Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 168

Thu, 26 Aug 2010

• 1. Re: One African-American Family's Journey to Judaism (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: new editions (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: SA and LH (Arie Folger)
• 4. saying tehillim (Eli Turkel)
• 5. achronim and rishonim (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: new editions (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: what was he thinking? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. New editions (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: New editions (Micha Berger)
• 10. Saying Tehillim for a sick person (Dov Kaiser)
• 11. Re: Saying Tehillim for a sick person (Micha Berger)
• 12. searching for two sources (Yaacov Shulman)
• 13. Re: searching for two sources (Gershon Dubin)
• 14. Re: searching for two sources (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 15. Re: Saying Tehillim for a sick person (Zev Sero)
• 16. Variations in Sephardi and Ashkenazi Liturgy. Pronunciation, and Custom (Prof. Levine)
• 17. pikuach nefesh (Eli Turkel)

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com> wrote:
> Hope you didn't have any Sefardim there who you gave bishul akum according
> to the Beis Yosef.

??? The food was fully cooked before yomtov, the nokhri only reheated
it (devarim la'him).

But no, there weren't any Sefardim there. And anyway, in our town,
there is a real geographic minhag hamaqom, and it is minhag Ashkenaz,
enforced by the local rabbinate (one hekhsher, for both kehillot
together, for example).

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits
* Sollten wir alle Kohanim sein?
* Videovortrag: Wer hat die Psalmen verfasst?

RMB wrote:
> Still, I recall someone on Avodah arguing the SA as a hard date. If you
> recall, the post you're replying to was a summary of positions already
> discussed *and sourced* here. Not my own thoughts.

Well, we know when it was first publoished, that is a hard date. And
in there is also written when he completed the work, which is a hard
date, but acceptance of the SA happened over time, and for that no
hard date can possibly exist.

> : So, I agree that there are different ways to attempt to figure out
> : what the Beis Yossef *really* thought (and I am quite mystified that
> : you left out his magnum opus from the sources of possible definite
> : opinion. I would consider that the most weighty source)...
>
> Because I do not recall anyone in the previous discussion who considered
> the BY definitive. It's earlier than the SA, and far more theoretical
> than a presentation of halakhah ulemaaseh.

The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
felt differently. The SA is rather the Cliff Notes to the BY, and I
would not call the latter more theoretical, it is also very much
concerned with psaq.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits
* Sollten wir alle Kohanim sein?
* Videovortrag: Wer hat die Psalmen verfasst?

RMCohen asked:
> does anyone have a good answer why SA doesn't mention hilchos LH?

Because it doesn't necessarily fit neatly into a cubicle. Depending on
one's understanding of LH, it may have a lot to do with dinei mamonot,
hezeq, but other aspects have to do with totally different issues of
motzi shem ra', etc. Perhaps therefore, RYQaro felt that the different
parts didn't belong together.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits
* Sollten wir alle Kohanim sein?
* Videovortrag: Wer hat die Psalmen verfasst?

There is a difference between davening, and trying to invoke G-d
theurgically, using formula in an attempt to "force" Him into healing
someone. The Rambam was vehemently against magical thinking, but he
didn't take "Refa'einu" out of Shemoneh Esrei.>>

There is a recent daily halacha from ROY on a nearby topic.
He discusses whether one can add to the amidah a prayer a 1000 times
asking for some help.

He answers that the more that one prays and adds the better the chance
of being answered and
perhaps the 1001 time will work.
He adds 2 caveats. One is that one not be proud that one is foing so much
(iyun tefillah) and second that it not be a permanent addition.


The daily halacha (I believe from a grandson of ROY) that RSZA would
consistently
add prayers for the benefit/health of many people. Once in a while he would stop
so that the additions would not be permanent
-- 
Eli Turkel

<<But all that is unneeded. There is no strict demarcation line, just
like there is no strict line between Tannaim and Amoraim, with Rav
tanna upalig, R' 'Hiyya and R' Oshaya, etc. Why should the Rishonim
fare better than the Tannaim and have a strict line that "protects"
them from the A'haronim? And I didn't even get to the sources that
state that given true greatness, one can calmly disagree with Rishonim
and even Geonim. Just the Talmud is a solid line. I believe R' Moshe
says so, I didn't see it inside, but heard it a few months ago from R'
Hershel Schachter.>>

I believe that RHS in one of his seforim quotes R. Moshe Sloveitchik as
claiming that R. Karo was a rishon while the Ramah was an achron
(sorry I didnt understand it)
What is clear is that not only is there no sharp demarcation between
rishonim and achronim (what is the Radvaz? or Abarbanel?)
but that it varies from country to country.
The Maharil is an achron while his contemporaries in Spain or North
Africa are rishonim

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:25:15PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Well, we know when it was first publoished, that is a hard date. And
: in there is also written when he completed the work, which is a hard
: date, but acceptance of the SA happened over time, and for that no
: hard date can possibly exist.

I was trying to say that the SA being accepted as THE code makes those
that precede the SA more authoritative -- because they can be used to
justify divergances from that code, whereas acharonim can't.

Therefore regardless of acceptance, it presents a line between those the
SA could have possibly consulted and those after. Those whose authority
outweighs our use of the code, and those who don't. Not a hard line,
a generational line that allows for "R XYZ rishon hu upalig", a parallel
to the generation that lived through the mishnah. But again, that is my
own opinion, not the one I was trying to summarize in my initial survey.

...
:> Because I do not recall anyone in the previous discussion who considered
:> the BY definitive. It's earlier than the SA, and far more theoretical
:> than a presentation of halakhah ulemaaseh.

: The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
: felt differently. The SA is rather the Cliff Notes to the BY, and I
: would not call the latter more theoretical, it is also very much
: concerned with psaq.

I would say it's more concerned with existing shitos than the SA's own
pesaq. Of course, one shapes the other. But the chiluq we're discussing
presupposes talking about a case where the two disagree. In which case,
it is easily arguable that the BY was speaking lomdus, and the SA,
lemaaseh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I didn't know signing first was a kibud, though.

I recall a story about the Chofetz Chaim and Rav Chaim Ozer being asked to
sign a Kol Koreh about something or other. They "argued" back and forth a
bit, until the Chofetz Chaim insisted that the Gadol HaDor should sign
first, but Rav Chaim Ozer won by insisting that the Kohen *must* sign
first. The Chofetz Chaim acquiesced, but only if Rav Chaim Ozer would sign
after him on the *same* *line* (rather than below).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
$13/Month Car Insurance?
Insurance deal just passed now allows you to get car insurance for $13
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c746ce598ebc90891dst01vuc

Given aiui that R Yosef karo felt that the b"y was his magnum opus and the s"a was a summary-why not date from b"y's publishing?
Kt
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.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:23:16PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Given aiui that R Yosef karo felt that the b"y was his magnum opus
: and the s"a was a summary-why not date from b"y's publishing?

My argument is based on what accepting a code does to how we relate
to those who precede the code in distinction to those who post-date
it. Thus, it's specific to the SA because of its acceptance -- not
because of relative merit.

Again, since I realize I'm having a clarity problem, I'm arguing that
by accepting a code, we create a difference between those we expect to
have to be explained in light of the code, and those who we can lean on
as authorities to grant us license to differ from it. In the case of
the SA, that created the difference in how we treat rishonim with how
we treat acharonim.

On RAF's issue of whether that implies authorship date or acceptance
date, in the case of the talmud bavli, we follow authorship. Even though
redaction took generations, giving the savoraim a gray area status,
there were centuries between chasimas hashas and talmud bavli being
accepted as The Talmud Bavli. We don't consider the geonim of those
centuries as authoritative as amoraim, though. Even if in their own day,
they didn't believe their opinions had to be measured by their distance
from the gemara's masqanos. We, by accepting shas, created a situation
where they have to be.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RMB wrote:

 

<<Chumash: Keil na, refah na lah.
 
There is a difference between davening, and trying to invoke G-d theurgically, using formula in an attempt to "force" Him into healing
someone. The Rambam was vehemently against magical thinking, but he didn't take "Refa'einu" out of Shemoneh Esrei.>>

 

_________________

 

No-one claimed that refa'einu or refah na lah is assur.  The question is
whether pesukim may be recited.  This was dealt with in an article in
Techumin some years ago.  IIRC, the author cited R.SZA to the effect that
when reciting Tehillim for an ill person, one should davka have in mind
that the recovery should come about through the z'chus of the learning
involved in the recital.  Far be it for me to argue with R.SZA's halachic
reasoning, but his maskana seems counter-intuitive to me - I would have
thought that to recite pesukim that speak to the anguished heart of the
petitioner and express his longing for the choleh's recovery would be
alright; reciting them to create a z'chus of talmud torah seems more
theurgic and problematic to me.

 

Also IIRC, the Tzitz Eliezer held that when we recite pesukim for an ill
person, we should simultaneously intend that G-d should prevent future
illness, as even the Rambam permits this, and the mixture of intentions
makes it muttar, based on a Meiri.

 

All of this goes to show that the question is not pashut, and gedolei haposkim have troubled themselves over the implications of the Rambam's words.

 

Something which seems obvious to me, but obviously not to the authorities
cited in the Techumin article, is that the Rambam uses the Gemara's
expression *lochesh al hamakah*, literally to whisper on the wound.  This
implies to me the sort of theurgic use of pesukim which R. Micha referred
to.  The recital of Tehillim b'derech techina seems very different to me. 
Of course, there are people for whom all of davening, and perhaps mitzva
observance, are theurgic acts, v'ein kahn makom l'haarich.

 

I have reservations about the addition of kapitelach Tehillim for cholim
(or any other reason) for another reason.  It seems that the siddur keeps
getting longer as each few generations finds that the existing text has
become keva rather than tachanunim lifnei haMakom.  So they add something,
which starts off fresh and grabs everyone's attention.	Aleinu must have
been quite something when Provencal kehillos first introduced into everyday
davening in the early Middle Ages.  

 

Then, time passes and the addition too becomes just another part of the
fixed text.  What we end up with is a really long siddur, choc-full of
techinos, extra perakim, chunks of Zohar (for Sephardim), but no more
kavannah than when we started.	And because davening is so long, it must be
rushed to let everyone get to work, so that even if someone decides to buck
the trend and turn his tefillos from keva into real tachanunim, there
simply isn't the time to say all the words at a speed that would permit it. 

 

It always surprises me when kehillos that rush their weekday shacharis make
such a big thing out of the passuk-by-passuk recital of Tehillim for a
choleh at the end, the mispallelim shockeling with furrowed brows as if to
say, "Aha, now we're really davening!"	What have you been doing for the
past 30 minutes?! The same thing applies to the marbeh b'kaddishim plague,
but that's for another post...

 

Kol tuv

Dov Kaiser

 

 
                                          
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100825/fdb803b9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:06:37PM +0000, Dov Kaiser wrote:
: No-one claimed that refa'einu or refah na lah is assur. The question
: is whether pesukim may be recited...

According to Reish Laqish, the pasuq existed since matan Torah. And yet
he had no problem with MRAH saying what HQBH already said he would say.
Admittedly, that might be a special case.

> Techumin some years ago. IIRC, the author cited R.SZA to the effect that
> when reciting Tehillim for an ill person, one should davka have in mind
> that the recovery should come about through the z'chus of the learning
> involved in the recital. Far be it for me to argue with R.SZA's halachic
> reasoning, but his maskana seems counter-intuitive to me - I would have
> thought that to recite pesukim that speak to the anguished heart of the
> petitioner and express his longing for the choleh's recovery would be
> alright; reciting them to create a z'chus of talmud torah seems more
> theurgic and problematic to me.

I see the line defining theurgy as being beyond one's attempt to get
sekhar. It's more about the manipulation of forces, trying to turn G-d --
or even more problematic, some mal'akh -- into a nisa rather than a Nosei.

But while doing mitzvos for the sake of sekhar is inferior, it's still
based on trying to align your ratzon with His Ratzon by making your
outcome more compatible with the terms of the beris. Not about invoking
supernatural forces to produce an effect. (Kishuf, as per the title of
the se'if in the SA that discusses lechishah.)

I don't have a source for the above, it just fits the data LAD.

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

Would anyone know the page numbers of these two statements from Berachos?
Thank you!

1. If a sinner feels ashamed before God, he is forgiven.



2. Hashem cries out like a dove from His place of holiness.


-- 
Yaacov David Shulman
Translator; Editor; Ghostwriter
Specializing in Torah and literary texts
shulmanwriter.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100825/a97b47a5/attachment-0001.htm>

The one about Hashem cries out like a dove from His place of holiness
is 3a.

The other one (doing an aveira and being ashamed of it) is 12b

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

  On 8/25/2010 9:19 AM, Yaacov Shulman wrote:
> Would anyone know the page numbers of these two statements from 
> Berachos? Thank you!
>
> 1. If a sinner feels ashamed before God, he is forgiven.
>
> 2. Hashem cries out like a dove from His place of holiness.
>
>
>
  Berachos 3a Dove
Berachos 12b Raba b. Hinena the elder further said in the name of Rab: 
If one commits a sin and is ashamed of it,10 all his sins are forgiven 
him, as it says, That thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never 
open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame; when I have forgiven thee 
all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100825/a8fe6b57/attachment-0001.htm>

On 25/08/2010 8:06 AM, Dov Kaiser wrote:

> No-one claimed that refa'einu or refah na lah is assur.

You obviously didn't read the article we're discussing, which makes
exactly that claim.


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

A couple of weeks ago in the midst of a discussion about changing 
Nusach R. Dr. Eli Turkel mentioned that he had written an article 
about this topic. He sent me a scan of his article "Variations in 
Sephardi and Ashkenazi Liturgy. Pronunciation, and Custom" that 
appeared in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.  This 
article may be read at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/areivim/variations_sephard_as
hkenaz.pdf

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100825/f02f877b/attachment-0001.htm>

R Zilberstein in his shiur yesterday discussed some aspects of pikuach nefesh.
Since it overlaps with some discussions in areivim and avodah I
thought of bringing some highlights.

The basic question was a plane who has a sick patient on boeard and
when should the
doctor insist on an emergency landing.
The basic answer was that for hilchot shabbat one violates shabbat if
the risk is more
then 1/1000 (R Elyashiv). Howver, if it involves a loss of money to
the airline company and other
passengers then one makes an emergency landing only if the danger is
greater the 5%,
i.e. mitzvot between people are more stringent then mitzvot between man and G-d.

Any international laws requiring the plane to make an emergency stop
would certainly be vaild
according to halacha.

One question he brought up was a case of a dangerous guard dog that escaped into
the negev in an isolated region. He was asked if they could search for
the dog on shabbat
since the was unlikely to dog was highly unlikely to see humans but if
that would happen
he would severely attack the person. His final psak was to use a Druse
driver and one could
violate rabbinical laws (including Techum according to some opinions)
but not biblical ones.

He told a story of some Belgian Jew who got on a plane friday morning
to go home and
was sitting on the runway for hours. He saw that shabbat was getting
close but the engines were
just starting up. To get off the plane he faked a heart attack. After
the ambulance arrived
and took him back to the airport he said he felt much better. R
Zilberstein said that if the airline
was nonJewish what he did was certainly wrong and a chillul hashem. He
said he could fly to
Belgium and ask a goy to take his luggage and bring him home. For a
jewish pilot he was
not certain since he would then be getting benefit from the actions of
the Jewish pilot on shabbat.
However, in any case he would have to pay for the ambulance and other
losses to the
airline and possibly other passengers. He then discussed several
teshuvot that discuss what happens
if he knows he does not have the money to repay the damages.

Other differences are that one can be mechalel shabbat to bring a
better doctor then the one
available but one cannot cause monetary loss for this even if he will
pay it back. If one
has diarrhea for 3 days it is considered pikuach nefesh and one can
violate shabbat to make the
patient feel better even if it is not a cure but one cannot cause a
monetary loss to others.

In summary it easier to violate shabbat even for a remote chance of
loss of life but to cause
a loss of money to others the sakana has to be more real and even then
one needs to pay back the loss.

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 168
***************************************

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..."