Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 192

Fri, 18 Sep 2009

• 1. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Ken Bloom)
• 2. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (Micha Berger)
• 3. kashrut (Eli Turkel)
• 4. pills from shellfish (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: pills from shellfish (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (hankman)
• 7. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Why "Tashlich" and not Hashlachah? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: pills from shellfish (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. 100 kolot and sisera's mother (Eli Turkel)
• 13. 100 kolot and sisera's mother (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: kashrut (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Re: kashrut (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: Why "Tashlich" and not Hashlachah? (Arie Folger)
• 17. 100 kolos? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 18. Re: 100 kolos? (Micha Berger)

On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 11:15 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.

Regardless of the mechanics of such a thing, there is a very simple
rayah that one who is lemaalah min hazeman *can* have free will and make
decisions. Hashem is lemaalah min hazeman, and he can make decisions and
have free will.

--Ken

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Ken Bloom wrote:
: Regardless of the mechanics of such a thing, there is a very simple
: rayah that one who is lemaalah min hazeman *can* have free will and make
: decisions. Hashem is lemaalah min hazeman, and he can make decisions and
: have free will.

No reasoning WRT HQBH is "very simple".

To have free will means that Hashem could have chosen otherwise and
still been the Omniscient, Omnipotent, Just, Merciful, Kind... Let me
just say "haKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora" so that R' Chanina won't yell
at me.

Is that true? Hashem's choices are not always the single most optimal
solution?

What choices does Hashem have?

Think of all the problems of hakol tzafui vehareshus nesunah. Well,
in a decider who is outside of time, the decider is also the metzapeh.
And as a mental excercise, try defining the concept without speaking
of impacting the future and being unconstrained by the past.

I'm not saying that bechirah chafshi and lemaalah min hazeman are
necessarily incompatible. I am asserting that the combination, if it
exists, is inherently incomprehensible. If mal'akhim do have bechirah,
or if the deceased retain bechirah yet leave the flow of time, it's not
bechirah remotely like the sense in which we experience it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On a radio program tonight I learned that there is a controversy over
the kashrut
of Salmon and Sol because of a worm (Tolaat) that lives inside the fish
especially the US version of the fish (seemingly not in the Norwegian one)
and so Badatzim in Israel will not certify them.

Does the Ou give a hechsher for Salmon? Are there those in the US that
don't eat it
Given recent discussions about dairy and red meat products and old
controversies about Tunafish
we are slowly running out of food that is kosher according to all opinions

shana tova

-- 
Eli Turkel

Some medicines are made from ground up shellfish.
Can someone give me pointers for discussions of the kashrut of such pills.
Is is similar to the Gelatin question?

Thanks

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:20:30PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Some medicines are made from ground up shellfish.
: Can someone give me pointers for discussions of the kashrut of such pills.
: Is is similar to the Gelatin question?

For gelatin in capsules, perhaps. IOW, you have the added tzad heter of
these not being ra'ui la'achilah, and without flavoring, no achshevei
issue even.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RZS wrote:

"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?"


CM responds:

I would think that meisim indeed do not have bechira. There would be no
point in having bechira since its only purpose is to produce nisayon and
the opportunity for gemul for appropriate choices and only possible when
the neshama is in a guf. A meis is chofshi min hamitzvos precisely for this
reason, he has no guf and no bechira. His alotted time for nisayon is over.
I always understood this to be peshat in Rebbi Yaakov in  the mishna in
Avos 4:17 "yofeh sho'o achas betshuva umaasim tovim bo'olom hazeh mikol
chayai ho'olom habo."

I guess this leaves open the possibility of what I will call "simple
choice" as opposed to bechira, ie choice not related to tov vera and rotzon
Hashem, but simply choice of do I go right or left (when nor related to
"moral choice" = bechira) or do I eat Bran Flakes or Rice Krispies. This
notion might lend itself to explain some aggaditos about nishmos meisim
seeming to make choices. (not really sure about that).

KVT veKol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090917/fbe6fc24/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> 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?

Depending on one's perspective, the differences between "davening", "begging", and "asking" might be subtle or glaring.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach discusses this problem, and his response is to
use yet another verb to describe what we are saying to the malachim. But I
don't like quoting from memory, so, for now, I'll just make two points.

1 - For those of you who have Halichos Shlomo on the yom tovim, look for
yourself. It's in the pre-RH halachos. For everyone else, I hope my next
post will be published before RH. (If tomorrow were Erev Yom Kippur, I'd be
meikil and post it from memory, but we'll still have yet another week of
selichos.)

2 - Beside Shalom Aleichem and Machnisei Rachamim, another data point to
consider is the "V'imru Amen" (at the end of Oseh Shalom during Birkas
Hamazon and Shmoneh Esray) which we say even when we are alone. To whom is
this directed? RSZA refers to Magen Avraham on Orach Chaim 66:7, that it is
directed to the mal'achim "hashomrim oso".

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Find Bathroom Remodelers
Get free estimates from top-rated bathroom contractors. No obligation!

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=9xz1ClcstMzMiBkJsQzfxgAAJz3ze
K-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAADvfzz0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEhg5AAAAAA==

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:36pm +0200, R Arie Folger wrote:
:                                                               Well,
: if you think about it, it is a prayer we speak, wherein we ask *G"d*
: to cast away our sins, i.e. to forgive us. However, we have no more the
: ability to throw our sins into the water than the fish have the ability
: to eat and digest them without desert.

: Of course, this nonsesical idea of throwing the sins to the fish (why
: not to the birds?) clearly appeals a lot to hoi paloi who find it much
: easier than actually working on one's self improvement, repenting and
: mending one's relationship to G"d.

I don't think you have the etiology quite right in the seifa. The reisha
identifies the tefillah as asking Hashem to forgive us. It's an appeal
to the 13 middos as mirrored in seifer Mikhah (Mi Keil kamokha...) Not
a statement of dedication to work at it.

I once wrote about the havtachah of the 13 middos necessitating
emulating them, but that's not really the centerpiece in a tefillah
named for "vesashlich bimtzulos yam kol chatasam".

(See <http://www.aishdas.org/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf>, last essay.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: If you do download that PDF, RJJB pointed out that it could use
further editing. So, I'm collecting feedback and suggestions.

-- 
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

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Some medicines are made from ground up shellfish.
> Can someone give me pointers for discussions of the kashrut of such pills.
> Is is similar to the Gelatin question?

Start with the question of whether medicine has to be kosher in the
first place.

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

Akiva Miller:
> 2 - Beside Shalom Aleichem and Machnisei Rachamim, another data point to
> consider is the "V'imru Amen" (at the end of Oseh Shalom during Birkas
> Hamazon and Shmoneh Esray) which we say even when we are alone. To whom
> is this directed? RSZA refers to Magen Avraham on Orach Chaim 66:7,
> that it is directed to the mal'achim "hashomrim oso".

According to Baer's Avodas Yisroel
"V'imru Amen" does not belong at end of Amidah. Ayein at end of amidah
of Shacharis

Similarly, Rambam has merely "amen" as a siyyum - no "V'imru"



See Ben Ish Chai
Nitzavim I:2

"Al yassim magamaso negged hameisim ela yispallel l'Hashem [sic]
...
Vyachol lehistatei'ach al qever hatzaddiq v'yomar: hareini mevakkesh
minnefesh hatzaddiq haqqavur Poe Sheyitpallel Alay lifnei HKBH kach
v'kach..."

Ayein sham

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.

Depending on one's perspective, the differences between "davening",
"begging", and "asking" might be subtle or glaring. We all agree that if we
are going to address the malachim at all, we'd better be very sure that we
don't cross the line into assur territory.

So how *do* we describe what we are doing in these situations? Rav Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach's response is to describe what we are saying to the
malachim with yet another verb.

The remainder of this post is excerpted from Halichos Shlomo, volume Moadim
(on RH), Orchos Halacha 1:17. (Note that very similar comments appear in
Halichos Shlomo, volume Tefilah, Orchos Halacha 17:4.)

> Regarding the requests which we seem to asking from the mal'achim,
> such as Machnisei Rachamim and such, Rabeinu [RSZA] said that [the
> following] is mistaber [logical]: For that thing which this mal'ach
> has been appointed over, it is shapir mutar [plainly okay] to tell him
> to do it. ...

> We find a similar thing where we conclude "Oseh Shalom" with the words
> "V'imru Amen" - as if one is telling others to answer - even when we
> are alone. See the Magen Avraham 66:7, that he is saying it to the
> mal'achim. That's what we do on Shabbos Kodesh night, saying to the
> mal'achim, "Shalom aleichem, barchuni l'shalom...." ... We are not
> *asking* them, but *saying* to them to do their job. [Ayn anu
> m'vakshim ela omrim lahem laasos tafkidam.]

> In his handwritten hidushim on Maseches Shabbos 119b, Rabeinu [RSZA]
> wrote that perhaps this is why the Shabbos night piyut of "Shalom
> Aleichem" in the siddurim only has "mal'achei hashareis" in the first
> stanza but no further, to emphasize that in the stanza of "Barchuni",
> that our request that they bless us for shalom, is *not* because of
> their status as Mal'achei Hashareis, but because they are Mal'achei
> HaShalom, and this is their job. ...

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsEGrEZPtgp6J5IJZ1whxtdCOSMR817szuQlk1P0zqgDf3WOkkAfNe/

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

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? >>

An interesting case of how opposite derashot can have meaning. As Nachman
referenced RYBS asscoiates RH with fear "pachad". We don't know what the
next moment will bring. Sisera's mother was confident in her son's victorius
return but had this fear at the back of her mind that perhaps it
happen this time.
The 100 kolot remind us not to be complacent.
For RYBS this is a lesson for out teshuva rather than the prayer that
Micha suggest

-- 
Eli Turkel

nice extended derasha on shofar and complacenct according to RYBS

http://torahfromtzion.com/?p=173

-- 
Eli Turkel

Why shouldn't the Badatzim certify them? They certify stores that sell
artichokes, lettuce, etc. They certify breakfast cereals that have to be
checked before eating (my wife has found bugs in one certified brand). Why
not certify fish?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com>


> On a radio program tonight I learned that there is a controversy over
> the kashrut
> of Salmon and Sol because of a worm (Tolaat) that lives inside the fish
> especially the US version of the fish (seemingly not in the Norwegian one)
> and so Badatzim in Israel will not certify them.

The bugs are inside the fish and cannot be cleaned out.
The heterim are based on the halacha that bugs that dont leave the
fish/vegetables
are allowed to be eaten. The machkloket is whether the discussion in
the gemaa refers
to these fish or not

shana tova
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> Why shouldn't the Badatzim certify them? They certify stores that sell
> artichokes, lettuce, etc. They certify breakfast cereals that have to be
> checked before eating (my wife has found bugs in one certified brand). Why
> not certify fish?
>

>
>> On a radio program tonight I learned that there is a controversy over
>> the kashrut of Salmon and Sol because of a worm (Tolaat) that lives inside the fish
>> especially the US version of the fish (seemingly not in the Norwegian one)
>> and so Badatzim in Israel will not certify them.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I don't think you have the etiology quite right in the seifa. The reisha
> identifies the tefillah as asking Hashem to forgive us. It's an appeal
> to the 13 middos as mirrored in seifer Mikhah (Mi Keil kamokha...) Not
> a statement of dedication to work at it.

Fair enough. But the point is that none of the early sources consider
it "throwing our sins to the fish" or "in the water." It is a prayer
and the setting near the water is either symbolic or inspirational.

-- 
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

The Torah requires us to blow a tekiah, a teruah, and another tekiah, and to do that three times. That's nine sounds in total.

There are three ways of accomplishing what the Torah calls a "teruah" --
three medium blasts, nine short blasts, or both together. For the purposes
of this thread, it is unimportant whether one can use any of those three,
or whether only an unknown one of the three is valid. What *is* important
to this thread is my understanding that the "both" version (three medium
and nine short together) is NOT a compromise between the other two, but is
rather another sort of sound having equal standing with the other two. (If
I'm mistaken on that, then forget the whole rest of this post.)

Here's my question. According to the above, then it makes sense that when
we blow what we refer to as "tekiah shevarim tekiah", it counts as three
sounds. Also, when we blow what we refer to as "tekiah teruah tekiah", that
too counts as three sounds. But when we blow "tekiah shevarim-teruah
tekiah", shouldn't that also count as three? But in actual practice, in
order to reach the goal of 100 sounds, we count them as *four*.

To me, this seems like an error. However one explains the importance of
reaching 100 sounds, do we do it justice by counting "tekiah
shevarim-teruah tekiah" as four?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Make sure the temperature's always just right with a new thermostat. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsJVCmOVwsazZTi0dt49k8iUADWqp5DKGl5cBWuJO179IfWCkm8RA8/

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, at 13:28:20 EDT, RAM asked:
:                                           But when we blow "tekiah
: shevarim-teruah tekiah", shouldn't that also count as three? But in
: actual practice, in order to reach the goal of 100 sounds, we count them
: as *four*.

Aggadically, they are two sounds, which is why we don't blow
teru'ah-shevarim -- because people don't cry in a yelulei yalil followed
by a genunei ganach pattern very often.

I think the rishonim who hold that the toqei'ah is supposed breathe
between the halves of a shevarim teru'ah use this as a raayah -- we
count them as two qolos. The SA 590:4, MB 590:20 and Shaar haTziyun 18
have you blow them in two breaths by the teqi'os deme'umad, and one by
the tzqi'os demeyushav.

Elef haMagen #22 even recommends the maqri say the words in one breath
or two as a reminder to the toqei'ah.

The Rama (ad loc, 590:4) disagrees with the SA, says the minhag is to
use two breaths, and one should not change the minhag.

I believe today the minhag (outside of the Yekkies, I don't know what
they do) is to follow the SA and MB's recommendation.

Not sure I understand the point of that compromise, since if the 100
qolos implies a requirement to take a breath, then one didn't get 100
qolos. And if it being a qiyum of the original teru'ah deOraisa implies
one should blow the shevarim-teru'ah as one breath, then one isn't even
doing anything with shevarim-teru'os deme'umad.

The ikkar while blowing all these kolos, shevarim, terua'ah and
shevarim-teru'ah, is how far Chazal went to insure that at least for
the mitzvah of shofar, we would all do the same thing. The fact that it
became divided -- Brisker shevarim, one breath vs two breaths, etc... just
proves that the sitra achara is real. It just had to cause new doubts,
so that in our uncertainty the unity is again broken. (Kind of like the
way eiruv, based on the notion of the unity of kelal Yisrael, so often
is the topic of communal fights.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 192
***************************************

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..."