Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 193

Tue, 22 Sep 2009

• 1. OU and salmon (martin brody)
• 2. Re: OU and salmon (Eli Turkel)
• 3. lulav and shofar on shabba (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Why "Tashlich" and not Hashlachah? (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: l'Dovid Hashem Ori (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. A NICE HOLIDAY VORT (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: Re RHS and dairy (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Arie Folger)
• 9. The Teshua Week (Yitzchok Levine)
• 10. 100 kolot and Sisera's mother (Saul Mashbaum)
• 11. tefillin at mincha (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: tefillin at mincha (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: tefillin at mincha (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Avinu Malkeinu (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Avinu Malkeinu (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

"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"

The OU's policy on salmon is the same as the LBD and I presume everybody
else as it is in the SA.
Salmon has its own siman because of its colour, and one doesn't need to see
a scale.
Every fish probably has bugs of some sort.
Bon apetit.
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090918/5a560f03/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> The OU's policy on salmon is the same as the LBD and I presume everybody
> else as it is in the SA.
> Salmon has its own siman because of its colour, and one doesn't need to see
> a scale.
> Every fish probably has bugs of some sort.

The question on the radio program had nothing to do with the kashrut of the
Salmon which everyone considers kosher. The question was only concerning the
bugs which I assume are visible.
They specifically said that only Salmon and Sole are a question and
not other fish

shana tova


-- 
Eli Turkel

An arugument for using a lulav on shabbat in EY but not a shofar

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3311427,00.html

and

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3777438,00.html

-- 
Eli Turkel

IAvodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 188 dated 9/15/2009

From: _rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com_ (mailto:rabbirichwol...@gmail.com) 




>>  A colleague was bewildered and asked me:
> Why do we call Tashlich  "Tashlich" and not "Hashlachah?"
> EG Kappros, hoshanos, hakafos are all  nouns.

I gave him an answer, but I was wondering if anyone had a more  definitive 
one<<

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from  T-Mobile
 
>>>>>
What answer did you give him?
 
I think it's an echo of the words in the Tashlich prayer, "Tashlich  
bimtzulos yam kol chatosam."
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090921/8c7902d1/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 191dated 9/17/2009

From:  Arie Folger _afolger@aishdas.org_ (mailto:afol...@aishdas.org) 



>>  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?  <<


>>>>>
And if a Reform rabbi recommended the saying of Tehillim -- you would stop  
saying Tehillim?  We're not talking about some new-fangled prayer written  
by Nathan of Gaza or anybody else.  What harm could there possibly be in  
reciting a perek of Tehillim?
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090921/7929db1b/attachment-0001.htm>

On a Rosh Hashanah which fell on Shabbat, R' Levi Yitzchak rose and  
said, "Lord of the
Universe, today You judge each person for the coming year, and grant  
him life or condemn him to
death. But, on this Rosh Hashanah You are forced by Your own Torah to  
write that You grant Your entire
people a good life in the coming year. After all, on Shabbat You have  
decreed that one cannot write. How
then, can You fulfill 'On Rosh Hashanah it is written down'?

There is no way You can inscribe anyone in the Book of Death, because  
writing is forbidden on
Shabbat. On the other hand, You may certainly inscribe us in the Book  
of Life, for when there is piku'ah nefesh,
the prohibition against writing on Shabbat falls aside."

(A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit)
RABBI SHMUEL CHOUEKA

May you all be inscribed B'Sefer Hachayim combined with continued  
learning and the ability to disagree without
being disagreeable and extending compassion to all the arba minim.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090921/a859461a/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 188 dated 9/15/2009


>  And how would you ever get farmers to agree to letting you shecht a
>  *representative* sample, rather than those cows that are not producing
>  quality or sufficient quantity milk? [--RMB]

You couldn't.  Which  is exactly my point.  Without such an experiment,
which is highly  impractical, how could the poster to whom that was
directed know that the  majority of dairy cows are kosher?


-- 
Zev  Sero             
 
>>>>>
Surely the chazaka is that the majority of all cows  are kosher?
 
                                  

--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090921/83a5d6cc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:53 AM,  <T6...@aol.com> wrote:
> And if a Reform rabbi recommended the saying of Tehillim -- you would stop
> saying Tehillim?? We're not talking about some new-fangled prayer written by
> Nathan of Gaza or anybody else.? What harm could there possibly be in
> reciting a perek of Tehillim?

This is not a vague recommendation of saying Tehillim, but the
specific linking of a particular recitation at a particular time. If a
Reform rabbi would recommend saying Ashrei (sorry, Tehilla leDavid) at
11:30 in the morning on alternate Tuesdays, I wouldn't do it, either.
And if I happened to be saying Tehillim on such a Tuesday at 11:30, I
would say LeDavid Barukh, instead. And if I wanted to say Tehilla
leDavid, I would say it on Monday and Wednesday, or at 10:00 in the
morning. </end of analogy>

Concretely, if you harbor doubts as to the soundness of the custom to
recite LeDavid haShem Ori veYish'i during Elul->Yom Kippur, while the
tzibbur says it, just say something else, such as the mizmor Tefilla
le'Ani ki Ya'atof. Personally, I generally haven't finished sShir shel
Yom by teh time the tzibbur reaches LeDavid haShem Ori veYish'i, so
for me, the question is kind of moot.

Chassieme tauwo
-- 
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

I have posted part of RSRH's essay Tishri III at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/teshuva_week.pdf

In this part of the essay he discusses what he terms "The Teshuva 
Week." I found the order of his list of things that one should do 
teshuva for most interesting.

Yitzchok Levine 

The subject of the relation of Sisera's mother's wailing to t'kiat shofar is
dealt with explicitly by RYBS in his shiur "B'sorat HaGeulah l'Ov'dim
Ulnidachim" in Y'mei Zikaron, pp 169-171.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090921/cc4360bb/attachment-0001.htm>

Yesterday on Tzom Gedalia at mincha I noticed several people in shul
wearing tefillin
(at least one Rav I had seen in the morning)

Why don't we wear tefillin at Mincha?
one should wear tefillin all day. We dont because we cant concentrate and
watch for cleanliness, so we do the minimum at Schacharit.
However, it would seem the same logic says we could concentrate for
the even shorter
mincha.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:24:09AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Why don't we wear tefillin at Mincha?
: one should wear tefillin all day. We dont because we cant concentrate and
: watch for cleanliness, so we do the minimum at Schacharit.

... and because Shacharis includes Shema, and therefore not wearing
tefillin is mechzei keshiqra. Mincha doesn't, unless one repeats
Shema for the sake of doing so with tefillin on.

The question of why this isn't the norm could also be asked of Shacharis
-- after all, we don't put on tefillin between Yishtabach and Barekhu
and take them off right after Tachanun.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

> ...
> 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.
>
> R' Micha

I'm not concerned with what the Ari says. First, Aleinu uses the
phrase differently than the Ari, and I think the Aleinu has more
authority than the Ari. Rambam to Avot 1:2 says (commenting on al
shelosha devarim ha-olem omed - al ha-torah, v'al ha-avodah, v'al
gemilut hasadim), "Yomar, she'b'hokhmah, v'hi ha-torah; u'b'ma'alot
ha-midot, v'hen gemilut hasadim; u'b'qium tzivei ha-torah, v'hen
ha-qorbanot - hatmadat tiqun ha-olam v'sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen
ha-shalem biyoter."

Now, what is most interesting, I think, is that Rambam equates Avot's
"ha-avodah" with "qorbanot", which he in turn equates with "qium
tzivei ha-torah". This of course fits with Rambam's general view of
the qorbanot in general, trying to deemphasize their importance, and
all the more so delegitimize them as the sine qua non of Judaism
(Kuzari).

But besides that, Rambam defined Avot's language "ha-olam omed" as
"sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen ha-shalem biyot", and he then equated this
with "hatmada tiqun ha-olam".

I could rest my case, but I will bring one random quote which I first
saw yesterday. The quote is taken from Professor Marc Shapiro's review
(www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/3_2_Shapiro.pdf)  of Rabbi
Jonathan Sack's The Dignity of Difference. Professor Shapiro actually
quotes Rabbi J. H. Hertz as preempting Rabbi Sack's general thesis;
Professor Shapiro quotes a different passage of Rabbi Hertz's than I
did, but he comes out to basically the same effect, that Judaism is
concerned with gentiles' morality, not their theology. Professor
Shapiro makes many other fascinating references, including an
endorsement of Professor Moshe Halbertal's interpretation of Meiri.
But I say all this as an aside; the quote I will bring now is
Professor Shapiro's citation of Rabbi Isaac Palache: "R. Isaac Palache
too regards the Noahide Laws as no longer binding on Gentiles by
virtue of divine law, although he argues that one is still permitted
(!) to instruct them in these laws because they have a strong
utilitarian purpose, in that they make for a civilized society (tiqqun
ha-olam)." My purpose here is not to argue whether the gentiles are
obligated to keep the Noahide laws - see Shapiro there for this
argument - but rather, I just want to call attention to how Rabbi
Palache used tiqqun olam, as making for civilized society.

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

EXACTLY. Qedusha (for us, not for G-d) is to imitate G-d. As Hazal
say, "How can one walk after G-d, a consuming fire? Rather, be
merciful just as He is merciful, etc." Notice how Hazal never say,
"Put on tefillin just as He puts on tefillin." And since there is a
midrash that G-d wears tefillin, Hazal could very well have defined
imitateo dei as wearing tefillin. Instead, however, Hazal defined it
as being merciful and kind like G-d. As Isaiah says, as cited by Rabbi
Hertz, the Holy G-d is sanctified by righteousness, not by qorbanot
and tefillah (Kuzari).

> According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human
> activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object.
>
> R' Micha

But while this works fantastically for Rambam, it is anathemous to
Kuzari and Kabbalists. According to the Kuzari, tumah is something
tangible that a sensitive individual can feel after he walks through a
graveyard. According to Rambam, on the other hand, tumah and taharah
are entirely conventional, in that they don't reflect any ontological
reality, but rather, they teach some sort of lesson or train in some
behavior. (See Professor Menachem Kellner's recent book Maimonides'
Confrontation with Mysticism; his thesis is that Moreh Nevukhim is a
veiled polemic against the Kuzari.) This approach is in breathtaking
parallel with Rabbi Hirsch's, of course, which is why Rabbi Shelomo
Danziger refers to Rabbi Hirsch's ta'amei mitzvot as pure Maimonidean
thinking.

> This [viz. R' Hirsch's view] might be "holiness", it certainly is Rudolph Otto's definition, but
> if so it has nothing to do with qedushah. ... 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.
>
> R' Micha

I'm sorry, but you lost me. What has Rabbi Hirsch's view to do with
Christian vicarious salvation? Rabbi Hirsch's view is essentially that
man's task in life is to imitate G-d by completing His world - asher
bara elokim la'asot, and p'ru u'r'vu u'm'lu et ha-aretz u-kavshah -
and behaving with kindness towards his fellow man created b'tzelem
eloqim, using his G-d-given moral freedom to freely choose to follow
G-d's laws, whereas nature inexorably does the same. What has any of
this to do with Christianity? If anything, Christianity most logically
devolves into a denial of free will, whereas Rabbi Hirsch saw free
will as an intrinsic part of man's nature, ontologically equal to
natural law. (See his commentary to Mishlei chapter 8 (about the Torah
preceding the world) and his commentary on the Garden of Eden.)

> [Regarding my quoting sources that gentiles are not liable for
> idolatry, but only for immorality]
> 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?
>
> R' Micha

I'm not learned in the laws of AZ vis a vis gentiles. But see Shapiro
whom I cite above
(www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/3_2_Shapiro.pdf) - he brings
Shemot Rabbah, Akedat Yitzhak, and Abarbanel (the latter two relying
on Deut 4:9) as saying that gentiles are not prohibited from AZ -
totally exempt l'gamre! Additionally, he notes that Rashbam and R'
Hertz both interpret Deut. 4:9 in this same way. So how do we fit this
with the halakhot of AZ? Tzarikh iyun.

> RAS's position is that a non-Jew can be a "tinoq shenishba" WRT emunah,
> but not WRT ethics.
> R' Micha

I've said the same myself, so thank you for interpreting RAS in this
way - I can now put his name behind my assertion.

> 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.
>
> R' Micha

Oh, don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying that belief in G-d is
unimportant, G-d forbid! I'm only saying that a gentile is not
OBLIGATED to believe in G-d, as far as reward and punishment goes.
Similarly, there is a difference between what is true and what is
dogma; not everything that is true is a dogma whose denial causes a
loss of olam ha-ba. But this doesn't mean that the truths are
unimportant, and that we can discard anything not written in the 13
Principles as being unimportant to Judaism. Similarly, then, a lack of
a command to believe in G-d doesn't mean this belief in G-d is
anything to be belittled! But just as Rambam didn't hold the Kuzari to
be a heretic for believing in the ontological reality of tumah - even
though Rambam held Kuzari was absolutely false - so too, we won't hold
gentiles liable for lack of belief in G-d. But this doesn't mean that
such belief isn't a vital desideratum in our world; halevai that every
gentile believed in G-d, and more importantly, that he behaved like it
too!

The Yerushalmi, based on either Eicha or Yeremiyahu, says something to
the effect that, "Though they didn't believe in me, if only they had
nevertheless kept my Torah!" Now, if one doesn't believe in G-d, of
what use is keeping the Torah - tefillin, kashrut, etc.? Therefore, it
seems clear to me that by "Torah", the Yerushalmi means the mitzvot
sikhliot. If I remember correctly, Rabbi Benjamin Blech, in the
introduction to his Understanding Judaism, interprets this Yerushalmi
similarly, something to the effect that G-d would rather we keep His
mitzvot but not believe in Him rather than the reverse, but I'm not
sure.

Michael Makovi

> Yesterday on Tzom Gedalia at mincha I noticed several people in shul
> wearing tefillin
> (at least one Rav I had seen in the morning)

> Why don't we wear tefillin at Mincha?
...
> Eli Turkel

Begs another question: why do they wear tefillin at mincah ONLY on
taanis tzibbur!

Here is my take. Once we eat, we are chosheish more for guf naqi,
because of digestion, etc.

This cheshash is NOT there during taanis tzibbur. No food to cause "gas"

Question except for 9 Av, why did this not catch on in Ashkenaz?

A: AISI ashkenazim davened mincha on taanis Tzibbur VERY late in the day -
in order to emulate Neilah. Perhaps the lateness of the hour discouraged
Tefillin on a Taanis Tzibbur in those communities.

GT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Quick thought

Hashem is Avinu due to Ma'aseh Breishis ==> RH
While Hashem is Malkeini due to Yetzias Mitzrayim ==> Pesach

Thus, RH - one half year from Passover, represents 2 sides of the
same pole.

This balance is in Shhabos in zachor (RH) and Shamor (pesach) and
Shabbos Qiddush
Zikkaron lemassaseh breishis
Zecher leetzias Mitzrayim

GT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Quick thought

Hashem is Avinu due to Ma'aseh Breishis ==> RH
While Hashem is Malkeini due to Yetzias Mitzrayim ==> Pesach

Thus, RH - one half year from Passover, represents 2 sides of the
same pole.

This balance is in Shhabos in zachor (RH) and Shamor (pesach) and
Shabbos Qiddush
Zikkaron lemassaseh breishis
Zecher leetzias Mitzrayim

GT
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 193
***************************************

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..."