Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 9

Sun, 16 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Hankman)
• 2. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Arie Folger)
• 3. R Chiya Raba (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: R Chiya Raba (Micha Berger)
• 5. Yayin Mevushal (Alan Rubin)
• 6. translation of 'na' (Simi Peters)
• 7. Re: Prayer for Air? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Matza made with < 50% rice or corn (Meir Rabi)
• 9. customs under the chuppa (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Brain Death (Harry Maryles)
• 11. Re: customs under the chuppa (Harry Maryles)

Rn'TK wrote:
Was it "literally built from soil"?  I thought it was a hollow copper  (or 
maybe brass) block with a copper mesh covering, and that when they  camped, 
they filled the hollow copper block with soil.  

CM responds:
I believe that the copper was more in the form of some sort of sheet metal
or cladding over wood, rather than mesh that to me means a surface with
holes in it and permeable, which would leave the adama exposed to the
surface (actually the wood [that you did not mention] between the adama and
the copper that would be exposed to the surface). (See more below on the
construction of the miszbeach).

Also I recall seeing a medrash that there was a machlokes Tanaim how the
mizbeach was transported. One held as you did, that it was emptied for the
transport and then refilled, but the other held that it was transported
full and not emptied and refilled. They also differed whether the aish on
the mizbeach remained burning during transport or not.

In an earlier post RZS [wrote, but not about the one in the Mishkan] and I wrote the following about the interior of the mizbeach:

  RZS wrote:
  The mizbeach was not solid stone. It was four stone walls surrounding
  a hollow that was filled in with earth.  So the work would have been
  tedious, but less so than you imagined.

  CM responds:

  Not according to my understanding.
  What is your source that there were stones walls filled with earth rather
  than a stone mortar-matrix throughout the entire volume of the mizbeach.
  The Tani Levi I mentioned in my original post that describes the
  construction of the mizbeach makes no mention of any earth fill. The only
  shitos that I can recall, speak of 1) wood walls clad in copper with
  earth fill (Mishkan, and according to some Shilo etc), 2) copper over
  stone fill [not sure if there was also a mortar in the stone fill, though
  I tend to assume so] (Shilo according to some), 3) and to my
  understanding entirely of a stone-mortar matrix (Bayis 1 and 2 and Shilo
  according to some [if I recall correctly]).


Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/4a8a98c3/attachment-0001.htm>

R'n Shoshana Boublil remarked:
> I find it interesting that despite the  fact that at least in Egypt and
> certainly historically elsewhere, building  with bricks and mud (and
> stone) was well known, when discussing "Mizbach  Adama", none
> of the mefarshim consider that it was literally built from soil.

Perhaps because of the following verse? (Deuteronomy 27:6)
Thou shalt build the altar of the L*RD thy G*d of unhewn stones; and
thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the L*RD thy G*d.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Kalendernotiz: Neue Vortragsreihe zum Thema Gebet
* How Does One Teach Social Skills?
* Moses und Ach?r
* Dodging the Draft in Dodgy Ways
* When Does Death Begin, According to Halacha?
* Nicht Rassismus, sondern ein mildes Urteil
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen

<<I don't think it has to, because the CI isn't claiming the 2000 years
is precisely from 2000 AM to 4000 AM.>>

Now I am totally lost. If we are not talking about exact years then
what difference does it make when Rav or R Chiya made a statement.
If we are talking about before or after the Mishna then presumably the
tosefta of R. Chiya (and R Hoshia) was compiled after the Mishna and is
still tanaitic.
Besides why are we only worried about Rav and R Chiya and not all the
contemporaries
of Rebbe.
Perhaps R Y Yishmael the son of R Yose is an Amora if he mentioned his
opinion
after the mishna was compiled. Going firther it would imply
that any statements of rebbe himself after the Mishna are amoraic
statements.
Again the mishna in avot quotes rebbe's son. Is that tannaitic or amoritic?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/c2189bd8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:18:45PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Now I am totally lost. If we are not talking about exact years then
: what difference does it make when Rav or R Chiya made a statement.

As I understand him, the CI (YD, Hilkhos Tereifos 5:3; Yevamos 57:3)
is saying there was an exact time of transition from the era of Torah
to the era of Geulah. That's different than saying that time was the
year 4000 AM on the nose. Just as the year 2000 AM (in a chronology the
CI would accept) doesn't mark any notable event I'm aware of -- Migdal
Bavel was 1996 AM, Noach dies in 2006, Beris Bein haBesarim is 2018.

IOW, the imprecision of the concept of "alpayim Torah" doesn't mean
the borders were fuzzy, just because the actual times were.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Zev Sero

> >  As I understand it, according to many authorities, if a non-Jew
> >  handles yayin mevushal this does not render it non-Kosher.
>    
>  That is according to all authorities.

Indeed though there appears to be disagreement whether what is labelled as yayin mevushal is really mevushal, whether pasteurisation is sufficient.


> >  The grounds
> >  for this ruling is that cooking would invalidate the wine for  avodah
> >  zara.
>    
>  Indeed.  Presumably this was based on the AZ prevalent in Chazal's day.
>  Note that there's no reason for a link between what's valid for the
>  BHMK and what's valid for AZ.  We have our rules, they have theirs.

Perhaps we don't know the 'lomdus' behind these criteria. One could make an
argument along the lines that 'mevushal' removes the 'shem wine' and that
this would be the same whether for Avodah Zarah or the Beis Hamikdash. Is
this discussed anywhere?

Alan

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:07:05 -0500
From: "M Cohen" <mco...@touchlogic.com>
To: <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: [Avodah] translation of Na
Message-ID: <148b01cbb190$71c60180$55520480$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

this week's parsha has the word Na twice.

once it means please (speak to pharaoh)
the other time it means raw (korban pesach)

the word is spelled identically - what is the connection between two?

mordechai cohen



I checked this in the BDB (Brown Driver Briggs lexicon of biblical Hebrew).
 The root of 'na' in the meaning of 'raw' is nun-yod-alef, unlike the 'na'
which is a supplication.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters 

    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/5bf85e14/attachment-0001.htm>

> Who says that someone in the air is not either Bayom or Bayaboshoh? If he
> or
> she is over water then they are Bayom; over land, then Bayaboshoh.
>

Or, if they are flying they are Bein yam u'vein yabasha - i.e between one
and the other.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/f653d1f0/attachment-0001.htm>

Thank you R Micha for the link to the article in JA by Rabbi Y Luban; in
which he says, "Kitniyot are prohibited because they resemble the five
grains. It follows that kitniyot should be treated like the five grains. If
kept dry or baked within eighteen minutes, kitniyot should be permissible.
Indeed, this is the position of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812), as
stated in Shulchan Aruch Harav."

There are many who protest against this but it is interesting that the ShO
H, says that adding Kitniyos to food is Assur, as Zev pointed out in his
related posting, since one is being Mevatel an Issur in the first instance.

Now this appears to be a little contradictory, on the one hand it is Muttar
to cook Kitniyos within 18 minutes but it is Assur to add Kitniyot to a food
that will be cooked within 18 minutes?

I wonder if the Issur is only to add it to potatoes lets say which may NOT
be cooked within 18 minutes. However it MAY be added Matza which will
certainly be baked within 18 minutes.

Furthermore, the Issur of Ein Mevatlin would probably NOT apply here. These
Matzos that are made with rice or corn are made for those who DO eat
Kitniyos. Now once they are made there can be no Issur for one who does NOT
eat Kitniyos to eat these Matzos since the Kitniyos are less than half and
not visible.
For example, if we are baking a potato kugel on Pesach and add inadvertently
rice flour to the mix, as long as it is less that half and not visibly
discernible, we may eat it on Pesach.
If we bake the Kugel for our neighbour who DOES eat Kitniyos, we are
permitted to rice flour. And if our neighbour wishes to share a piece of
that Kugel, we are not transgressing Ein Mevatlin. Ein Mevatlin is a din
that applies to the manufacture. The prohibition of eating such foods is
only a penalty for having transgressed the prohibition of defying the rules
of Chazal. But here we have not defied their rules.

BTW the same is true about chocolate made with Lecithin. It is made not for
us who do not eat Kitniyos on Pesach, but for all year round use or for
Pesach consumption for those who DO eat Kitniyos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110114/fea02469/attachment-0001.htm>

<<The reason why halakhah has only the chasan speaking under the chupah
is so that *once* in the marriage he can have uncontested say>>

In a more serious vein the custom in DL weddings has been to sing
"Im eshkachech ..." either in the middle or end of the chupa and then
break the glass and shout mazel tov.

In recent weddings this has been changed because some rabbis objected to
saying mazal tov over the breaking of the cup which symbolizes the destroyed
Temple.
Thus, the latest minhag is to break the glass in the middle of the song and
continue singing. After the song is finished the crowd shouts mazal tov and
so there
is no direct connection between the mazal tov and the breaking of the glass

in another vein, I have seen women read the ketuba but have never seen the
kallah breaking the glass

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110115/3ed4aba0/attachment-0001.htm>

RNS has written a controversial post where-in he claims that Chazal's
statements about certain vital organs are to be taken literally and not
allegorically as I have always understood them to be. He made these
statements WRT to the controversy over the Halachic determination of
death. RYGB takes him to task on this issue on my blog post today.
 
In the interests of seeking truth -- I believe this is a very important
post and should not be missed:
 
HM

Emes Ve-Emunah
Brain Death and Chazal
Guest Post by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

   Although approximately 20 years my junior, I consider Rabbi Yosef
   Gavriel Bechhofer to be my Rebbe. For about eleven years he gave what
   is arguably the most popular Daf Yomi Shiur in Chicago history.

   Attendance at his shiur given every day at 6:30 AM often numbered
   between 20 to 30 people. Included among his `students' at this shiur
   were some of the most prominent Jews in Chicago. Names that anyone
   who is aware of who's who in philanthropy would easily recognize.

   The regular attendees included prominent members of the right, left,
   and everything in-between. From Agudah to Mizrachi to Lubavitch. Rabbi
   Yechiel Eckstein, the president and CEO of the Fellowship of Christians
   and Jews was a regular member. After being shunned by some of the
   more right wing Shiurim in the city, he found a friend and mentor in
   Rabbi Bechoffer.

   Rabbi Bechhofer is not only a huge Talmid Chacham who has written
   Seforim in both Hebrew and English - he is an intellectual with
   an advanced university degree. He brings to the table a wealth of
   knowledge - both secular and religious - on many subjects. If one has
   any doubt about the breadth and depth of that knowledge one need only
   access one of his Shiurim given in Chicago given over 20 years ago.
   They are available at his [24]website. He is an independent thinker
   and does not follow anyone in lockstep fashion. He exemplifies the
   title of my blog: Emes Ve-Emunah.

   It is with all that in mind that I asked Rabbi Bechoffer to respond
   to a post written by Rabbi Natan Slifkin.

The issue is how to define the moment of death. The Gemarah tells us that
it is defined in specific ways such as when the heart stops beating or
when there is no longer any breathing. Until the modern era, that was
the way it was universally defined. But in the modern era technologies
have been developed that have found additional ways to determine death -
even while a patients heart continues to beat and he continues to breath
(usually via the aid of medical machinery).

We can now measure brainwaves. When brainwaves cease - a person is
considered medically dead. This means there is no activity going on in the
brain. This is called brain stem death. By keeping the patient breathing
and his heart beating it enables us to use his organs for transplant
purposes which can save many lives. Once those two functions stop -
the organs become necrotic and can no longer be used.

The problem is that the Gemarah does not discuss brain death. So may
Poskim do not accept it. This would make organ transplants impossible.
Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler has taken the controversial position that brain
death is indeed death and that Chazal would have been OK with that if
they had the technology. Rabbi Tendler has been the target of some
pretty heavy criticism for that. Rabbi Natan Slifkin (RNS) has made
note of that and defended Dr. Tendler in a recent post. He made some
interesting points. But is he right? Rabbi Bechoffer addresses that
issue in what follows.

This past Thursday, my friend Rabbi Natan Slifkin posted on his blog a
"Summary of the Life/Death Issue."

Rabbi Slifkin's post is an important one, as it goes to the heart
of what many of us find unacceptable with our colleague's approach.
I will try to be as brief as is possible without sacrificing clarity. I
therefore will limit myself for now to the opening section of Reb Natan's
posting. If there is need for further clarification, I will address the
rest of his statements.

RNS writes:
   The overall point of this discussion is to show that Chazal's views
   and rulings on life and death were fundamentally related both to the
   mistaken beliefs of the era about physiology as well as the limited
   medical possibilities. Thus, any halachic analysis of this topic must
   take this into account in order to be valid. Furthermore, our own
   understanding of physiology, together with the medical possibilities
   available to us, mean that brain death should be defined as halachic
   death.

This paragraph really cuts to the heart (no pun intended) of the matter.

When Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler proposed that "brain stem death" be the
criterion by which halachic death be established, he staked out a
controversial position (see the details of the current re-opening of
the controversy at [26]Hirhurim.

Nevertheless, his position was at no time and under no circumstances
predicated on an assumption that Chazal's views and rulings on life
and death were fundamentally related both to the mistaken beliefs of
the era about physiology as well as the limited medical possibilities.
Rabbi Tendler based his argument on a Mishnah in Ohalos and other sources
(see my [27]"The Determination of Death: Halachic Considerations" p.251).

His position took for granted the inviolability of the Halachic system
and of Chazal's unquestioned and unquestionable authority in the
determination and definition of that system and its parameters. Rabbi
Tendler's arguments were within the system - they inhered in its sources
and rulings, and were completely internal and intrinsic. Rabbi Slifkin,
on the other hand, reveals his cards right at the outset. He is here
setting out to demonstrate the "flaws" in the system, and on that basis
to suggest that it is outmoded and only partially relevant to contemporary
issues. His arguments are from without the system, and extrinsic thereto.

This point of view underlies much of my friend and colleague's writings
and is the basis of the uneasiness with which many of us regard his
perspective. We are accustomed to assume that Chazal are the final
arbiters of Halachah regardless of whatever thought process under-girded
their rulings. We assume that those thought processes are those of
human beings far greater than ourselves - of rishonim k'malachim -
and are very reticent to second-guess them, ever.

RNS writes:
    1. Chazal believed that the heart and kidneys are the seat of the
    mind and free will.

    At least some of Chazal - probably most or all - believed that the
    heart and kidneys are used as the mind and for making decisions
    (free will). Prooftexts are as follows:

        The Rabbis taught: The kidneys advise, the heart considers, the
        tongue articulates, the mouth finishes, the esophagus brings in
        all kinds of food, the windpipe gives sound, the lungs absorb
        all kinds of fluids, the liver causes anger, the gallbladder
        secretes a drop into it and calms it, the spleen laughs, the
        gizzard grinds, the stomach [causes] sleep, the nose [causes]
        wakefulness. (Berachos 61a; similarly in Midrash Vayikra
        Rabbah 4:4)

    This is not an aggadic legend intended to be understood
    metaphorically. The descriptions of the functions of the tongue,
    mouth, esophagus, windpipe, lungs, stomach and nose are all clearly
    scientific descriptions intended to be interpreted literally. The
    account of the liver causing anger is also consistent with standard
    belief in the ancient world. Thus, the account of the function of
    the kidneys and heart are thus also clearly intended to be literal
    descriptions - and there is no important role ascribed to the
    brain. This, too, is consistent with standard Aristotelian belief in
    the ancient world. The Rishonim and Acharonim agree that Chazal were
    speaking literally, as discussed in my monograph, The Question of the
    Kidneys' Counsel. Elsewhere, the Gemara relates halachos pertaining
    to the kidneys of animal offerings to the kidneys' function in man of
    providing counsel. Other Midrashim likewise echo this understanding
    of the role of the various organs:
        "'And God said to Moshe: Pharaoh's heart has become heavy
        (kaveid)' - He was angry. Just as the liver is angry, so too the
        heart of this one became a liver (kaveid), without understanding,
        as a fool. (Midrash Shemos Rabbah)

        "That is to say, the heart of Pharaoh was turned into a liver
        (kaveid) -- just as a liver has no understanding to understand
        and comprehend, so too there was no understanding in his heart
        to understand and comprehend. Therefore, his heart was hardened
        and was stubborn for him." (Midrash Lekach Tov)

        Like everyone else in the ancient world, Chazal thus likewise
        interpreted all Scriptural references to the heart (which most
        people today take as referring to the mind and thus the brain)
        literally. Scriptural references to the heart having various
        emotional states, to it housing wisdom and cognition, and to
        God judging a person based on examining his heart and kidneys,
        were all taken literally by Chazal.

Rabbi Slifkin is quite bold in his assertions. He purports to know
- and to tell us - when an aggadic legend intended to be understood
metaphorically. And he informs us categorically that these prooftexts are
(notwithstanding their Midrashic sourcing!) not metaphorical. But who
designated my friend the arbiter of these matters? One of my favorite
obscure seforim is [28]HaTalmud U'Mada'ei HaTeivel by Rabbi Yekusiel Aryeh
Kamelhar (Lvov, 1928). Rabbi Slifkin is familiar with this work as well,
as he quotes it in "[29]Messianic Wonders and Skeptical Rationalists"
in the Hakirah Torah journal, p. 203).

It is therefore curious that Rabbi Slifkin neglects to inform us of
Rabbi Kamelhar's detailed explanation (loc. Cit. ,p. 30ff.) of the
metaphorical meaning of the Gemara in Berachos, including the references
to the "counseling kidneys," etc. This omission is even more remarkable
considering Rabbi Kamelhar's explanation of the metaphors based on modern
medical knowledge!

Reb Natan's "rush to judgment" continues to be manifest in his citation
of the Midrashim concerning the metamorphosis of Pharaoh's heart into a
liver. A simple computer search would have revealed to him, as it did to
me, the august Chasam Sofer's metaphorical understanding of the Midrash
(Chasam Sofer Al HaTorah - Shemos 7:14; Sefer Chasam Sofer Al Meseches
Pesachim 7b;...or Sefer Agra DKalla 184b)

These are results that I came to in a very quick search. At the very
least, it is intellectually dishonest to not disclose that one's position
is by no means definitive. To respond that one has not done the research
is even more inexcusable.

Thus, it is untenable to assert - unilaterally and unequivocally! -
on the basis of such questionable sources that Chazal believed in a
certain medical system and that their positions are hence faulty.

RNS writes:
    2. Chazal were mistaken in this regard.

    That should be self-evident. We now know that it is the brain that
    is used for all cognitive processes and for making decisions. The
    heart and kidneys have no such role. In fact, the heart can be
    replaced by an artificial pump, and the kidneys can be replaced by
    a dialysis machine. Doing this does not impair a person's mind in
    any detectable, significant way.

    3. There is a fundamental connection between the mind/ free will,
    the soul, and the presence of a live person - and thus the mistaken
    belief that the heart and kidneys house the mind has fundamental
    ramifications on the question of determining death.

As we have demonstrated, Rabbi Slifkin's foundation is far from firm.
There is no definite evidence that Chazal believed that the heart and
kidneys house the mind. My colleague has built a house of cards upon which
he then continues to be dan dinei nefashos. Were I not to know that he is
a soft-spoken and humble person, my mind (the one in my brain...) would
be boggled by the the flippant regard towards Chazal implicit in his
approach. I therefore am dan l'kaf zechus that erroneous per-conceived
notions, traumatic experiences and harsh treatment have boxed Reb Natan
into a weltanschauung and an approach from which it is hard for him to
budge, regardless of its flaws.

posted by Harry Maryles | [30]9:48 AM |

References
24. http://rygb.blogspot.com/
25. http://www.blogger.com/(http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/01/summary-of-lifedeath-issue.html)
,
26. http://torahmusings.com/2010/12/brain-death-in-the-news/
27. http://www.yasharbooks.com/Open/OpenAccess13.pdf
28. http://hebrewbooks.org/5931
29. http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Slifkin.pdf

On Sat, 1/15/11, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a more serious vein the custom in DL weddings has been to sing
> "Im eshkachech ..." either in the middle or end of the chupa and then
> break the glass and shout mazel tov.

>> In recent weddings this has been changed because some rabbis objected to
>> saying mazal tov over the breaking of the cup which symbolizes the destroyed Temple.
>> Thus, the latest minhag is to break the glass in the middle of the song and
>> continue singing. After the song is finished the crowd shouts mazal tov and so there
>> is no direct connection between the mazal tov and the breaking of the glass

Im Eshkachech was sung at all four of my children's weddings -- just
prior to breaking the glass.

But I don't like this new idea of breaking the glass in the middle of
the song. It is a very strong mihag Yisroel to break the glass as a
momentary Zecher L'Churban and then go immediately back to the Simchas
Chasan V'Kallah. Singing Im Eshkachech as a prelude makes that moment
more poignant and meaningful. But breaking a glass in the middle of the
song seems to me to be an overly dramatic extension of the moment and
it mingles the Zecher with the song. That seems inappropriate to me.

[Email #2. -micha]

On Sun, 1/16/11, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ROY among others objects to saying mazal tov immediately after the
> breaking of the glass.
> This is an attempt to avoid the objections that breaking the glass is
> for sadness rather then the opportunity for simcha of mazal tov
 
I understand the reason and I appreciate who said it. But I still don't
like it. This is one of the most widespread Mihagim in Klal Yisroel.

Changing it based on what what a current Posek syas seems to be what
Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik was talking about when he said that the reason we
are moving to the right is because we no longer follow our own Mesorah
but instead look in a book.

Although ROY is not a book, he is nonetheless trying to change a centuries
old tradition. I'm sure that his rationale for changing it occurred
to many Poskim of the past. But it did nto occur to them to change the
custom in any case. I think that our Mesorah for a strong Minhag that
admittedly is not all that important and certainly not an Ikuv Halachacly
to anything related to the Chasan V'Kallah -- should not be changed.

[Email #3. -micha]

On Sun, 1/16/11, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am completely at a loss.
> The cistom of singing im eshkachech is a modern custom. I have never
> seen it at a charedi wedding. I was told that when they sang it in the US
> RYBS stopped them and said he didnt agree to new minhagim. Given that
> I find it hard to say that breking the glass in the middle or end of
> the song is a new minhag.

I agree that Im Eshkacheh is a modern innovation. But I don't see it as
much as the changing of a minhag as is putting an existing Minhag into
the middle of a song.

My son's wedding had very Charedi Gedolim under thw Chuppah: Rav Avraham
Pam was Mesader Kedushin and Rav Aharon Schechter read the Kesubah. Rabbi
Dovid Zucker, Rosh Kollel of the CCK (Lakewood) and Rav Yehoshua Heshel
Eichenstein were the Edei Kedushin. Then HTC RY, Rav Shlomo Morgenstern,
and Rav Aharon Soloveichik, ZTL both had Brachos under the Chuppah. None
of them raised an eybrow at 'Im Eshkachech. I wonder if that would have
been true had the glass been broken in the middle of the song.

I don't know... maybe I'm over-valuing the importance of leaving things
alone here. But it seems to me that the very singing of Im Eshkachech
should take care of the problem ROY has with not paying enough attention
to the meaning of breaking the glass. In fact Rabbi Zev Cohen a Charedi
Rav in Chicago who had the same problem that ROY did -- accepts singing
Im Eshkachech as the best way to deal with ROY's problem. I think doing
anything more is overkill and counter prodcutive as it changes things
too much.

HM


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 9
*************************************

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..."