of his mouth'" -- there are things that
one is forbidden to talk about.

It seems, however, that the continuation of the discussion between Rabbi
Yehoshua and Rabbi Yishmael also pertains to the decree. In the dialogue
between the man and the woman in Shir ha-Shirim, the Sages understood
the man as representing God and the woman as representing the Jewish
people. Rabbi Yishmael read the verse as recording God's words to the
people of Israel: "Your (feminine) love is better than wine." According
to him, we are forced to say that the speaker is God, because he thinks
that the people of Israel in themselves are incapable of issuing decrees,
and that their words have no force. To this Rabbi Yehoshua replied that
the speaker in the verse is in fact the people of Israel -- it is they
who say: "For your (masculine) love is greater than wine": this is
the power that God gave to the Sages -- that their words should have
independent validity.

Last Shabbat we read in the Torah:

"I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you, that I have
set before you life and death, blessing and curse... that you may love
the Lord your God, and that you may obey His voice, and that you may
cleave to Him." (Devarim 30:19-20)

The mitzvot are the means through which the people of Israel express their
love for God and their cleaving to Him. The observance of the mitzvot is
inseparably connected to the love of God; the observance of the mitzvot
integrates the love of God with the fear of His majesty. If you remove
the element of love from the mitzvot -- the desire to connect with God,
to cleave to Him and to walk in His ways -- you turn it into something
dry and lifeless. On the words, "O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord"
(Yechezkel 37:4), Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba says: "These were people who
lacked the vitalizing sap of good deeds" (Sanhedrin 92b).

This principle, which underlies all of the mitzvot, is what guided
Chazal in their decrees. All of Chazal's decrees reflect a desire to
draw closer to God, based on genuine concern regarding the commission
of the slightest transgressions that erect a barrier between God and
us. From here derives their confidence that this is indeed the will of
God. With these decrees, the people of Israel, as it were, say to God:
"The main thing is our love for You."

"What is the meaning of the words: 'For your love is better than wine'?
When Rav Dimi came [from Eretz Israel] he explained it thus: The
people of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of
the Universe! Your love is more pleasant to me than the wine of the
Torah." (Bavli, Avoda Zara, ibid.)

The essence of the mitzva of repentance -- the main mitzva associated
with this period of the year -- also lies in renewed closeness to God,
as the Rambam explains in Hilkhot Teshuva (7:7):

"How exalted is the degree of repentance? Only yesterday [the sinner] was
separated from the Lord, God of Israel, as it is said: 'Your iniquities
were making a separation between you and Your God' (Yeshaya 59:2). He
cries aloud and is not answered, as it is said: 'When you make your
prayers, I will not hear' (Yeshaya 1:15). He fulfills mitzvot and they
are flung back in his face, as it is said: 'Who has required this at
your hand to tread My courts' (Yeshaya 1:12); 'O, that there were even
one among you that would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire
on My altar in vain; I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts,
neither will I accept an offering at your hand' (Malakhi 1:10); 'Add
your burnt offerings unto your sacrifice and eat flesh' (Yirmiya 7:21).

"Today, the same individual [having repented] is closely attached to the
Divine Presence, as it is said: 'And you that cleave unto the Lord, your
God, are alive, everyone of you this day' (Devarim 4:4). He cries and
is immediately answered, as it is said: 'And it shall come to pass that
before they call I will answer' (Yeshaya 65:24). He fulfills mitzvot and
they are accepted with pleasure and with joy, as it is said: 'For God has
already accepted your works' (Kohelet 9:7). Yet more, they are eagerly
desired, as it is said: 'Then shall the offering of Yehuda and Jerusalem
be pleasant to the Lord as in the days of old and as in ancient years'
(Malakhi 3:4)."

We say in our prayers: "Purify our hearts to serve you in truth." "In
truth" means that our every word and every action should be sincere: that
we should serve God out of deep faith, out of love for Him, and out of
a genuine desire to draw close and cleave to Him, as did the Sages. May
we and all Israel merit this during the coming days of repentance.

On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:29:18PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: 1. What exactly defines a brit and its acceptance; passive,
: forced or under any other circumstance?? 

Isn't this the whole machloqes about how to understand the midrashim
of whether acceptance at maamad Har Sinai was voluntary or only because
kafeh aleihem hahar kegigis?

...
: 3. On what grounds are we bound by a Brit (other than Hashem
: telling us that we are)? 

The beris was entered to with a national entity. We inherited our
obligation. Or, as the other medrash put it, our souls too were at Har
Sinai.

: 4. Why is an 8-day old infant bound into a covenant...

This is just a confusion between entering a beris and receiving an
os beris. The child is born into the covenant, even if he were a she,
a hemophiliac, or not gemalt for the wrong reasons.

: 5.? What happens if we
: don???t keep our end of a Brit? Will Hashem ACTIVELY destroy us (as mentioned in
: Devarim and other places) or will it be just a PASSIVE ?letting go of the flock (machmas keri) to the
: 70 nations around us (which by their natures will destroy us???) ?

Actually, there is no statement of Hashem actively destroying us.
Actively causing us to be forced out of EY, yes.

Or, to put it another way, as Toynbee noted, our continued existence is
well beyond the normal run for nations. As he failed to note, this is
the consequence of the beris. Our existence is unnatural, and thus
without Hashem's aid the normal course of events would destroy us. All
the chumash is saying is that without our holding up the beris, disaster
is bound to follow.

Since HQBH is also the Author of nature, the distinction you're making
probably is not as clearly defined as it seems to us humans anyway.

: 6. If a Brit is Bi-Lateral, does Hahsem do what He asks of
: us?? Namely, to go against our natures
: and act in a certain way?? This is how I interpret
: the pasuk in Dvarim (5:2) when it says "Hashem Elokeinu karat imanu brit
: bachorev". That Hashem "forged" a brit with us; implying he has to actively do
: something as well.

I think this asks questions about the "nature" of G-d, and thus goes
beyond human ken. He doesn't have time, He doesn't change, He doesn't
even have a multiplicity of actions -- just one Action that has all
the events of the universes as a consequence. Can we divide between
His "normal" activity and what Hashem does "special" for a beris? Is
there even a meaningful way ot formulate your question?

BTW, "koreit" would be more to slice off a covenant, not to "forge" one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:43:29AM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Quibble
: I could say that Rosh Hodesh Nissan [Rather than Pesach] has to occur within
: about 29.5 days of the Vernal Equinox. That would create "Hodesh Ha'aviv.".
: Pesach then could fall 14 days later total about 43 days after the equinox.

We discussed this in v4n42 onward, as well as v17n22 onward.

Rashi understands R' Huna bar Avin's instructions to Rava on RH
21a as saying the equinox must be no later than the first half of
Nissan. Tosafos, the Rashba, the Ran and the Rosh are choleqim only in
including the equinox being on the 15th (the first day of Pesach).

R' Chananel holds that RHbA was saying that one adds another month
whenever the equinox would land at least 16 days *after the molad*, and
the IE says this is the only reason for a molad.

So, according to the IE, the equinox should always be in late Adar
(or Adar II) or early Nissan +/- the gap between the molad and Rosh
Chodesh. Not much more than half a month.


Interesting, in "Al haSheminis", R Yaaqov Loewinger (an engineer,
not a "professional" poseiq) pointed to the version of that
gemara in the Cairo Geniza that confirms R' Chananel's peshat
(or was modified from the original by someone who knew it?).
See http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=162 ; Al haSheminis is
a good source on the calendar in general.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:15:37PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Regarding extending interest to a gentile, Rabbi Hertz draws a
: distinction between nokhri and toshav...

He is assuming that neshekh vetarbit are somewhat immoral, and therefore
needs to tone down the immorality against a geir toshav who wouldn't
charge us interest in return.

I wouldn't conclude that at all. The pasuq says "achikha". A geir toshav
isn't achikha. The problem isn't immorality, it's a lack of achdus
amongst *Benei* Yisrael. A brother doesn't charge a brother interest.
But in general, interest can be a win-win situation for both parties --
why assume it's immoral? And what if the geir toshav comes to you asking
for a loan on interwest, without there being  "dire economic need" (to
quote your phrasing of RIE's 2nd uqimta.

And in any case, a discussion of halakhah can't begin and end with RJHH,
R' Isidore Epstein and R' Hermann Adler, and certainly not a quote
that assumes the author writing in the 57th century was more aware of
a distinction in the terminology of the chumash than Chazal were. (Even
if it were possible, the difference in halachic authority would make the
point moot anyway.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha, writing from somewhere in NY's financial industry

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

R. Micha wrote:
 
<< Current cademic consensus agrees that it reflects a Sabbatean
slant... Chemdas haYamim includes a text which is the origin of the Tu
biShvat seder, called (the text, not the seder) "Peri Eitz Hadar". It is
also the source for saying LeDavid twice a day this time a year.>>
 
The last sentence is incorrect, at least insofar as there are earlier
sources for saying L'Dovid in Elul than Chemdas Yomim - listen to R.
Shnayer Leiman's recent shiur at http://tinyurl.com/njgzmd
where he notes that a non-Sabbatean kabbalistic sefer published at the
beginning of the 1700s, before the first publication of Chemdas Yomim,
already advised saying l'Dovid in Elul.  
 
You may, however, be right that the spread of this custom is due to Chemdas
Yomim, even if this is not the original source for it.	Dr Leiman didn't
discuss this.  Certainly, a number of Chassidic Rebbes thought that the
custom originated with Chemdas Yomim, which is why they didn't say it, eg
Sanz, Ropshitz.  
 
By the way, Dr Leiman has some fascinating publications available online at
his new website at http://www.leimanlibrary.com/. He
has a number of essays on various aspects of the controversy surrounding R.
Y. Eibeschuetz, which seems to be a specialty of his.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser
_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090916/80495934/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Saul Newman wrote:
> i wonder also if it is becoming more prevalent to  bring back
> the simanim of the gmara. i know chabad only does apple/honey,
> but i have a feeling more people are resuming the other
> simanim.

R' Zev Sero responded:
> Resuming?  When did they drop it?  The series of yehi ratzons
> printed in siddurim would seem to indicate that they never did.

Good point, but here's an argument from the other side: If everyone had
been doing so many of them all along, the apple would never have gotten the
fame and prominence that it currently enjoys. One of the 7 minim would have
been the fruit to get the bracha Haetz.

My bet (based on R' Micha Berger's comment) is that in many times and
places, the apple was the only one available (or the only one
*consistently* available), and thus became the "traditional" fruit to use.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsEGrG5V98qTxpHczue5Ew9FrZlWd3slRYM5wubzKZd5b0RTI1TVwU/

Zev is correct about hazzakah. If you do something to "maim" a cow -
you no lnger may PRESUME hazzakah. [Now if ROV cows are OK after the
procedure that is another factor]

IIRC - an animal that falls has to have bediqos for tarfus that are
normally not required.

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On a related (but not the same) note:

We raised the question of how you know what set we're talking about the
rov of -- rov cows, rov dairy cows, rov cows on this farm, this kind of
farm, this country's farms...

It reminded me of the question of teisha chaniyos. Why do we go by rov
stores? Perhaps the treif store did a brisk business and outsold the
kosher sources? Why not count rov peices of meat?

R' Prof Moshe Koppel suggests in one of the issues of Higayon that the
relevent set is the set of kavu'os. The store is qavu'ah, and therefore
the magnitude, the amount of meat it sells, becomes irrelevent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Zev is correct about hazzakah. If you do something to "maim" a cow -
> you no lnger may PRESUME hazzakah.

But we're not talking about anything that has been *done* to the cows;
all that has happened to them is the passage of time.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Zev Sero:
> But we're not talking about anything that has been *done* to the cows;
> all that has happened to them is the passage of time.

I may be missing something but I thought RHS's problem was a PROCEDURE
to the cow's stomach that [might] render them treifa - hence his humra.

AISI this procedure would undermine the hazakka of the cow NOT being treifa.

That's my point

Plz set this straight

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Rabbi Leiman also says in that interesting shiur that he doesn't think that
the author of the Chemdas Yomim was a Sabbatean.
ADE


On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Dov Kaiser <dov_...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>  R. Micha wrote:
>
>
>
> << Current cademic consensus agrees that it reflects a Sabbatean slant...
> Chemdas haYamim includes a text which is the origin of the Tu biShvat seder,
> called (the text, not the seder) "Peri Eitz Hadar". It is also the source
> for saying LeDavid twice a day this time a year.>>
>
>
>
> The last sentence is incorrect, at least insofar as there are earlier
> sources for saying L'Dovid in Elul than Chemdas Yomim - listen to R. Shnayer
> Leiman's recent shiur at *http://tinyurl.com/njgzmd*
>
> where he notes that a non-Sabbatean kabbalistic sefer published at the
> beginning of the 1700s, before the first publication of Chemdas Yomim,
> already advised saying l'Dovid in Elul.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090917/fe9c0261/attachment-0001.htm>

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Zev Sero:
>> But we're not talking about anything that has been *done* to the cows;
>> all that has happened to them is the passage of time.
> 
> I may be missing something but I thought RHS's problem was a PROCEDURE
> to the cow's stomach that [might] render them treifa - hence his humra.

No, it isn't.  That was made explicit quite early in this thread.



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Anyone know of an explanation of the connection of blowing
the shofar with the weeping of Sisera's mother?

Meshech Kochma (Emor)  connects with a woman giving birth
but that seems to be a different approach

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Areivim, with regard to a video performance of Machnisei Rachamim 
at Slichot Micha Berger said:

"(Not that I personally say "Machnisei Rachamim". For that matter, I
don't even say "borkhuni leshalom". My current solution is to replace
it with the verse Sepharad says that Ashk skips, "Beshivtikhem
leshalom".)

Is this because of the issue of it appearing that we are davening to angels
as intermediaries (I believe this is a concern of the GRa and others)?

Actually, this bring to mind a halacha that I heard that one davening
in private shouldn't say any parts of the davening that are in
Aramaic because when you daven b'yichidut you are relying on angels
to take up your tefilla.  And angels don't understand Aramaic!  But
when davening in a minyan, the shechina is there directly.  If this
is an authentic halacha, it seems to contradict the view that we
shouldn't be (and can't be) davening to angels in the first
place!  So I ask, is this an actual halacha?  And if so, how do we reconcile
with the angel issue?

Michael Mirsky
Thornhill, Ontario 




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 190
***************************************

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..."