Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 265

Tue, 29 Dec 2009

• 1. Pronunciation of ???? (Zvi Lampel)
• 2. Re: Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah (Samuel Svarc)
• 3. Re: Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: remarriage after divorce (Zev Sero)
• 5. Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Dov Kaiser)
• 6. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Pronunciation of ??? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Assur to be Stupid... (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: anarchy/libertarianism (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: remarriage after divorce (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Reciting Shir haMa'alot or 'Al Naharot Bavel before Bentching (Micha Berger)
• 13. Avraham Avinu and OAZ was: Re: The miraculous story of the Jews of Zakynthos [on Areivim] (hankman)
• 14. Ins and Outs of Shnei Keilim (Yitzchok Levine)
• 15. mikva shitos (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 16. Re: mikva shitos (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: [Areivim] The difference (Akiva Blum)
• 18. Beis Din Hagadol - SA Choshen Mishpat 13:6 (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

    for 50+ years I pronounced vayhi with a sh'va na, but as
    Chazal note it's VAY HEE no sh'va na...The all-too-ubiquitous
    "Vayechi", with a sheva nach and three syllables, is an error.
    Rather, it has a sheva na and only two syllables: "Vaychi" or "Vaichi".

Where is this Chazal? (And just a note that technically, while in English
the Va-ye-chi pronunciation would be considered three syllables, Hebrew
dikduk considers the sh'va na part of the following syllable, not a
separate one. So it would still be considered a two-syllable word, just as
"Sh'ma," or b'nee," for example, are considered one-syllable words.)

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091228/d998ce1c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM,  <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Plz post
> ssv...@gmail.com
> ?Explained already, because then you're going against what you know to
> be Torah.?
>
> Exactly so
> And by analogy - the appointment of these "dayanim" is done knowingly against known Torah

Incorrect, there is no din that brothers can't be arbitrators.

> - but concensus trumps anyway!
>
> You might as well say same by yerushah. Viz. 'what if the father the
> morish is ignorant?' Do we then allow his override of torah to work? I
> think not. ?Afiak
> Masneh against torah still doesn't work

Agreed, because he tried to do something that is 'keneged' Torah -
give a wrong allotment of yerusha, while here no one is trying to do
anything against Torah -the Torah has no quibble with these people
acting as arbitrators.

> As I said, there may be a good teirutz, what is very curious is that no no'sei keilim on the SA page picked up on this

Slightly agree with you, and ask you once again to quote the lashon,
and point out that they don't ask your kasha either.

KT,
MSS

ssv...@gmail.com 
> Explained already, because then you're going against what you know to 
> be Torah.
 
Exactly so 
And by analogy -- the appointment of these "dayanim" is done knowingly
against known Torah -- but concensus trumps anyway!
 
You might as well say same by yerushah. Viz. 'what if the father the
morish is ignorant?' Do we then allow his override of torah to work? I
think not. Afiak Masneh against torah still doesn't work
 
As I said, there may be a good teirutz, what is very curious is that no
no'sei keilim on the SA page picked up on this
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

t6...@aol.com wrote:
> I want to ask the chevra whether there is any possible work-around or 
> exception to the rule that a couple cannot remarry after a divorce if 
> the woman had subsequently married someone else? [...]  When I told 
> him he can't marry her, he asked me, "Well, can we live in sin?"  It 
> certainly doesn't seem that that would be mutar either, but would it be 
> worse or better, or no different, from actually marrying her? 

The most obvious first resort would be to look carefully at both marriages.
If some serious flaw can be found in one of them that can retroactively
make it passul, then at least a remarriage would not be an issur de'oraita,
though it would probably still be assur mid'rabbanan.

But if nothing can be found, then it would seem to me that it would indeed
be better for them to live in sin than to get married.  A penuyah is, at
least according to the Ramban, only an issur derabbanan, and the Yaavetz
allows a pilegesh even lechatchilah.  Even according to the Rambam it
would seem to me that if they're not married then they'll only be doing
an avera a very small percentage of the time, whereas if they get married
then they'll be doing an avera every moment that they don't get divorced.
And of course if they're not married then if one of them does teshuvah
they can just leave; whereas if they're married then they'll need a get,
which requires the other party's cooperation, at least in practise if not
in theory.

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

R.RW wrote:
<<GRA
9 moshav yeqaro - morphed into v'chise ch'vodo. [Yekaro had an undesirable g'matriya]>>
 
My Roedelheim machzor has v'khise k'vodo as a nusach acheir in Aleinu. 
Although this machzor postdates the Gra, I doubt very R. Heidenheim took it
from the Gra.  Therefore, it is likely that the Gra picked this up from a
pre-existing nusach.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser                                        
_________________________________________________________________
Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both
 http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394591/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091228/03da1bc5/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW wrote:
> RHS ignored RYBS's prohibition Re: Eruv in Manhattan and re-opened
> the issue and revised the p'saq and certified an eruv around YU.

and the R' Arie Folger wrote:
> FYI, there is an eruv around at least parts of YU, and RHS
> supports it (or at least, there was such an eruv there when I
> was there, and reportedly, it has expanded since).

RAF is correct. The eruv is still there. Anyone who wants more info can go to http://www.yueruv.org

But the main point of my post is to point out that I am very unclear on
exactly what was said about Manhattan. I'm also unclear about who said it:
Did RRW really mean to write "RYBS", or did he mean RMF?

In any case, "revised the p'saq" might be very inaccurate, because it's not
only the p'saq which changed, but also the circumstances: Part of the YU
Eruv involves actual doors which they have installed and endeavor to close
at least once a year, thus rendering the area into (AIUI) a karmelis by all
shitos, and thus eligible for an eruv by all shitos.

If so, the the following must be asked about those of the previous
generations who are said to have prohibited a Manhattan eruv: Were they
simply observing (=paskening) that the Reshus Harabim nature of Manhattan
was so pervasive and extensive that a purely lechi-and-tzuras-hapesach sort
of eruv wouldn't work under the then-current circumstances? Or were they
decreeing (=gozer) that for whatever reason, it is forever forbidden to
make *any* sort of eruv in Manhattan?

I believe the above question to be valid and important for the taxonomy
which RRW is currently working on. It is very easy to say that those
communites whose leaders don't want to even investigate the possibility of
an eruv view it as a gezera. As regards those who have established eruvin
in Manhattan, I'd much prefer to say that they see themselves as working
under changed circumstances which the old p'sak did not address (than to
accuse them of violating a gezera).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Criminal Lawyer
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=BuUXo0OylugzWLKADSjrrQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiFgAAAAA=

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:11:16AM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote:
:                       (And just a note that technically, while in English 
: the Va-ye-chi pronunciation would be considered three syllables, Hebrew 
: dikduk considers the sh'va na part of the following syllable, not a 
: separate one. So it would still be considered a two-syllable word, just as 
: "Sh'ma," or b'nee," for example, are considered one-syllable words.)

The "yechi" can physically be one syllable, it has two vowels
with a consonant between them. Similarly, I don't know how "shema" can be
physically said in only one syllable. Perhaps you're referring to a
different diqduq concept that is only loosely translated as
"syllable"? What's the original?

Personally, I thought the "rules" for sheva were more about rules for
open vs closed syllables than for the sheva itself. A sheva nach is
just indicating that a mid-word syllable (or a khaf sofis) is closing
a syllable. Thus, an os degushah, which closes one syllable as well
as starts the next one, has to take a sheva nakh or else you have a
"syllable" of a consonant with no vowel. Similarly the sheva under the
first letter of a word. And since long and short vowels also imply open
vs closed syllables, and Matres lectionis stand in for the closing letter
of an open vowel, they too imply sheva na or sheva nach, accordingly.

As I noted in previous years, the maamar that "vayhi" (or "vayhi
biymei") introduced tzarah has a phonic resononance when you realize it
sounds like "Vai hi!"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 03:05:09PM +0000, R Dov Kaiser wrote:
: My Roedelheim machzor has v'khise k'vodo as a nusach acheir in Aleinu.
: Although this machzor postdates the Gra, I doubt very R. Heidenheim took
: it from the Gra. Therefore, it is likely that the Gra picked this up
: from a pre-existing nusach.

In a previous iteration, I suggested that for the Gra's changes in
general -- they weren't (intentional) inventions, they were preferences
for neglected nusachos.

I inserted "(intentional)" because it's possible that the Gra found or
reconstructed a nusach that may not have really existed in the past. But
still, not out of a belief that he had the authority to construct new
nusachos.

Here, though, the source is known. The Tur (133) says that "moshav
yeqaro" comes from Sifrei Heikhalos. That would be a huge gap, if the
first usage was by Yehoshua at Yerikho -- or at least is *arguably*
attribitutable to him -- but there is no appearance of the idiom in
writing again until the ge'onim.

The Tur attributes the Gra's nusach to machzor Roma.
R' Saadia Gaon's siddur has "umoshav". So do the various R' Amram Gaon's
siddurim. But there are so many variants, all of which tainted by local
nusachos, that I wouldn't use it to prove anything.

RYBS suggested that the Gra had a more primary reason for preferring
the nusach of "vekhisei kevodo" than the diqduq. (In Brisk-speak --
"more primary" meaning "halachic".) Leshitas haGra, one isn't allowed to
use anthropomophications that were not relayed by nevi'im. This is also
implied in the Rambam, who makes a major point that the first version of
the siddur was made by Anshei Kenesses haGedolah which included nevi'im.
See Moreh 1:59, where the Rambam invokes R' Chaninah from a beraisa on
Berakhos 33b about using adjectives that aren't from nevi'im.

Hashem is described as having a "Kisei" or (as in Chumash) "Keis",
but He isn't given a "moshav" anywhere in Tanakh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 08:53:21PM -0600, Ira Tick wrote:
:> RYBS was wont to knock on the desk or microphone three times as a
:> mnemonic for the idea of submission. We can have all our rationales --
:> we can ask the questions and propose answers -- but none of that can
:> change our observance. At some point, we have to live with hte question
:> or table it for later, because halakhah comes before logic. I saw him
:> as speaking of submission to halakhah, not to ideas.

: I don't believe that submission of human logic to Halacha is a trend
: supported by history...

RYBS's context would be, for one real example, after telling the story of
the kohein who fell in love with a non-Jewish girl. She ends up becoming
a giyores. Both become serious about their Yahadus, and are well on the
way of becoming shomerei Torah uMitzvos. Along the way, he finds a pair
of duchaning hands on his paternal father's matzeivah. So, after all that,
RYBS in the end had to tell them they could not marry after all. That's
when all the reasoning goes out the window, and we have to submit.

Or, Avraham's submission of his intellect at the Aqeida.

I think the distinction between the two contexts is that you're speaking
of what RYBS would call the cognitive and creative process of halakhah,
vs submission when the limits of that process is reached.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:39:00PM -0500, t6...@aol.com wrote:
: You have touched on this before, but it's still not clear to me.  Does  the 
: Rambam actually say or imply that only intellectually superior people go to 
:  olam haba or to the highest level of olam haba?

From the last pereq of Moreh, as translated by Friedlander
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp190.htm
    The fourth kind of perfection is the true perfection of man: the
    possession of the highest, intellectual faculties; the possession of
    such notions which lead to true metaphysical opinions as regards
    God. With this perfection man has obtained his final object; it
    gives him true human perfection; it remains to him alone; it gives
    him immortality, and on its account he is called man....

Hil' Teshuvah 8:3 "Kol hanefesh ha'amurah be'inyan zeh" -- the inyan of
pereq 8 is OhB -- "... hadei'ah shehesiga meihaBreo kefi kokhah
vehesigah meihadei'os hanifrados ushe'ar maasim".

Also, he introduces the 13 iqarim by telling us that they are the minimum
knowledge necessary to qualify as "kol Yisrael" in "kol Yisrael yeish
lahem cheileq leOhB". Also (earlier in that text), "Velakhein hivtiach
behasaras kol eileh, veyihyu beri'im usheleimim *kedei shetashleim lahem
yayedi'ah veyizky lekhayei OhB."

"Ratzah HQBH lezakos es Yisrael, lefikhakh hirba lahem Torah umitzvos",
as explained in PhM (Makos 3:17) is to provide one opportunity of acting
fully lishmah. And of course the Rambam holds that
"lishmah" means for the sake of yedi'ah, again, as found in the
introduction to Cheileq (where it is translated "hasagah") and the end
of the Moreh.

The second role of maaseh is that obviously the right ideas would cause
a person to choose the right actions. And therefore certain actions get
punished with kareis because they demonstrate a lack of yedi'ah. (intro
to Cheileq)

BTW, note also that even though the Rambam cites Chazal that chassidei
umos ha'olam get olam haba, in Hil Melakhim 8:11 he tells you that someone
who keeps the 7 mitzvos for reasons other than their being given by HQBH
at Sinai is meichokhmei umos ha'olam. To be michasidei umos ha'olam,
there is also a yedi'ah requirement!

: The confusion to me is that Shuby's brain may be limited but surely his  
: neshama is not limited?..

That's why I can't really leverage the Rambam's paneh laTorah on these
things in my own avodas Hashem.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:06:16AM -0500, t6...@aol.com wrote:
: I want to ask the chevra whether there is any possible work-around or  
: exception to the rule that a couple cannot remarry after a divorce if
: the woman had subsequently married someone else?

Interestingly, this was another case where RYBS told a maaseh and
knocked on the table.

RARakffetR tells of an anonymous couple where 2 of their sons are kohanim,
and 2 are not. Maaseh shehayah. Because of this very situation. There
is a halakhah ve'ein morin kein that if the couple are too love-bound
to comply to halakhah, it is better to live together without qiddushin
than a kohein marry a gerushah. (As RZS already wrote.) And so, the two
born before their parents' get are kohanim, the younger two born after
their reunion are chalalim.

The same mp3 from RARR is where I got both of the above paragraphs.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 09:30:45PM -0800, Simon Montagu wrote:
: This would be a question on Roedelheim, since Tzefanya 3 9 (and many other
: siddurim) say "safa verura".

Thinking out loud:
Could it depend on whether one is saying "besafah verurah, uven'imah"
or if one is using both "berurah uveni'imah" to modify safah, thereby
giving the first word a looser coupling to the previous vowel?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

[Thread redirected to Avodah by moderator].

Prof. Y. Levine wrote:

 It seems clear to me that /Avraham Aveinu/ and RSRH would not agree with your approach."

CM:
You are referring to the Rashi in Beraishis perek 18:4. However I think
your aggregation of Avraham Avinu to your opinion may be premature
according to most meforshim of that parsha and even according to Rashi.

Most of the meforshim I have seen on this parsha (Beraishis 18) do not
agree with Rashi, but assert that Avraham Avinu recognized that the
"anashim" were angels and not arab ovdei avoda zara. They discuss whether
he saw the angels or a physical "malbush"/guf that was visible and could
actually eat etc. 

See Ramban shom 18:3 & 15; Rikanti shom 18:8 (if he recognized them why
did he offer food etc); Rabbeinu Bechaye shom 18:5 and Toldos Yitzchok shom
18:2 and others

The Kli Yokor (shom 18:4) seems to assume that he thought they MAY be arabs
who might be ovdei avoda zara but the whole point was to make them be
chozer betshuva "wash" it off their feet. So 1) They were not vadei OAZ and
2) his purpose was not just accept them as is and honor them but to get
them to leave their current path. Although he asks this as a question on
Rashi, I think that you could read Rashi to mean what the Kli Yokor says.
Rashi says {shom 18:4) "kaszvur sheheim arvayim..." could mean he thought
they may be arabs ...who bow to....  The Panim Yafos (shom 18:4) also
emphasizes that the point of Avraham Avinu was to get them to leave idol
worship [not merely to honor them as they are]. He was not just sitting
there kechom hayom to feed passers-by who were OAZ.

Furthermore there is the opinion of those rishonim who hold that this
entire episode was but a vision and did not actually happen - so AA was not
mechabed OAZ and accept and help them as they are.

Prof. Y. Levine wrote:

I simply do not understand what you have written. Why is there no Chillul HaShem?

CM:
Why would there be a Chillul HaShem for not providing "proper respect" if non is due for an OAZ?


Prof. Y. Levine wrote:

Who said anything about taking comfort? 


CM:
That's how I understood your comment. Why else would you bother to mention that fact? Sorry, if that is not what you meant to express.


Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster







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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.123/2592 - Release Date: 12/29/09 07:47:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091229/630bc0b5/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://www.closetotorah.com/archives/2274

Yitzchok Levine 

i saw  this  remark online--
BTW, no Mikvah is today built the way it was in the Alte Heim, the 
Satmar(coming from the Chuster rov) rov has his shiteh, the Chazon Ish has 
his shiteh the Klausenburger believes all the above are no good, the all 
sugye of Mikvoes today is started from scratch, nobody has a mesorah on 
that, the modern world made it possible to add chumrahs that wasn't 
possible once 

---could  someone  kindly delineate these various  shitos  for me?  is he 
implying  mikvaos arre better, worse or just different than in the alte 
heim?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091229/3590a41c/attachment-0001.htm>

Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> 
> i saw  this  remark online--
>> BTW, no Mikvah is today built the way it was in the Alte Heim, [...]

> ---could  someone  kindly delineate these various  shitos  for me?  is 
> he  implying  mikvaos arre better, worse or just different than in the 
> alte heim?

Different.  In Europe until the 19th century there was almost no such
thing as a rain-water mikveh.  Everyone knew that one can also make a
mikveh from mei geshomim, but nobody did so.  When people started building
such mikvaos in the 19th century, all sorts of machlokes began over the
best way to do so, since in hilchos mikvaos the practise is to be yotze
as many shitos as possible.  


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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: areivim-boun...@lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:areivim-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of harchinam
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 10:38 PM

> But there isn't. No one has ever said that two men are forbidden to
> have a close friendship or to live in the same household.

Actually, it is assur.

SA EH 24, see nosei keilim. Kol sheken if they admit their urges for each other,
there's a issur of yichud.

What is meant by the term "Beis Din Hagadol" as used in the context of
SA Choshen Mishpat 13:6

[FWIW I peeked at TB Sanhedrin 31b and it talks about "beis vaad"

Thanks
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 265
***************************************

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..."