Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 2

Wed, 05 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: Why is the Amora mentioned before the Braisa? (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. amoraim and tannaim (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Rabbinate banning non-chalavyisrael products? (SBA)
• 4. nittel nacht (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. Hand-book of Hebrew abbreviations, with their explanations in Hebrew and English (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Interesting Vort (Rich Wolberg)
• 8. Re: The [Lubavitcher] Rebbe Joined the Banquet - Video (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: People of the E-Book? Observant Jews Struggle With Sabbath in a Digita (Hankman)
• 10. Rashi's income (Micha Berger)
• 11. Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Hankman)
• 12. Re: People of the E-Book? Observant Jews Struggle With Sabbath in a Digita (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending, to the dead (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending, to the dead (daniel@kolberamah.org)
• 15. Upsheren Custom of Hassidim (Prof. Levine)

 From: Yaacov Shulman <yacovda...@gmail.com>:

> I have a question on Gemara structure. Sometimes the Gemara reports a
> statement of an Amora and then states, "and in fact a braisa says so too!"
>
> Since the braisa preceded the Amora, it would seem to make more sense to
> first quote the braisa, and then state that the amora said the same as the
> braisa.
>
> I came up with a provisional understanding of this structure, which i would
> like to put forth, and request other people's thoughts.

Have a look at Rashi ("Tanina") in Chagiga 2b: ????? ??? ???? ????

?????. ????????: ??? ???? ????. ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ????

"We learned in our Mishna what we saw in the Braisa, which teaches us
that the Braisa is Ikar and can be relied upon."

Just a clue to try help you develop your interesting idea.

- Danny

<<I have a question on Gemara structure. Sometimes the Gemara reports a
statement of an Amora and then states, "and in fact a braisa says so too!">>

while not answering the question is reminds me of some other questions I
have had

1. Is Taana de-ve Yishmael a tannaitic or amoraic source? I would have
thought tannaite but
many times the gemara brings a drasha in their name and then various amoraim
disagree.

2. If a tanna quotes something in the name of a tanna (R Yochanan be-shem R
Shimon)
is that consider tannaitic source or an amoraic source?


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110105/925b2f43/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Ben Waxman  [on Areivim]
> http://www.dat.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/F715F6E8-3AC1
> -44D9-A43C-17ACD704D2F2/0/006SCH.pdf
> This document states the rules about chalav nochri.

[URL reduced to <http://bit.ly/etLwqz> -micha]

Is there any difference (to those who aren't makpid on Cholov Yisroel)
between the various following types of milk:

Chalav stam, chalav akum, chalav nochri, chalav hacompanies ?

Rbn Katz wrote

<<Eidot haMizrach would have been only marginally aware of nittel.  How
 many
christians are there in Arab lands anyway?  Not many, and they're  a very
small minority of the pop.   The kochos  hatum'ah  generated by xmas worship
wouldn't be very strong in Muslim lands.>>

I assume I got this today to remind us that January 7th is xmas in Russia
and we should not
learn this thursday night (at least for those whose ancestors come from
Russia/Lithuania etc)


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110105/0cf69d9e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 06/01/2011, at 1:26 AM, Rn'CL wrote:

> The point is the same. We have a situation where a specific halachic
> situation is innocuous (shofar blowing) and yet the psak is that an
> individual should not avail themselves of this halachic situation in order
> to fulfil their obligation (even in circumstances where no other option is
> available), because of other surrounding problematic halachic situations.

Do we know whether the person has a chiyuv to hear shofar under such a scenario according to RYBS?
Is this not perhaps a Mitzvah Habo B'Aveyro according to RYBS? The Aveyro perhaps going as deep as
Chillul Shem Shomayim according to RYBS?
Does a person have a chiyuv to daven when they find 
themselves surrounded by excrement and locked in some room? Do Chazal say "Daven anyway, you have no choice"?

I draw your attention to the recently published Divrei HaRav, where an ex-C B'aal Tshuva asked whether he should attend the C service
for his brother's Bar Mitzvah. RYBS was very very uncomfortable, and to be sure, you *can't* learn from one situation
to another, but his advice was to daven beforehand in a proper minyan, attend, but never answer Amen, and stand
when they sit, and sit when they stand! This might even be interpreted as being mekayem the mitzvah to be moche!
Interestingly, though, the Rav considered the effect of parents being estranged from their now frum son as being
critical (my interpretation)

Kethoneth Yoseph
a hand-book of Hebrew abbreviations, with their explanations in 
Hebrew and English, for the use of students of the Oral Law and 
rabbinical literature
by Joseph Ezekiel.



Published 1887 by 
<http://openlibrary.org/search?publis
her_facet=Printed%20at%20the%20Anglo-Jewish%20and%20Vernacular%20Press&
gt;Printed 
at the Anglo-Jewish and Vernacular Press in 
<http://openlibrary.org/search/subjects?q=Bombay>Bombay .
Written in <http://openlibrary.org/languages/eng>English.

is available either online or for download in pdf and other formats 
at http://openlibrary.org/books/OL22884176M/Kethoneth_Yoseph  and at 
http://www.archive.org/details/kethonethyosephh00rajp

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110105/0fd7d0cf/attachment-0001.htm>

I came across a very interesting insight which never occurred to me before but gave the "Ah ha" awareness.
We often hear that people die young because of sin, etc.
What was very interesting was that the first person to die was not Adam Harishon, not Chava, not Kayin, (all three sinners) but the best one: Hevel. 
And for Kayin's sin, he was not sentenced to death but ironically, he was sentenced to "Life" with affliction.
Consequently, those who are so sure that someone's death or suffering is a result of sin, should not be so quick to judgment.

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:27:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> "Before the passing of the Rebbe, I included myself among those who believe
> that the Rebbe was worthy of being Moshiach. And I strongly believe that had
> we, particularly the Orthodox community, been united, we would have merited
> to see the complete Redemption."
>
> That's pretty clear.  At the time we are discussing, which is *before*
> the "messianist" movement (i.e. the belief in a Moshiach from the Next
> World) arose, not only did all L believe that the LR was the person in
> this generation who would be Moshiach if we merited it, but so did RAS.
> There was nothing strange about such a belief.  And "Yechi..." at that
> time was a tefillah that he should recover and live to be Moshiach.
> So the Rebbe's apparent approval for it at that time can't be taken as
> proof that it's still appropriate after his passing.

See my onlist reply, where I quote that and the next sentence, and show
how it doesn't say that.

It says that RMMS would qualify, but we didn't qualify to have a messiah.
Thus, saying RMMS was even bechezqas mashiach (like that's a distinct
halachic state, rather than a chazaqah of a halachic state) is in
disagreement with what he said. And in fact, explicitly puts himself in
the camp of disagreeers when he berates those in that camp who take it
beyond honest machloqes.

You shifted the grounds of what you assert RAS supported before RMMS's
death. Your claim on list was
    At the time, of *course* all Ls believed he would be, or at least
    was very likely to be Moshach -- as did many non-Ls, including RAS.
Not worthiness, not even "might" but "very likely would be", or even
"would be" without any hedging with "likely".

But in any case, RAS coulnd't agree with "Yechi" because he didn't believe
that RMMS's worthiness sufficient cause for him to be mashiach. Necessary,
but not sufficient.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RSM wrote:
 However the image
on your computer monitor will remain in place until a person actively
is involved in its mechika

The writing on the computer screen disappears automatically without
anybody being actively involved in its mechika, and this is an inherent
property of the medium (unlike your attempted analogy to writing on a
box filled with dynamite).

CM responds:

Your response seems to contradict itself from one sentence to the next, I
presume you mean a monitor or screen with the difference being with or
without a screen-saver. But, programming the computer to bring up a
screen-saver is not an inherent property of the medium it is an active
involvement. My analogy (if I recall) was the similarity of your case of
screen-saver to programming the dynamite to blow up, neither of which are
the inherent property of the medium (screen or box).

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110105/9e561e8f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:08:58AM -0500, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrot to Areivim:
: While Chaim Soloveichik argues against the common statement that rashi
: was a wine grower, Avraham Grossman argues that he traded with non Jews,
: and brings proof from a teshuva of rashi (teshuvot rashi siman 180,
: page 200) dealing with a commercial dispute he had with a nonjew.

: However, to argue that he made money on his yeshiva - rashi is explicit
: that even someone who paid to learn is expected to teach for free
: (mishle 23:23), and it is clear that the standard from early ashkenaz
: was not to pay directly rabbanim

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 07:09:17PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote on the
same thread (not in reply):
:> ...    Rashi made money from his yeshivah, and there is no evidence
:> that he had any other source of income.

: see the seforim blog
: http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/08/mayer-i-gruber-how-did-rashi
: -make.html
: for a discussion of how Rashi made his income

: "Apparently, it was from the funding he received from communal assets
: paid on behalf of his students by the communities from which they came,[26]
: Rashi was able to dress himself, his wife, and his daughters in the style
: that befits a spiritual, intellectual, and communal leader of Jewry
: far beyond the boundaries of Troyes."

With all due respect to R' Dr Mayer I Gruber (the author of the article
on the Sefarim blog), the shu"t seems pretty open-and-shut proof that
he had means of earning money other than teaching. It's about Rashi
having a business partner who was oveid AZ and the situation required
him to make an oath, but Rashi didn't make him do it -- lest the oath
be made in the name of Yeishu. And after that Rashi resolved not to do
any large business with an oveid AZ without a contract.

Also, given his comment on Mishlei, I would be inclined to assume that
the tuition in Rashi's yeshiva was used for bedeq habayis, not paying
the rebbe.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Are there any chemists on Avodah? In the daf, 54a, the gemara brings a Tani
Levi that describes the construction of the Misbeach. It was concrete-like
in nature. It used forms much as we would today, aggregate of perfectly
smooth stones (not to be felt when passing a fingernail over them) and some
sort of matrix or "mortar" composed of some sort of mixture of sid, kunya
and zefes, commonly translated as plaster or lime,  lead, and pitch or
bitumen. My question is about this "mortar" they used. I did a bit of a
search to see if anything turned up about such a combination - nothing did.
There was some sort of use for lime and asphalt at http://www
.lime.org/uses_of_lime/construction/asphalt.asp under
Adding Hydrated Lime to Hot Mix Asphalt,
but I doubt this relates to nidan didan. Can anyone explain how they used
this mixture in forming the cement and how this functioned chemically? Do
we have any modern equivalent? Part of what bothers me, is the high
temperature (621.5 F) required to keep the lead molten? How to keep it from
solidifying before being poured over such a large area in the neighborhood
of 60 ft squared? Was it perhaps some chemical compound that included pb as
a component (but without exhibiting a high melting point) and some of the
resins extracted from the bitumen together with the lime?

Can anyone enlighten me?

BTW, I think there is a discussion about whether it is iron or metal that
is under prohibition of use for the mizbeach. But apparently lead was OK as
a component of the mizbeach? Perhaps the lead only enters the "mortar" as
an unrecognizable component of a compound (if not just iron is under
prohibition) with its own set of physical properties?

Also does the fingernail rule only apply to the individual stone aggregate,
or to the entire surface after removal of the form. If so, the
aggregate-mortar joints must have been near perfect - almost like a
polished surface!? Also does this fingernail rule apply to stone aggregate
buried in the interior of the mizbeach and never visible at its surface? If
yes - you will never know whether during construction a stone in the
interior became scratched and made the mizbeach pasul!

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110105/d7d2f0cc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:

>  RSM wrote:
>  However the image
> on your computer monitor will remain in place until a person actively
> is involved in its mechika
>
> The writing on the computer screen disappears automatically without
> anybody being actively involved in its mechika, and this is an inherent
> property of the medium (unlike your attempted analogy to writing on a
> box filled with dynamite).
>
> CM responds:
>
> Your response seems to contradict itself from one sentence to the next, I
> presume you mean a monitor or screen with the difference being with or
> without a screen-saver. But, programming the computer to bring up a
> screen-saver is not an inherent property of the medium it is an active
> involvement. My analogy (if I recall) was the similarity of your case of
> screen-saver to programming the dynamite to blow up, neither of which are
> the inherent property of the medium (screen or box).
>
>
??

The first sentence is quoting your message, was that not clear? In the
second sentence I am disagreeing with the first sentence, not contradicting
myself.

I admit that my use of the word "computer" isn't accurate, since the
discussion is about ebook readers, not computers with programmable
screen-savers. My ebook reader automatically switches itself off after a
period of inactivity. I don't know if this behaviour is configured in
hardware, or firmware, but as far as I can tell there is no way for the user
to change it.

IMHO another reason why there is no ketiva by computers and ebook readers is
that there is no direct human action that forms the letters -- the operating
system copies bits from one part of the memory to another, and any changes
in the memory that make things that look like letters appear on the screen
are caused by human interaction only after many levels of indirection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110105/29b82181/attachment-0001.htm>

RCL:
> The only explanation that makes sense to me is that by designating something
> as a shul, those supporting it are claiming that it has the sanctity of a
> makom tephila, and then by going there, even solely to hear shofar and not
> to daven, the individual is providing some support or strengthening for that
> proposition.

I'm not a student of RYBS, so my guesses are second hand, but my
impression is that you need to take into account two opinions of his.
The first is that synagogues are to be used only for prayer. See Nefesh
HaRav p. 257, #6, which mentions Rabbi Soloveitchik's opposition to
weddings in the synagogue for this reason. Incidentally I find that
opinion extremely puzzling, since the Rama (YD 391:3) mentions the custom
of holding the huppa in the synagogue with no apparent signs of distaste.

The second is his opinion that mixed seating in synagogues violates the
prohibition of uv'hukoseihem lo seileichu (ibid. pp. 231-232). Apparently
he viewed the impetus for mixed seating to be a desire to emulate
churches. Again I find that puzzling since my friends-and-relations who
attend conservative synagogues find mixed seating no more surprising
there than anywhere else in modern American life, and find our habit of
sitting separately in the synagogue extremely weird.

I think he viewed tkias shofar in shul as part of prayer, and hence
included in uv'hukoseihem lo seileichu, even if the listener attends
only to hear the shofar.

I don't know whether he would have prohibited a separate mixed gender
gathering in a conservative synagogue, not to pray, but only to hear
tkias shofar, but I guess he would have found it inappropriate as a
misuse of the synagogue.

David Riceman

Quoting David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net>:
> The second is his opinion that mixed seating in synagogues violates the
> prohibition of uv'hukoseihem lo seileichu (ibid. pp. 231-232). Apparently
> he viewed the impetus for mixed seating to be a desire to emulate
> churches. Again I find that puzzling since my friends-and-relations who
> attend conservative synagogues find mixed seating no more surprising
> there than anywhere else in modern American life, and find our habit of
> sitting separately in the synagogue extremely weird.

Interesting also because, TTBOMK, mixed seating was not a feature of  
the earliest German reformers, because they wanted to be more like the  
Lutherans who had separate seating in their churches!

 From http://forums.globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/904606335/m/1061
 013782

The upsheren custom of Hassidim, which at first glance seems like 
some venerable and ancient custom no good Jew would oppose, is 
actually a controversial new custom which they picked up from certain 
middle eastern Jews called 'mustarbim', which was and is rejected by 
certain great gedolim and communities.
<snip>

A very significant consideration is also the question if there is a 
problem of 'chukos hagoyim' with the custom. While we don't generally 
see it now (in western countries at least), the fact is that in 
certain eastern cultures (e.g. Arab and Hindu / Indian) a great deal 
was/is made of a son's first haircut and it was accompanied by a 
significant celebration. It seems that those Jews who started the 
custom Jews lived among such gentiles.

See the above URL for the entire discussion there.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110105/e387e5de/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 2
*************************************

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..."