Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 61

Fri, 22 Apr 2011

• 1. More food for your thought (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: More food for your thought (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Hallel in Shul on Pesach night - The Ashkenaz Minhag to refrain (David Cohen)
• 4. ArHaShulchan 461:7, discussing the measure of when Matza is baked. (Meir Rabi)
• 5. candle on Yiskor (Reuven Miller)
• 6. Amaleinu - Eilu haBanim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Women and Matzah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Tzarich Iyun: Using Horseradish for Maror (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Hallel in Shul on Pesach night - The Ashkenaz Minhag to refrain (Ben Waxman)
• 10. How Rav Akiva Eiger got his Chassidishe son in law to put on tefillin on Chol Hamoed (Prof. Levine)
• 11. ... moledes bayis o moledes chutz... (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 12. The Singular Way Of Saying Kaddish (Chana Luntz)
• 13. COVERING EYES FOR SH'MA (Richard Wolberg)

From 
<http://www.vosizneias.com/81113/2011/04
/18/new-york-halachic-analysis-reciting-hallel-on-pesach-in-shul>http://www.vosizneias.com/81113/2011/04
/18/new-york-halachic-analysis-reciting-hallel-on-pesach-in-shul 



There is another debate, however, that fewer 
people are aware of.  What is the halacha if 
someone?s personal minhag is not to recite the 
Hallel, but he happens to be in a place where the 
Hallel is recited?  What should he do then?

This issue is a debate between Rav Moshe 
Feinstein zt?l on one side and the Brisker Rav 
zatzal and ibl?t Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky Shlita on 
the other side.  Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros 
Moshe OC Vol. II #94 writes that if someone finds 
himself in a shul that recites Hallel it is 
preferable to recite the Hallel and not act 
differently so as to avoid Machlokes.  Although, 
ideally he should do so without a blessing, if it 
will be readily apparent that he is not reciting 
a blessing ? then he should even recite a 
blessing rather than appear to act differently!

Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, however, is of the opinion 
that it is preferable to leave the shul earlier 
rather than recite the Hallel earlier and fulfill 
the opinion of the Ramah.  His opinion is cited 
in Kovetz Hilchos Pesach 18:4 by Rabbi Daniel 
Kleinman.  Rav Kamenetsky advises that it is 
preferable to sneak out of shul undetected.  If 
this is not possible, he advises to recite 
Tehillim instead ? also in a manner that is not detected.

See the above URL for the rest of this article. YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110418/e64aba4a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 02:57:20PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, however, is of the opinion that it is preferable 
> to leave the shul earlier rather than recite the Hallel earlier and 
> fulfill the opinion of the Ramah.  His opinion is cited in Kovetz Hilchos 
> Pesach 18:4 by Rabbi Daniel Kleinman.  Rav Kamenetsky advises that it is  
> preferable to sneak out of shul undetected.  If this is not possible, he 
> advises to recite Tehillim instead ? also in a manner that is not 
> detected.

I don't have access to RDK's QHP, so I'm wondering. It RSK's position
related to "kol ha'omer Hallel bekhol yom..."?

I could read that as the gemara saying there /is/ such a thing as too
much Hallel.

:-)|,|ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Regarding RYBS, according to Harerei Kedem (Volume 2, siman 101b), RYBS said
that his grandfather R' Chaim held that Hallel should be recited in shul
with a berachah.  This is in stark contradiction to the article in Shorshei
Minhag Ashkenaz (Volume 1, p. 278-9), which paints RCS as a staunch opponent
of the practice.

As far as the Gra goes, while I agree that it is unusual for a significant
departure from Minhag Lita not to be noted in Maaseh Rav, it is interesting
to note Biur haGra OC 671:21 (quoted in the aforementioned piece in Harerei
Kedem), where he says that the proof of the legitimacy of the minhag of
lighting Chanukah candles with a beracha in shul is the Hallel on Pesach
night, which is really a home mitzvah, but is also done in shul for pirsumei
nisa.  It would seem a bit odd for the Gra to give this reasoning if he held
that Hallel need not be said in shul on Pesach night in the absence of
somebody who is unable to say it himself at home.

That being said, it is definitely true that many of the minhagim of the
Perushim came from the Sefaradim and not from the Gra.  This could possibly
be because when they first arrived in Jerusalem, they had to "blend in" with
the Sefaradim for a number of years before the debts incurred by R' Yehuda
heChasid's group were canceled and permission was granted to officially
establish an Ashkenazi kehilla in Jerusalem.  I would not necessarily use
the minhag haPerushim as a proof one way or another of the position of the
Gra.

One final note regarding the blog post that started the thread:  I greatly
admire the work of Mechon Moreshes Ashkenaz, and have no problem with the
blogger's spirited advocacy of the correctness of the classic Minhag
Ashkenaz.  Those who adhere strictly to Minhag Ashkenaz even in Eretz
Yisrael do so with the full backing of respected posekim, and I have no
problem with that.  However, given the reality that some (though not all) of
the minhagim of the Perushim have been nearly universally accepted by
Ashkenazim in Eretz Yisrael (even if there is not any necessarily any rhyme
or reason to why some were and others were not), the proper policy of a new
Ashkenazi kehilla in Eretz Yisrael is not entirely self-evident.  There are
valid arguments both ways, and I do take issue with the characterization of
the vast majority of Ashkenazim in EY, who do say Hallel in shul, as being
"scared of deviating from the Sefaradi minhag".  In reality, the practice
simply reflects one particular approach to the definition, scope, and
applicability of "minhag hamakom."

Mo'adim lesimcha,
D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110419/fa5bdb1b/attachment-0001.htm>

This is also in the MBerura and other Poskim.
The explanation is
The ArHaShulchan 461:7, and the Mishneh Berura 461:13, in discussing the
particulars of determining when Matza is baked, make the following comment
after mentioning the Shiur of Chutin NimShochim.

Chutin NimShochim means that when the Matza is torn apart, there are no
doughy stringy threads stretched between the torn pieces.
Following this criterion they say, "and even if when it is moved it
crumbles, "Hi NifReChes", one fulfills the Mitzvah of eating Matza since
there are no stringy threads."

This appears to make no sense. Clearly the criteria of Matza crumbling is a
more comprehensive measure of baking than "no doughy stringy threads"
between the torn pieces. It appears as though the words "does not", are
missing; i.e. and even though it "does not" crumble when moved, it is
properly baked since there are no stringy threads. The comment might
possibly be directed to those who were unfamiliar with soft Matza,
reassuring them that it is Kosher.

However, upon closer inspection the truth is quite simple, we have
misunderstood the intent and meaning of "NifReches". The error lies in the
mistranslation of the word "NifRaChos". The meaning of this word has altered
over time; it no longer reflects upon what it used to. We use the word today
to refer to hard Matza. In modern Hebrew it describes a crunchy cracker.
However, the Gemara uses it to refer to Matza that breaks, or more
accurately tears apart.

The Gemara of Menachos 78b (and pretty much the same Pesachim 37a),
discusses the various meal offerings brought in the Beis HaMikDash, all of
which bar two, were Matza, unleavened bread. It quotes a Beraisa
that defines when Pesach Matza is adequately baked; when there are no doughy
stringy threads stretching between the torn pieces of Matza. Following this
definition of baking, Rava declares that the same criteria applies to Matza
for Pesach.

The Gemara is troubled by this unnecessary declaration. Rava states the
obvious; since both are defined as "Lechem", bread,  they are both defined
by the same criteria.

However, the Gemara explains: since the Torah alludes that the sacrificial
breads must be whole and complete, we may have followed a Talmudic principle
of, "Kol HaOmed". According to this principle, even if we for example, are
instructed to combine certain mixtures, we need not actually combine them
provided we have them in a container that would permit us to make the
combination. Similarly here, although the finished product is whole and
complete, it will not maintain that completeness if we were to pick it up by
one edge and move it. It is not baked so firmly to remain complete if moved
by an edge. Rava declares that this is not a problem, it is still deemed to
be complete and whole.

We have therefore various levels of baking. Chutin NimShochim, when there
are no doughy stringy threads, is the first level of baking. A further step
is attained when the baked goods can be handled by their edge and moved
around without breaking apart.

The Mishneh Berura and other Poskei Acharonim are simply saying that the
Matza is satisfactorily baked even though it will break apart when handled
by their edge and moved around.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110420/aed2b34d/attachment-0001.htm>

I havec seem 2 minhagim -those who light a "ner neshama" only on Yarzeit and 
on erev Yom Kippur and those who also light befroe every day of Yiskor/

What is the makor for the 2 minhagim? Is it related to chassidish-litwish?

moadim l'simcha
Reuven Miller 

Someone at the seder pointed out that this derashah, "'ve'es amaleinu' --
eilu habanim", seems tenuous. Isn't ameilus about toil? Why then do we
darshen it to refer to the infant boys being taken away and drowned?

:-)|,|ii!
-Micha

We were discussing on Areivim a minhag (observed by the Liska Rebbe)
to only eat matzah on Pesach as needed for the mitzvos of the first
nights. Someone asked about motzi la'az al harishonim, and I suggested:

>>                  my bet is that those who have this minhag would say
>> that it's nisqatnu hadoros that cost us the art of making baked goods
>> that one can rely on even without the 1st night's chiyuv outweighing
>> the minimal cheshash we have today.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 09:57:50AM +0300, Ben Waxman replied:
> If they really believed that then they wouldn't allow women to eat matza.

Pesachim 43b: "Lo sokhal alav chameitz" includes anyone who is obligated
in the issur of chameitz. And so, women are mechuyavos in Pesach, matzah
and marror.

This distinction, as well as the numerous other exceptions to the rule
of mitzvos asei shehazman gerama, led RSRH to suggest that there is
a second, unstated, criterion -- that the mitzvah must also relate to
man's calling to "mil'u es ha'aretz vikivshuha".

RSRH notes the difference between q'ri and kesiv in the last word. While
the nikud for "vikishuha" is in the plural, the qubutz/shuruk is written
chaseir, as though the word is in the singular. As in the rest of the
pasuk, "peru urvu", the obligation rests on the man, but it takes both
genders in order to acheive this goal. As he puts it, "by excusing the
female sex from the hard labor of subduing and mastering the earth,
He left it free to be devoted to the higher and more humanistic task
of employing the products of the man's labor for the ethical purposes
of building up a house and a family, that is to say, in the service of
his true vocation..."

IOW, it's Jewish man's duty to extend the influence of kelal Yisrael,
it's the woman's duty to insure that we, internal to beis Yisrael,
stay on course.

I called this in the past "inside" and "outside", as it relates also
to Hirsch's translation of the verse "kol kivudah bas melech penimah --
the daughter of the King is all-glorious inside". Man focuses on goal,
on moving outward, kibbush; woman refocuses on the process, on the
internals of how that goal is reached. (Be it on the level of the home
or of the community.)

The seder is internal, in the sense that it's "vehigadta levincha machar".
Succah, however, deals with the relationship between "inside" and
"outside", which is why we leave the home. Therefore, RSRH explains,
women are mechuyavos in seder and its mitzvos but not in succah.

According to RSRH, if we take the two criteria together, all the
exceptions to the rule of MASG evaporate. However, one could argue that
this mapping from mitzvah to ta'am, and therefore to whether or not
it relates to vikivshuha, is somewhat subjective. With a different
understanding of the purpose of Succah, perhaps one could argue
otherwise. For example, Succah could also be seen as teaches us the nature
of home, and the difference between the Jewish home and the house of
hishtadlus that it dwells in. In which case, why aren't women mechuyavos?

Perhaps RSRH would say that this is why the 2nd criterion isn't included
in Chazal's rule-of-thumb. It's too hard to pin down to be a useful
guideline. It's (also? or is this just a rephrase of the previous
sentence?) not the way halakhah and aggadah work -- you don't derive
halakhah from aggadah (until all else fails at providing a preference)
you learn lessons of aggadah from the halakhah. We can't use the
"kivshuha-ness" of the mitzvah to determine whether or not women are
mechuyavos. Rather, RSRH utilizes the presence or absence of chiyuv to
understand the message of the mitzvah.

(Most of this post was cut-n-pasted from what I posted in Jun 2000 at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n071.shtml#02>.)

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 2nd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed?

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:37:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://www.ou.org/torah/article/tzarich_iyun_using_horseradi
> sh_for_maror

The Egyptian god of male sexual potency, Min (or Khum) was worshipped
using prickly lettuce (Lactuca virosa and Lactuca serriola). The plants
are tall and have a white sap, so the symbolism for male fertility is
kind of blatant. During the New Kingdom (16th-11th cent BCE), Pharoah
would throw the seeds of these plants into the Nile as part of the
coronation ceremony. (Some suggest other shichvas zera was also involved.)
By most cronologies would include the Par'oh of yetzi'as Mitzrayim.

Min's festival was at grain harvest time, each spring. IOW, the same time
as Pesach.

I would therefore think there is poetic justice in placing a sheep
(either itself sacred to Mitzriyim or sacred due to association with
mazal Nissan) on Min's sacred plant, and turning it into a qorban.

Both lettuces are relatives of modern cultivated lettuces, were generally
eaten, and are particularly bitter. To the American eye, they resemble
huge milkweed/dandilion plants. (Complete with gender-specific flowers,
the pollen-producing yellow "dandilion" looking ones, and the female
cloud of seeds we used to call "blowies" as kids.)

Of the cultivated lettuces, romaine/cos is generally considered (by
lettuce growers with web sites) to be closest to the original. Which
explains its use. But dandilion leaves would probably by closer in
experience.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 2nd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed?

And the Biur HaGra, I was told, is a much better source of "Minhag HaGra" than Maaseh Rav.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Cohen 


  As far as the Gra goes, while I agree that it is unusual for a
  significant departure from Minhag Lita not to be noted in Maaseh Rav, it
  is interesting to note Biur haGra OC 671:21 (quoted in the aforementioned
  piece in Harerei Kedem), where he says that the proof of the legitimacy
  of the minhag of lighting Chanukah candles with a beracha in shul is the
  Hallel on Pesach night, which is really a home mitzvah, but is also done
  in shul for pirsumei nisa.  It would seem a bit odd for the Gra to give
  this reasoning if he held that Hallel need not be said in shul on Pesach
  night in the absence of somebody who is unable to say it himself at home.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110421/a01cd36a/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/3nkfhyr

We see from this story how firm the great Rav Akiva Eiger was that 
one must follow the pesak of the RAMAH and wear tefillin on chol 
hamoed, that he got his Chassidishe son in law to do so as well. Rav 
Akiva Eiger was aware of those who felt otherwise, but he insisted 
that the Pesak of the RAMA must be carried out. And we see the 
greatness of the son in law as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110421/d104f4a9/attachment-0001.htm>

Vayikra 18:3 & 9: C'maaseh Mitzrayim asher y'shavtem-bah lo sasu.... Ervas achos'cha bas-avicha o bas-imecha 
moledes bayis o moledes chutz lo s'galeh ervasan. 

Ibn Ezra (paraphrasing... I don't have it in front of me, but I saw it on Shabbos): ... Yesh omrim: That she grew up in 
the house with you or outside of the house. 


==== 
What is interesting about this is that there is evidence that the ancient Egyptians DID marry their sisters. 
Census records document this fact. But, analysis suggests that the age differences were such that generally 
the sisters were enough younger than the brothers they married that they didn't share a residence while growing up. 

This is relevant to the Westermark effect: The fact that we are typically not sexually attracted to members of the 
opposite sex (whether genetic relatives or not) who we lived with in childhood. This is true in non-Human animals, 
and has been supported by research among humans, including the fact that children who grew up in child dormitories 
of kibbutzim didn't usually marry children that shared the dorm with them. Also, in certain Asian royal families, the predetermined 
bride would move to live with the husband to be at an early age. Marriages that had this arrangement produced fewer offspring 
than those without this arrangement. 

The Torah had to warn us against both because 
our natural repulsion to incest doesn't necessarily include those moledes chutz. 

I love it when my work and Torah come together. I love that I'm going to be able to quote Ibn Ezra in a Psychological 
publication! 

- Moed Tov, 

Steve 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110421/e3f02901/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL writes:
 
> Please see the detailed discussion on the development of Kaddish
> Yasom at http://tinyurl.com/64g7dlv and in particular the discussion
> under the heading SEPHARADIC ATTITUDES TOWARD KADDISH, ADOPTION OF
> GROUP KADDISH 

I had a look at the piece.

However the author provides no evidence, just an assertion, that amongst the
Sephardim there was an "adoption" of a group kaddish for kaddish yasom from
a previously singular kaddish.

His reference to the Ben Ish Chai seems to me to be disingenuous.  As is
clear (and indeed he articulates this earlier in the piece) there are two
really quite separate forms of kaddish, those that are a chiyuv (which
therefore has to be said by a bar chiyuva, ie over bar mitzvah) and which
are thus said by the Shatz, and the kaddish yasom, which was instituted for
the kattanim, and therefore of necessity is not a chiyuv.

What the Ben Ish Chai was concerned about was the custom in Bagdad of saying
the kaddishim which are a chiyuv as a group, not those said by the yesomim.

In fact I think that contrasting the discussion in Ashkenaz and Sepharad
suggests the opposite of what the author of this piece suggests.  The issue
is this.  If you have a very limited number of kaddishim that can be said by
a minor yasom, then you have two scenarios.  Either you happen to live in a
society where minor yasomim are rare, so that there is usually none or one
(which is indeed the situation today) or you live in a world where death of
a parent leaving minor children is very common.  It seems pretty certain
that indeed that was the world, absent modern health advances, that
dominated in any of the times we are discussing.  That means that a
situation where there is more than one boy under bar mitzvah who has lost a
parent is going to be very very common.  And the fewer opportunities to say
kaddish yasom you have (and indeed the article suggests there were only a
couple on shabbas initially anyway) the more, if there is to be only one of
these katanim saying kaddish, do we need rules and regulations as to who has
precedence.  And indeed these rules and complicated regulations are referred
to and discussed extensively in Ashkenaz.  However they are not amongst the
Sephardim, as far as I am aware, similar discussions.  So what does this say
- in Sepharad it was unheard of for there to be more than one katan who had
lost a parent?  Or that they always solved the problem by having a group, so
such discussion was unnecessary.  I think the reasonable conclusion is the
latter.

And so, it seems to me, that in the author of this piece's desire to defend
and reinstate what all agree was the original Ashkenazi minhag, he appears
to slip into assumptions and indeed almost denigrations of a perfectly
legitimate alternative minhag, which makes just as much sense within the
framework of what drove kaddish yasom as the Ashkenazi one.

Thus it seems to me that the correct understanding is that historically
there were two different minhagim, one that involved group kaddishim and one
that did not.

What is interesting about the situation in Ashkenaz is that we now find
that, aside from the yekkishe communities, who retain the old minhag,
Ashkenazim have pretty much universally switched.

In some ways, I would point out, this scenario parallels a different
situation we are also discussing, namely that of crispy versus soft matzah.
Today, the minhag in Ashkenaz, I would say, it pretty universally to have
crispy, wafer like matza, but historically that would seem not to be the
case (despite the fact that technology wise, there seems no reason not to
make crispy wafer think matzas in the time of the Rema).

Do we say, as the blog that RYL quotes appears to wish to, that we really
ought to go back to what was done at the time of the Rema (at the very least
for the matza of seder night, which is the chiyuv)?  Do we say well, it
should be up to individual (or communal) preference, and if you want to go
back to soft matza you can, if you want to use crispy matza you can, and
similarly with a shul and group or individual kaddish?  Or do you say that
even if a minhag is relatively recent, it is a minhag, and, at least for the
seder somebody Ashkenazi should use crispy matza, and an Ashkenazi, non
Yekke shul, should stick to group kaddish?

How you go on this seems to me to say quite a lot about what appear to be
differing understandings and attitudes to minhag.  Is minhag what you saw
your father and grandfather do with your own two eyes, ie is it
fundamentally about the last vestiges of the mimetic tradition, or is it
about something more related to older and less specific history, and hence
can be determined by book learning and historical research which then allows
you to reinstate old minhagim.  I don't think any of these issues are that
simple.

 >YL

Moed Tov

Chana

> I came across the following beautiful explanation as to why we cover our eyes for the Sh'ma: ?
> 
> The Sanzer Rebbe (cited by R'Asher Weiss, Haggadas Minchas Asher, p. 393) cited this theme in explanation of the common practice of
> covering one's eyes at the beginning of keriyas Shema (see Berachos
> 13b). In affirming "Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad," we note the
> singularity and absolute
> unity of HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this world. Although din (strict
> judgment) and rachamim (paternal compassion) appear as distinct
> attributes to our imprecise
> perception, these entities are truly one and the same. We thus cover
> our eyes to represent the fallibility of our limited vision. As we
> acknowledge the unity of
> HaKadosh Baruch Hu, we will not allow ourselves to be "blinded" by the apparent existence of suffering and travail in this world. 
> 
> ? Excerpted from Rabbi Yitz Weiss's Toras Aish, Volume XVIII number 32, Pesach 5771 Article by Rabbi Yonason Sacks from his Torah Web column
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110422/87665ab6/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 61
**************************************

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..."