Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 60

Tue, 02 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Reading the Haftorah (Allan Engel)
• 3. Re: If M'gillah is Talmud Torah... (Joshua Meisner)
• 4. Re: Melech Chanun V'Rachum (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: any makor (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: If M'gillah is Talmud Torah... (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Who First Said it? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: kol hamosif, gorea (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Purim and Parshat Tetzaveh Dvar Torah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Melech Chanun V'Rachum (Zev Sero)
• 11. Who First Said it? (Danny Schoemann)
• 12. Is a Megilla Scroll Muktzeh on Shabbos? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Is a Megilla Scroll Muktzeh on Shabbos? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Is a Megilla Scroll Muktzeh on Shabbos? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Who First Said it? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Who First Said it? 2 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 17. Re: Who First Said it? (Joe Schoemann)
• 18. Re: Is a Megilla Scroll Muktzeh on Shabbos? (David Riceman)

CM:
> So essentially (according to these sources) the answer to what I asked
> was: Yes, (advanced/ultimate) science is (somehow) embedded in Torah, but
> too deeply to be uncovered by mortals (cf. chukim) and thus unreasonable
> to expect Chazal to have advanced scientific knowledge based on their
> prowess in limud Torah and therefore not a lack of emunas chachamim
> to believe they were only aware of the state of science available in
> their era (contrary to [some of] the chareidi position[s]). Is that
> essentially it? 

Re:
> and thus unreasonable to expect Chazal to have advanced scientific
> knowledge based on their prowess in limud Torah

And perhaps unreasonable to also presume that they lacked insight of a
the genre of
Jules Verne or
Gene Roddenberry or 
Isaac Asimov into how technology might eventually evolve.  

IOW why presume an absolute minimalist knowledge of those people
possessing their own great insight in addition to access to of Divine
Wisdom? Or or as the Maharal calls it Chochmas Eloki..



On a different tack

Today A young man who likes to daven a really long sh'moneh esrai missed
the m'gillah reading @ the minyan because he was still davening.

IMHO this is classic mosif that is gorei'a

M'vatlin h'oavdoah liqrias m'gillah, maybe he could have cut his davening
to finish by the end of laining?

Frelichen
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

While it is almost universally Chasiddisher minyonim where the congregation
read the Haftora rather than listening to the oleh/baal koreh, it's worth
noting that the Chazon Ish paskens that one is only yotzei Haftora through
Shomei'ah Ke'Oneh when the Haftora is leyned from a Klaf, but when there is
only a chumash or nach to read from, it is necessary for individuals to read
it themselves.

I hope that a lucid response sent at this hour on Shushan Purim does not
elicit suspicion that the Mitzvos Hayom were not fulfilled to a suitable
degree.

ADE

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Prof. Levine
<llev...@stevens.edu>wrote:she expressed her surprise that they did
not read the Haftorah out
loud.  She asked me why, and I could not give her a reason. I asked some
people who daven in this Shtiebel what the reason is for not reading the
Haftorah out loud, and no one seemed to know.
>
>
> Can anyone enlighten me so I can enlighten my wife?
>
> Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100301/faab5256/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [NishmaBlog] If M'gillah is Talmud Torah...
>
> I've seen several articles praising Q'riat Me'gillah as a form of public
> Talmud Torah. If so - im kein - how do we understand"M'vatlin Talmud
> Torah liqriat hamgilah?"
>

Don't recall if I've seen this somewhere, but perhaps there are different
levels of Talmud Torah.  If someone is intellectually capable of engaging in
gemara (with everything that it entails) but contents himself with mikra,
perhaps he'd be, in a sense, m'vatel torah.

Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100228/79c920ad/attachment-0001.htm>

kennethgmil...@juno.com

Asked about Melech in Yaaleh v'Yavo in Bentsching...

The rule is that no Malchus other than David's is allowed in that brachah

And Yaaleh v'yavo is inserted into that brachah

So now you have a classic conflict

A rule - no malchus in Rachem

Vs. The Nusach as is.

Some hold the rule trumps the nusach and it must give way and drop the
"melech"

Others hold that the nusach is exempt from this rule, because the rule
really is not concerned with yaaleh v'yavo when it is imported as a unit.

The common minhag AFAIK is to leave yaaleh v'yavo alone. But it could
go either way.

KT
RRW

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:21:04PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: And I suspect RSM was illustrating that drift by showing a piece of Shas

... speaking of the notion that Parashas Zakhor is deOraisa ...

: - that had been rejected by Rishonim as being normative - morphed into
: becoming normative by acharonim.

Here's a bet... Our grandchildren will possibly live in a world where
"everyone knows" that "chayav inish livsumei bePurei" isn't about
getting drunk on Purim. R' Shmuel Kamenecki went on record this year
saying that getting drunk on Purim is altogether assur. For all of the
re-teitching and excuses, we can't pretend that minhag Yisrael saba was
anything but getting inebriated.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:09:19PM -0500, Joshua Meisner wrote:
: On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > I've seen several articles praising Q'riat Me'gillah as a form of public
: > Talmud Torah. If so - im kein - how do we understand"M'vatlin Talmud
: > Torah liqriat hamgilah?"

: Don't recall if I've seen this somewhere, but perhaps there are different
: levels of Talmud Torah.  If someone is intellectually capable of engaging in
: gemara (with everything that it entails) but contents himself with mikra,
: perhaps he'd be, in a sense, m'vatel torah.

Shema is a qiyum of talmud Torah. Some examples:

A reason for saying Shema before Shemoneh Esrei is lehispallel mitokh
davar shel Torah.

If you didn't say birkhas haTorah (BhT) before Shema, birkhas Ahavah serves
as that day's BhT and you don't say BhT.

Of course, Berakhos 1:2 tells you that saying Shema after the zeman, "lo
hifsid -- ke'adam shehu qorei baTorah".


Y-mi Berakhos ad loc (8a) writes that stop learning for Shema but not
for Amidah. R' Acha explains that this is because of the 2, only Qeri'as
Shema is a devar Torah. Rabbi Ba answers that it is because Qeri'as Shema
has a fixed time, and [at least deOraisa], tefillah does not. R' Yosi,
after the gemara's discussion, is taken as saying that it's because
Shema only requires kavanah for three pesuqim, and therefore it more
doable in the middle of a shiur or seder limud.

On the next amud (8b) the gemara explains Rashbi in a manner along the
same lines as R' Acha fused with R' Abba, and it echos what RJM is saying
about megillah: In general, you don't interrupt learning for learning
one thing to learn another. During zeman Qeri'as Shema, though, it
outranks other learning.

Rabbi Yudan says that Rashbi himself, since he was tadir bedivrei Torah,
Shema bizmanah loses that preferability.

(BTW, WRT Rabbi Ba. I recently encountered a Y-mi that uses R' Ba and
R' Abba to refer to the same person. See the machloqes R' Abba and R'
Yehoshua ben Levi on 6:4 (47a), which R' Yosi then tells us "hada deR'
Ba peliga al deR' Yehoshua ben Levi..." Could be a shibush, the Y-mi
has quite a number; or it could be that "Ba" is simply a shortening of
"Abba". It fits the general Y-mi Aramaic pattern to drop minor leading
letters.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 04:54:07AM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Who was the first Poseiq to suggest or require reading BOTH Zecher and
: Zeicher in Parshas Zachor?

MB, no? (We've been around this topic on list a number of times, starting
from around v3n168 or so.)

Maaseh Rav says the the Gra was maqpid to say "zeikher", and in his
hasqamah, R' Chaim Volozhiner disagrees and says the Gra was maqpid to
say "zekher".

FWIW, R' Jack Love argues in favor of "zeikher". Think about it:
saying "destroy all memory of Amaleiq, don't forget!" is a paradox. In
fact, today, the greatest thing keeping knowledge that there once
was a nation/tribe called Amaleiq alive is the very chiyuv in
question. Therefore, he suggests the Gra's haqpadah was to read the
pasuq as "destroy all reminders/memorials of Amaleiq". Which would be
with a zeirei, not a segol. (Much the way pi'el and pu'al use rounder
vowels than qal and nif'al.) This theory was questioned by RILJacobson
a number of times in previous iterations; at least we're consistent. <g>

What does this mean WRT Ashrei? RHSchachter records in Nefesh haRav that
RYBS said "Zekher rav... Zeikher rav..." (or perhaps in the other order,
I don't recall). However, if RJL's explanation of the nafqa mina is
correct, since people speak of the "fame of Your great Goodness", not
of reminders of that Goodness, it should be "zekher". The mesorah has
"zeikher", but Artscroll has "zekher" anyway, as RAM noticed in v10n126.

For that matter, in favor of RILJ's objection (oh no, a break from the
pattern!) is that while the two uses -- Par' Zakhor and Ashrei -- have
different meanings, the mesorah has the same niqud, "zeikher", for both.

The MB is in 685 s"q 18, where he suggests being chosheish for both
opinions and saying both. He doesn't cite anyone else making this
suggestion, so it looks like he was the first.

(Queue the usual discussion about the CC's intent when he wrote such
things about being chosheish for both sides of a machloqes and whether
he meant it lehalakhah ulemaaseh, lifnim mishuras hadin, or whether
the MB wasn't even intended to be lemaaseh altogether.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:26:04AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
:> Let's just say that the Zohar (source of #1)

: See Midrash Rabba 1:1.  And see Theodor-Albeck's notes, which cite Philo 
: as the ultimate source.

And any rishon who likes Plato. (Which is why I recalled the Zohar,
which is clearly a fellow traveler with the neo-Platonists.) Shadows
of the Ideals on the cave wall lends itself naturally to shadows of the
Torah in olam hazeh.

Point being is to divorce the rishonim who reach the same conclusion to
having gotten it from Philo rather than seeing it for themselves.

-Micha

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:08:06PM -0800, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: Please see the Dvar Torah I wrote on this week's parsha and Purim.
: http://mydvar.com/2010/02/judging-a-book-by-its-cover/
: For those who care, I mention Rav Hirsch ;).

Along parallel lines, in a category (where I also cite RSRH) on Aspaqlaria
(total of 3 posts, so far), I also link the theme of clothing in Esther
with the Bigdei Kehunah, and use that to reflect on why begadim get
tzitzis but a kesus gets gedilim, and what did HQBH make Adam and Chavah
upon their expulsion?

http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/clothing
Rashei peraqim:

Just based on shorashim, a kesus has to do with ervah, a beged has to do
with uniforms and office. Achashveirush has neither, just a levush --
something he wears. Even in uniform, he is no king, just led around by
his advisors (and perhaps blood alcohol). A kohein without the uniform
of office -- bigdei kehunah -- is oveir "zar haqareiv yumas", because
the clothing makes the kohein. Unlike Moshe eved Hashem, who did the
avodah during the yemei hamilu'im in a simple white chaluq, no need for
begadim to turn him into a kohein.

A beged therefore gets tzitzis, sprouts, extending the symbol of our
role of Jews into everything we do. Whereas a kesus gets gedilim, chords
bound with chulios, kerikhos and qesharim, confining our baser urges.
(Perhaps, using RYBS-speak, we could say that a kesus is an article of
retreat, and a beged is worn to advance.)

One of the bigdei kehunah is a kutones. Which means that the kusnos or
that HQBH made Adam & Chava were begadim, not kesusim. He didn't give
them clothing merely to cover their nakedness. Hashem gave them uniforms
asserting the greatness of humanity even as He expelled them from the
gan.



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)

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> So if that is the text of the pasuk (and, according to my Tanach, it
> is), then why would we include the word "Melech" for Shmoneh Esreh,
> and omit it only in Birkas Hamazon? Why, for example, would one say
> it in Maariv on the first night of Pesach, but [not] at the Seder on
> the first night of Pesach?

That we don't follow the nusach of the pasuk exactly is no chiddush;
the nusach hatefilah often alludes to psukim, or borrows language from
them, without quoting them exactly.  The nusach that Chazal established
for Yaaleh Veyavo includes "melech".  The question is why omit it in
benching, and the reason is that one may not mention Malchut Shamayim
in the same context as malchut beit David.  Those who leave it in say
that this is far enough removed the mention of "malchut beit David
meshichecha".   See Ramo OC 188:3, but also see the MA and Taz.


> A related question: How widespread is the practice of omitting "Melech"
> in Birkas Hamazon?

The Ramo, who holds that it ought to be omitted, writes that he has never
seen that done.

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

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com asked:
> Who was the first Poseiq to suggest or require reading BOTH Zecher and
> Zeicher in Parshas Zachor?

Seems that it was the Chofetz Chaim in MB 685:7:(18) "Know that some
say that you should read Zeicher Amolek and some say Zecher therfore
you should read it twice."

He does not quote a source; something rather unusual for the MB, AFAIK.

This year our Ba'al Koreh did us the same "favor" during the Purim
morning Kri'as HaTorah; I wonder who started that?

Coming next: Saying Kiddush twice; Zeicher/Zecher L'Ma'ase Breishis.

[Then there's the fellow who eats 2 Hillel sandwiches; Zeicher/Zecher
l'Mikdash k'Hillel]

- Danny, who grew up with Zeicher, until he went to Yeshiva.

Re: Carrying a Megillah to shul when erev Purim is on Shabbos
One Rav opined it's hachanah to carry the Megillah on Shabbos for
after Shabbos

I questioned: is it also not mukzeh - analogous to Shofar?

I checked some sources but no luck so far

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Re: Carrying a Megillah to shul when erev Purim is on Shabbos
> One Rav opined it's hachanah to carry the Megillah on Shabbos for
> after Shabbos
> 
> I questioned: is it also not mukzeh - analogous to Shofar?

No.  A sefer cannot be muktzeh.  


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

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 03:14:47PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: No.  A sefer cannot be muktzeh.  

Similarly -- a simple way to get around hakhanah problems. Read from the
Megillah on Shabbos. It's a qiyum of talmud Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Danny Schoemann wrote:
> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com asked:
>> Who was the first Poseiq to suggest or require reading BOTH Zecher and
>> Zeicher in Parshas Zachor?
> 
> Seems that it was the Chofetz Chaim in MB 685:7:(18) "Know that some
> say that you should read Zeicher Amolek and some say Zecher therfore
> you should read it twice."

It's certainly older than that.  How old I don't know, but L does it
(both in Ki Seitzei and in Beshalach), and they don't tend to paseken
from the MB.

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

What is the earliest source for having the Youngest Child recite
The Mah Nishtanah?

Zissen Pesach
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Danny Schoemann [mailto:doni...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:50 PM
> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com asked:
>> Who was the first Poseiq to suggest or require reading BOTH Zecher and
>> Zeicher in Parshas Zachor?

> Seems that it was the Chofetz Chaim in MB 685:7:(18) "Know that some
> say that you should read Zeicher Amolek and some say Zecher therfore
> you should read it twice."

> He does not quote a source; something rather unusual for the MB, AFAIK.

I recently heard that Dovid Hamelech asked one of his generals, why he
hadn't wiped out the whole of Amolek, he had not killed the women . The
general replied that the Torah say zecher Amolok and not the women. So this
is an old error. Why we perpetuate this error puzzles me.

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Re: Carrying a Megillah to shul when erev Purim is on Shabbos
> One Rav opined it's hachanah to carry the Megillah on Shabbos for
> after Shabbos

> I questioned: is it also not mukzeh - analogous to Shofar?

Why should it be muktzah? Is it assur to study megillas Esther on 
Shabbos? (see Mishna Shabbos 16:1, PhM ad. loc. s.v. "v'she'ain korin 
bahem").

David Riceman



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 60
**************************************

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..."