Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 191

Thu, 17 Sep 2009

• 1. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Gershon Dubin)
• 4. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Tiqun Olam (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: 100 kolot & Sisera's mother's (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: 100 kolot & Sisera's mother's (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Arie Folger)
• 11. 100 kolot and Sisera's mother (nachm...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. mitzva 613 (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. halacha v'ain morin ken (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:12:18AM -0400, Michael Mirsky wrote:
:> (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)?

I don't think the Gra's problem was mar'is ayin. Rather, he felt it
actually /is/ praying to angels as intermediaries.

Personally, I don't say these tefillos because I often find my thoughts
drifing in that direction when I say them. I don't know the line between
tefillah and AZ, and since we're talking about AZ, I avoid the question
altogether.

It's not like I can keep up during selichos without choosing things to
skip anyway...

: 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....  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?

There is a diference between davening to Hashem knowing that mal'akhim
bring up the prayer and actually turning to the mal'akh and begging him
to do so. "Machnisei Rachamim" is literally the latter.

Asking mal'achim for a berakhah, as in "borkhuni leshalom" is grayer. We
ask rabbanim to give us berakhos, Yaaqov and Eisav each beg their father
for a berakhah, so why not ask mal'achim?

There are a couple of relevent differences:

1- Mal'akhim don't necessarily have free will. Certainly according to
the Gra's derekh they don't.

2- They're intangible. That makes beseeching them much more dangerously
close to dor Enosh's error of worshipping HQBH's entourage than asking
another person to daven on your behalf.

WRT the neshamos of niftarim, it is common during the close of a hesped
for someone to ask the niftar to be a meilitz yosher for us. The Gra
would assur that as well. As far as my own, more personal, criterion, I
don't find myself focusing on the niftar to the exclusion of THE Barukh
when I hear such things, so it doesn't bother me.

This is of a piece with other limitations of mine, like my inability
to understand the concept of metaphysical mechanics -- the notion that
the cheftzah of the mezuzah protects beyond the sechar mitzvah, the
discussions in the gemara of qemei'os, etc... I need a simpler model
for my relationship with the supernatural -- I act, and HQBH insures I
live in a universe that best helps me get from where I took myself to
where I'm supposed to be going. All the mess in between that qabbalah
addresses, be it spiritual causality or the actions of mal'akhim (and I
am not saying those are necessarily different things) seem to me to be
complications that get in the way of my understanding of sechar va'onesh.

But until that's cleared up, I'll avoid tefillos that cause within me
thoughts that may very well be shituf or mamash full AZ.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

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 


_______________________________________________
Try these on for size

http://download.bcbm.org/Media/Ra
vWeiss/Sefer%20Devorim/Nitzavim/Rav%20Weiss%20Nitzovim%205769%20Selichos.mp
3
Rabbi  A Weiss - Selichos

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/7372
99/Rabbi_Shlomo_Brody/Angels_are_Not_Necessary:__Shame,_Selichot,_and_S
tanding_Directly_Before_God
Rabbi Shlomo Brody - Angels are Not Necessary: Shame, Selichot, and Standing Directly Before God

http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=265&;print=1


Bottom Line-there are sources both ways and those who try to reconcile and
those who declare a major.  I'm struck by some of the rationalizations and
wonder how many people who say it actually think the rationalization.
KVCT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

<<There is a diference between davening to Hashem knowing that mal'akhim
bring up the prayer and actually turning to the mal'akh and begging him
to do so. "Machnisei Rachamim" is literally the latter.>>
Shouldn't it make a difference that the beracha of the malachim is
specified; i.e. if the malachim see everything in order, they say "ken
leshabbos haba'ah" , so we know it's not a beracha of their own volition?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
 
____________________________________________________________
Bankruptcy Alternative
Our experts help you reduce debt up to 50%. All online, safe, private.

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=a2vzDWjeUxfVJ_tCmNrgJAAAJ1BiY
jhMSt0qMJcLz_08tNkJAAQAAAAFAAAAADZFlD8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIkSAAAAAA==
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090917/b0476945/attachment-0001.htm>

Michael Mirsky wrote:
> 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".)
 
> 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?

Yes, it's an explicit gemara (Sotah 33a).  RMF writes that since
Aramaic is basically just badly accented Hebrew, the same applies to
Hebrew that is not pronounced as MRAH pronounced it; at most one of
the mesoros on that can be correct, and all the others can't be
understood by mal'achim.   BTW, this does not apply during Aseret
Yemei Teshuvah, when Hashem listens directly even to an individual.


>  And if so, how do we reconcile with the angel issue?

I don't see the problem.  In ordinary tefilah we are not asking the
angels to do anything at all.  We assume that they will do their job
and convey our words to the correct address.  Asking them to do so
seems like asking the telephone to please work; it implies that they
have the choice of not doing so.  And that's essentially what shituf
is: treating Hashem's tools and agents in the world (e.g. the forces
of nature) as though they had the option of not passing on to us His
blessings, and therefore had to be persuaded to do so.   Why it is
in fact OK to ask things from the angels (and the 13 midot) is a
complicated subject -- I do it because it's in the machzor that was
written by people who knew what they were doing, and because my
father and zeide and elter-zeide and all my teachers did it and
were satisfied with that explanation; but it's far from poshut.


Micha Berger wrote:
> WRT the neshamos of niftarim, it is common during the close of a hesped
> for someone to ask the niftar to be a meilitz yosher for us. The Gra
> would assur that as well.

I very much doubt it, since the Zohar explicitly permits it.  Why
would it be a problem, if it wasn't one before the person died?
Why would death change anything in this regard?  Do meisim lose
their bechirah?  Do they no longer have their own zechuyos, so that
their prayers may achieve something that ours can't, just as they
did when they were alive?

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

> And in any case, a discussion of halakhah can't begin and end with RJHH,
> R' Isidore Epstein and R' Hermann Adler
>
> R' Micha

I was just trying to illustrate Rabbi Hertz's method in general, in
and of itself, not to draw halakhic conclusions. I included Rabbis
Epstein and Adler because they say the same as Rabbi Hertz, and so
including them "seemed like the thing to do".

Michael Makovi

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:38:26AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
:> WRT the neshamos of niftarim, it is common during the close of a hesped
:> for someone to ask the niftar to be a meilitz yosher for us. The Gra
:> would assur that as well.

: I very much doubt it, since the Zohar explicitly permits it.

According to the MB (559:41) the Ari disrecommended going within 4
amos of a qever aside from the qevurah. In the Igers haGra, he is more
restrictive, "Refrain also from going to the cemetery (especially women),
as it leads to all kinds of sorrow and sin." (tr. by Pirchei Shoshanim)
(The "especially women" means it applies to men too, not just the wife
to whome he wrote this letter.)

As for this particular question, we've discussed it before. E.g.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=M#MA
CHNISEI%20RACHAMIM%20APOLOGETICS
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=H#HARRY%2
0POTTER%20AND%20KISHUF
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=M#MANI
PULATING%20BODILY%20ENERGIES
or
http://bit.ly/kpaTe , http://bit.ly/4ATlR2 and http://bit.ly/1eeoHZ

:                                                               Why
: would it be a problem, if it wasn't one before the person died?

As I said in the lattermost discussion (v254n25e10):
> I am not expressing a position where the spectrum is split into issur
> vs heter, just defining the spectrum. I did mention the Gra's
> position, which I follow in my own practice -- but also acknowledged
> that it's a minority opinion that runs counter to common pesaq. It
>  just is most intuitive to me, so until I can say Shalom Aleikhem and
> be sure I'm not misunderstanding it in a means that is AZ, I will
> avoid it. Qua chumrah, not din. As I wrote, I left the din question
> open.

As for whether meisim have bechirah... The Rogotchover places them
lemaalah min hazeman. What that does to aggaditos about how long a
non-rasha is in gehenom is beyond me. I also don't know how to explain
the concept of decision without time.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:33:19PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
...

(I am under the impression RMM enjoys a good argument, and am writing
this post accordingly. If I misjudged, my apologies.)

How many things can I disagree with in one post?

1- The subject line. "Tiqun olam" has to do with making a malkhus
Shakkai. Which may very well be acheived by ethics and fiscal honesty
to the world vekhol tosheveha. But even so, that's not what Tiqun olam
actually is. In post-Ari qabbalah, it has to do with broken keilim and
metaphysical forces.

: Inter alia, Levine says, "In line with this approach, Hirsch reverses
: the traditional view of the highest goal of religious life: holiness.
: We are accustomed to viewing holiness, the experience of the numinous,
: as the very acme of religion. For Hirsch, however, holiness is but a
: means of preparing us for the end purpose which is the life of service
: to mankind.... Rabbi Moses Chaim Luzzato provides a sharp antithesis to
: the Hirschian view...."

This might be "holiness", it certainly is Rudolph Otto's definition, but
if so it has nothing to do with qedushah.

Qedushah is something done, a decision and a dedication, not an
experience. "Qedoshim tihyu" is an imperative. "Qadeish es atzmekha bema
shemutar lakh". Or, from my translation of the haQdamah to Shaarei
Yosher:

    BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who
    created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure",
    and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should
    be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in
    the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything
    He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed),
    [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that
    we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" --
    that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as
    our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the
    good of the many, according to our abilities.

    In my opinion, this whole concept is included in Hashem's mitzvah
    "Be holy, [for I am Holy]."...

What is qedushah? To be set aside for the purpose of imitating Hashem by
being good to His creatures.

Let's look at the Ramchal's definition (MY pereq 26):
    HOLINESS IS TWO-FOLD. Its beginning is labor and its end reward; its
    beginning, exertion and its end, a gift. That is, it begins with
    one's sanctifying himself and ends with his being sanctified...
    In the end, the Holy One Blessed be He leads him upon the path that
    he desires to follow, causes His Holiness to rest upon him, and
    sanctifies him, thus enabling him to maintain a constant intimacy
    with Him, the Blessed One...
    In fine, Holiness consists in one's clinging so closely to his God
    that in any deed he might perform he does not depart or move from
    the Blessed One, until the physical objects of which he makes use
    become more elevated because of his having used them, than he
    descends from his communion and from his high plane because of his
    having occupied himself with them. This obtains, however, only in
    relation to one whose mind and intelligence cling so closely to the
    greatness, majesty and Holiness of the Blessed One that it is as if
    he is united with the celestial angels while yet in this world....

Your thesis is contrary to the first chapter of each of MY and Derekh
Hashem, where the Ramchal lays out the "experience" part of human
existence as being in olam haba, with the purpose of olam hazeh being
entirely to "prepare on erev Shabbos". Qedushah in this world, even
according to the Ramchal, is in acting in commitment to Hashem.

According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human
activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object.
E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error
that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And
the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something
carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah.
See http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim
Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples.

Even qabbalah's discussion of is'arusa dele'eilah is about holiness
awakened from above *that inspires man to respond*, in contrast to
is'arusa delesata where man awakens the qedushah from below. (Kind of like
"hashiveinu H' eilekha venashuva" vs "shuva Eilai veAshuva eileikhem".)

This isn't a small distinction. Otto is speaking from a Xian perspective,
where salvation is viewed as a gift. We work from the position where
man partners with G-d to redeem himself.

So, back to RHIL's point... Did RSRH make a serious reversal, or is it
not much of a chiddush at all?

3- Where do he and the Ramchal differ? RSRH and RSS emphasize the BALC
in qedushah. The Ramchal makes BALC a precondition to qedushah. One
had to pass through the rest of Mesilas Yesharim. He already zahir in
monitoring his middos (pereq 1), chose the right friends (pereq 5),
emulated Avraham rushing to feed guests (pereq 7), scrupulously honest
in speach and ethical in business (pereq 11), etc...

If I would characterize the difference, the Ramchal has us emulating G-d
in order to have a relationship with Him, whereas the other sources I
brought have us in relationship with Him so that we are able to carry
out His Plan in emulation of the Creator.

Not a "sharp antithesis" at all.

: The following is an excerpt from an essay I am writing on this subject,
: comparing Rav Hirsch to the Kuzari on the subject of morality and tiqun
: olam....

4- Then it would have been nice to see the quotes from the Rihal and
RSRH that show this contrast. As it is, your snippet doesn't really
prove your point; it's twice removed extrapolation from the sources.

...
:     Apparently, the first Noachide command would not mandate strict
:     monotheism of the Jewish sort, but rather, would prohibit gross
:     heathenistic worship. In like wise, Hertz says (The Pentateuch, p.
:     759, on Deuteronomy 4:19),

:       [I]dolatry was for them [viz. the Jews] an unpardonable offense;
:       and everything that might seduce them from that Divine Revelation
:       was to be ruthlessly destroyed. Hence the amazing tolerance
:       shown by Judaism of all ages towards the followers of all other
:       cults, so long as these were not steeped in immorality and
:       crime. [Emphasis in original.]

5- Al davar achas ha'olam omeid: al gemilus chassadim?

All three amudim are listed among the 7 mitzvos, where they include the
3 yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. See the Maharal, Derekh H' 1:2. (AZ is the
denial of Avodah; gilui arayos is the service of man's lower calling as
opposed to Torah; and shefichas damim

And once you're done expanding geneivah and retzichah into 18 tolados,
and arayos includes some basic BALC, what is being added?

You mention the problem bot don't resolve it:
:     Elsewhere, Berger remarks (Alex Ozar, "An Interview With Rabbi Dr.
:     David Berger", YU Commentator, issued December 17, 2007),
:       And this raises larger issues about whether in order to get
:       into olam haba a non-Jew has to get a hundred on his exam. Does
:       he need a perfect score on the sheva mitzvos in order to have a
:       helek la-olam haba? Now I suppose that a straightforward reading
:       of most discussions of this matter would be yes. You have to
:       observe all of the sheva mitzvos, not six out of seven.

Why then is AZ listed among the 7, and why is it dinei nefashos for
nachriim as well? Why is it assur for them to make a pesel even one
that represents a monotheistic Creator, or for others to worship? Why
an issur against sheim Hashem lashav?

:                                                           However,
:       there is a teshuva of Rav Yaakov Emden, and you get a similar
:       impression from a piece by the elder Rav Henkin, and this
:       appears to be Rav Ahron Soloveichik's position, that indicates
:       that the observance of the moral commandments is sufficient and
:       that mistakes with respect to the understanding of God would
:       not keep you out. Sinners, Jews and gentiles, are not punished
:       forever but rather achieve a restored state.

RAS's position is that a non-Jew can be a "tinoq shenishba" WRT emunah,
but not WRT ethics. After all, the 7 mitzvos's BALC demands should be
self-evident. It's not that monotheism is optional, or only has value
as a derivative of the resulting ethics. It's that the person raised in
a pagan culture can't be judged accountable for his polytheism.

So yes, lemaaseh, it may mean suspending judgment (by non-dayanim). But
not for the reasons given at all. You're quoting apologetics designed
to emphasize Judaism's Humanism and taking it as definitive of the
value system.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:56:05AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Anyone know of an explanation of the connection of blowing
: the shofar with the weeping of Sisera's mother?

I dunno, I thought it made a great point. Rachamnus is associated with rachem,
which may even be one of the reasons a tefillah for someone in distress
(usually a choleh) uses the mother's name. We beseech the Kel Melekh yosheiv
al kisei rachamim by associating the sound of shofar with a mother's cry. If
even the mother of someone as crass and power-hungry as Sisera would weep so
desperately for her child, can we expect the Av haRachaman to coldly ignore
the cry?

The mashal is flawed, as I'm comparing a mother's crying to a Father's
listening to His children's cry. But still, the notion of Sisera's mother
as a case of motherly empathy that exists even among warmongering barbarians
does appeal to me as a meaning of shofar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:56:05AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Anyone know of an explanation of the connection of blowing
: the shofar with the weeping of Sisera's mother?

I dunno, I thought it made a great point. Rachamnus is associated with rachem,
which may even be one of the reasons a tefillah for someone in distress
(usually a choleh) uses the mother's name. We beseech the Kel Melekh yosheiv
al kisei rachamim by associating the sound of shofar with a mother's cry. If
even the mother of someone as crass and power-hungry as Sisera would weep so
desperately for her child, can we expect the Av haRachaman to coldly ignore
the cry?

The mashal is flawed, as I'm comparing a mother's crying to a Father's
listening to His children's cry. But still, the notion of Sisera's mother
as a case of motherly empathy that exists even among warmongering barbarians
does appeal to me as a meaning of shofar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

R Allan Engel wrote:
> Rabbi Leiman also says in that interesting shiur that he doesn't think that
> the author of the Chemdas Yomim was a Sabbatean.

Actually, that is not what he says; he says that it was assumed to
have been written by Nathan of Gaza, Shabbetai Tzvi's "prophet," based
on the inclusion in CY of a poem by Nathan of Gaza. However, RDSZL
does not feel that the conclusion is warranted, and considers that the
author is unknown and *may* even have been a non Sabbatean. For the
sake of clarification, I discussed this with him about three weeks
ago, and he confirmed that the jury is still out there regarding
whether or not CY's author was a Sabbatean.

I would add that regardless of who wrote it, I would ask: do you want
to rely on an anonymous author who either intentionally or even
unintentionally published material by Nathan of Gaza?

However, whoever mentioned that RDSZL found sources earlier than CY
for the recitation of LeDavid HaShem Ori during Elul->Yom Kippur, is
right.

However, those sources explain little, and are no conclusive proof of
a non Sabbathean origin of the custom, since they are writing decades
after Sabbetai Tzvi.

LeSchono tauwo tikossewu wetejchotejmu!
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Educating Children About the Evil of Nazism
* Complex Memories ? the Notion of ?? ????
* Judentum und westliche Gesellschaft im Einklang
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service

See Chavas Yair 192; Rabbi Soloveichik?s comments (Rabbi Joseph B.
Soloveichik on the Days of Awe, A. Lustiger ed. (Ohr Publishing:Union City
1998) and B.D. Schreiber, Noraot HaRav, New York, 1996, pp. 84, 165.

The Meshech Chochmahs?s chap (the parallel to Tanhuma Tazria 4; Yelamdeinu,
Emor 11; Lev. Rabah 27:7: ?A woman in birth cries one hundred wails (Meah
Pe`iyos) ninety-nine for death and one for life?)  is predated in Sefer
HaManhig Hilchos Rosh HaShanah 21. 

However since there really is no such ?Yerushalmi? that the Aruch cites
about Sisera?s mom (B.M. Levin, Otzar HaGeonim, Rosh HaShanah, Kuntres
Irvuv Satan BiRosh HaShanah, demonstrates that the ?Yerushalmi? cited there
is probably a ?Midrash Yerushalayim?, (and nobody can find it anywhere)) R.
Aharon Alfandri, Yad Aharon 534, cites R Shmuel Abuhav that the Aruch?s
?one hundred wails of Sisera?s mother? should actually be ?of a birthing
mother?, and is not a parallel, but the same Midrash itself that the
Meshech Chochamah and Sefer haManhig cite.

And in Lev. Rabah 20:2; Kohelet Zuta 89:7; Or HaAfelah, Pirkei DiRabi
Eliezer 32, Hemdat HaYamim: ?When Sarah heard of the Akeidah on Rosh
HaShanah she was ?meyaleles? wailing six cries as three Tekiot, three wails
paralleling three yevavos until her soul left her.?

In fact, R.Menachem. Kasher, in Divrei Menahem 2:12 (and Torah Sheleimah,
Hayei Sarah note 17), thus wishes to amend the Aruch?s ?one hundred wails
of Sisera?s mother? to ?one hundred wails of Sarah our mother?,
particularly based on the Midrashim, that Sarah cried ninety cries, to
connect the Tekiot blown ?to confuse the Satan? with his telling Sarah the
news. He cites R. Zedakiah HaRofe, Shibolei HaLeket, Hilchot Rosh HaShanah
298: ?We learn from ?vetayavev? of Sisera?s mother that it is a crying
sound, we must blow a Teruah like the crying of Sarah our mother who cried
about the news of the Akedah,? (cited also in Eliyahu Zuta 590). R. Kasher
conjectures that ?crying? is derived from Sisera?s mother and the number of
blasts replicates Sarah?s cries. He notes that Sisera?s mother?s hundred
wails appears in no known Midrash (similarly R. Aharon Alfandri, Yad Aharon
534) or the Zohar or the early Kabbalah, including Pri Etz Haim which
brings three explanations for one hundred
  blasts without mentioning this motif, though the Ari (Shaar HaKavanot,
  Derush 9, Rosh HaShanah 99, Pri Eitz Hayim Shaar 26:83) was primarily
  responsible for the practice. 

(Actually Shelah, Maseches Rosh HaShanah mentions the new custom of adding
Tekiot after the Musaf to bring them to one hundred without mentioning
Siera?s mother?s cries, but R. Moshe ibn Machir?s Seder HaYom (of the Ari?s
circle) which predates this, mentions them as the reason to complete the
hundred blasts.)  

And 100 kolos takes on a life of its own (Minhag Tzanz and Bobov is to blow an additional hundred blasts after Musaf)

However it is indisputable that BT Rosh HaShanah 33b derives the Shofar?s crying sound from Sisera?s mother. 

And the connection of the  motif of Mothers, Chavah, The Imahos, Chanah,
the Shunamis in the Zohar (good ones and others: Hagar, Sisera?s mom)
crying for their children, to all the Rosh HaShanah Tefilos, piyutim,
leinings, haftoras, etc. is very clear.

Kesiva VeChasimah Tovah LeShanah Tovah Umesukah!
nachman


____________________________________________________________
Become A Leader
Advance your career with a graduate business degree. Free info!

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=7aXqvMikA2pfA6ltdp58YAAAJ1Dze
K-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAJhukj0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABGYxAAAAAA==

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:38:26AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Micha Berger wrote:
> :> WRT the neshamos of niftarim, it is common during the close of a hesped
> :> for someone to ask the niftar to be a meilitz yosher for us. The Gra
> :> would assur that as well.
> 
> : I very much doubt it, since the Zohar explicitly permits it.
> 
> According to the MB (559:41) the Ari disrecommended going within 4
> amos of a qever aside from the qevurah.

What's that got to do with it?  This is during the kevurah.  And
afterwards, one can easily address the niftar from 4 amos away.


> As for this particular question, we've discussed it before.

Indeed we have.  I'm specifically challenging your assumption that
the GRA would forbid this practise.  Since the Zohar explicitly endorses it, I can't believe the GRA would have a problem with it.



> :                                                               Why
> : would it be a problem, if it wasn't one before the person died?
 
> As I said in the lattermost discussion (v254n25e10):
>> I am not expressing a position where the spectrum is split into issur
>> vs heter, just defining the spectrum. I did mention the Gra's
>> position, which I follow in my own practice -- but also acknowledged
>> that it's a minority opinion that runs counter to common pesaq. It
>>  just is most intuitive to me, so until I can say Shalom Aleikhem and
>> be sure I'm not misunderstanding it in a means that is AZ, I will
>> avoid it. Qua chumrah, not din. As I wrote, I left the din question
>> open.

I don't understand how this addresses my question in any way.  If it
was OK to ask the person to pray for you before he died, why would
it not be OK now?  What has changed?

 
> As for whether meisim have bechirah... The Rogotchover places them
> lemaalah min hazeman.

What has that got to do with bechirah?  Surely they can still either
respond or not respond to our requests; why do they need to be in
some specific moment in order to do that?



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

NishmaBlog: 
Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics - Reprint
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2008/09/machnisei-rachamim-ap
ologetics-reprint.html
or http://bit.ly/3PJ1mi

This was first posted on avodah about 9 years ago

BEH Rabbi Hecht is scheduled to repost it again soon

I would love to have listmembers paste their comments to nishmablog
directly, but if you permit I will do this myself - bli neder - and
quote selected comments from this thread on Avodah

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



Ask Hashem directly sheyachnisu hamichnisei horachamim ...

Shana tova umesuka
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

http://rockofgalilee.blogspot.com/2009/09/sefer-torah-fundraiser-
problem.html 
 does everyone [anyone?] get  a piece  of   the mitzva , when the  same 
pasuk  may be  sold  5 or 6  different  ways   [ letter, word, pasuk, 
perek, parsha,sefer]?  or  are they only getting a mitzva  of  tzedaka ? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090917/04f1c855/attachment-0001.htm>

http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=11   this  new  blog   seems  good  by the 
way.   here, the issue  of  'handbooks  of  halacha'  and  what  kind  of 
kulos  one is  willing  to  put  out  there,  as  oppossed  maybe  to 
buried  deep in the  hebrew  notes  [  which i have noticed , i believe, 
in some of the artscroll  halacha 
works , like on shabbos]....the Rav  and  cheese..RMF and  pregnancy 
determination...etc...


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090917/08277940/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 191
***************************************

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..."