Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 92

Sun, 12 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: 2 days yomtov (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] Oh, Oy, Ow (Allan Engel)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] Oh, Oy, Ow (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] Oh, Oy, Ow (Allan Engel)
• 5. Re: [Areivim] Oh, Oy, Ow (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: kimu v'kiblu, purim, (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: kimu v'kiblu, purim, (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Yizkor (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: border issues (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Yizkor (Gershon Dubin)
• 11. Re: Yizkor (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Ruth and Chesed (garry)
• 13. Re: Yizkor (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: kimu v'kiblu, purim, (Harry Maryles)
• 15. Re: Yizkor (Rich, Joel)
• 16. Yizkor 2 (Rich, Joel)
• 17. Pikuach Nefesh (Richard Wolberg)

Another data point from the Y-mi related to another old discussion.

There is a notion (Shir haShirim Rabba 1:6, quoting R' [A]bba) that
the reason for 2 days YT in chu"l is that it takes 2 days in chu"l to
acheive the qedushah one can in one day in EY.

In the Y-mi (Eruvin 3:9, vilna ed 26a), yom tov sheini shel golios is
framed as an onesh.
    Mi garam li lihyos mishmeres shenei yamim beSuria?
    Al shelo shamarti yom echad ba'aretz.
    Savurah hayisi she'ani meqebeles sekhar al shtayim,
    ve'ini meqabeles sekhar ela al achas.

Because it's an onesh, there is no way one could get /more/ sekhar than
by keeping one day.

Which dovetails with ShSR -- taking two days in chu"l to get what one
gets in one day in EY. Sekhar correlating directly to metaphysical chalos.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

I should have noted that I was quoting the Gra.

In fact, the four 'common' pronunciations of a cholam can all be transcribed
as combinations of other vowels.

1. Rhymes with 'grow', qometz/shuruk
2. Rhymes with 'pay', segol/chirik
3. Rhymes with 'annoy', qometz/chirik
4. Rhymes with 'allow', patach/shuruk

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Harry Maryles <hmary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 6/7/11, Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And the 'oh' (to rhyme with 'low') sound is really the sound of a
> > qometz and a shuruk.
>
> I disagree. The kometz/shuruk sound would be Awe-oooh.
>
> HM
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110610/61f9da03/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:01:42PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
: 1. Rhymes with 'grow', qometz/shuruk

I was saying, and I believe RHM was too, that "grow" and qamatz-shuruq
don't actually rhyme.

Try saying grooooooooooooooooow real drawn out. The sound you end up
stretching is neither a qamatz now a shuruq.

And the Israeli cholam doesn't have that /w/ sound at the end, and still
doesn't sound like an Ashkenazi qamatz.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:01:42PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
> : 1. Rhymes with 'grow', qometz/shuruk

> I was saying, and I believe RHM was too, that "grow" and qamatz-shuruq
> don't actually rhyme.

I didn't make myself clear enough, it's not two syllables, but
a contraction of those two vowel sounds. So If you form your mouth to
make a qametz and then segue into a shuruk, and contract the two sounds
quickly, you get the sound of an 'american' cholam.

Now, if somebody could just fathom how the 'american' sheva has mutated
into a chirik, I'll be most interested.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:35:00PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
: I didn't make myself clear enough, it's not two syllables, but
: a contraction of those two vowel sounds. So If you form your mouth to
: make a qametz and then segue into a shuruk, and contract the two sounds
: quickly, you get the sound of an 'american' cholam.

What seque? That was my whole point about trying to say a stretched out
cholam -- there is no piece that sounds like a qamatz or a shuruq. At
no time to you make two sounds contracted quickly.

I would say the American cholam is an Israeli cholam plus a "w".

And an Israeli cholam is a single sound, no more divisible than a chiriq.

As for the chiriq question... It's really an unemphasized vowel degrading
a schwa -- we just happen to pronounce half our chiriq's like sheva's. Much
like the final vowel in the Yiddish "Shabbes".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

R' Harvey Benton asked:
> 1. Why is the Torah binding if given to us by force? The answer
> often given is that we re-accepted it during the times of Purim.
> What then was the Torah's status upon us in-between Har Sinai,
> and the times of Purim?

R' Micha Berger responded:

> That answer isn't just often given, it's the next line in the
> gemara (Shabbos 88b). Rava presents it as an answer.

I do not see this as an answer to the question. At least, not an answer to the way RHB presents the question.

That Gemara might explain why the Torah is binding on *us*, and why the
Torah was binding on *Rava*. But RHB's question was whether it was binding
on the Jews <<< in-between Har Sinai, and the times of Purim
>>>.

Not only does that Gemara fail to answer RHB's question, but it seems to me
that it demonstrates the very opposite: If Rava says that the Torah is
binding on us because we accepted it willingly on Purim, then he appears to
accept the idea that the forced acceptance at Sinai did *not* create a
binding obligation.

(By the way, this Gemara is on 88a, not 88b.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city&#39;s best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4df26d0f5590433b423st06vuc

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 07:13:08PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger responded:
: > That answer isn't just often given, it's the next line in the
: > gemara (Shabbos 88[a]). Rava presents it as an answer.

: I do not see this as an answer to the question. At least, not an answer
: to the way RHB presents the question.

Agreed. RHB wrote "The answer often given is that we re-accepted it
during the times of Purim." So I just noted that "often given" is an
understatement. (He called it an answer, so I did as well.) But yes,
RHB did continue: "What then was the Torah's status upon us in-between
Har Sinai, and the times of Purim?"

To which I offered two possible answers:

1- According to the Meshekh Chokhmah, the mountain wasn't literally
lifted over their heads. It's a poetic description of how life before
hester Panim impacted our decision to observe. And yet, even though
every time we abandoned the Torah, Hashem sent an enemy to shake us up
and motivate teshuvah, it didn't actually stop us from repeating the
cycle over and over again.

2- The Ramban suggests that during bayis rishon, mitzvos were part of
the terms for retaining EY. As long as we were using the land, they were
binding for that reason.

Now I wish to add a third:

3- Tosafos (88a) note that "naaseh" was said volunarily before the
mountain was lifted. The whole bit was to keep the frightening scene of
matan Torah from changing their minds from the initial acceptance. But
the means the actual acceptance was made voluntarily.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:15:25AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Any idea on how yizkor got tied to shalosh regalim given that Vsamachta
: is directly in opposition to the emotions of yizkor? (I have one source
: with an answer but it's not overly satisfying-and the original minhag
: ashkenaz was clearly not to say it on shalosh regalim)

The original minhag, dating all the way back to the Tanchumah (end
of Vayeilekh), was to say something and give tzedaqah on Yom Kippur,
and it quotes the Sifrei about saying something on Shabbos le'iluyei
neshamos. It spread throughout Ashk in response to the Crusades, and
the Sepharadim took it on as the Ari's influence spread.

One theory why it got connected to YT is that aliyah laregel was a time
for giving tzedaqah. And therefore that aspect of Yizkor recommended it
as a fitting way to continue the tie between the regalim and tzedaqah.
But I don't have a source, just the grapevine.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:34:29AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: See Tos. "Yossi ben Yoezer" in Chagiga 16a.

: Ad lib overview:

: There was a single Machlokes between the Zugos, regarding Semicha on
: YomTov. This was the first non-resolved Machlokes.

: Hillel and Shamai argued about 3 other issues that went unresolved.

: Their numerous students - having not done enough Shimush - started
: arguing about lots of issues.

: King David's argument doesn't count since he was a minority opinion
: overruled by Shaul's Bet Din. (This refers to the MeKadesh
: beMilveh-uPruta argument. His Amoni/Amonit Chidush is not discussed.)

R' Sherira Gaon in his Igeres says the rise of machloqes really started
14 years after churban bayis and is the loss of ziv of chokhmah that came
with the death of R' Yochanan ben Zakkai. This is why the majority of
people named (and R' Meir, when left unnamed) in mishnayos are from R'
Aqiva's and his talmidim's generation.

Another thing changed during the days of batei Hillel veShammai -- the
Sanhedrin left the lishqes hagazis. I suggested here a long while ago
that that's why it took a bas qol to decide to follow Beis Hillel. By
the rules of pesaq, we should have anyway -- BH was larger. (Unlike tanur
shel achnai, where the bas qol was in disagreement to the rov.) However,
the notion of following rov without a formal count in the lishkah was
new and required strengthening..

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

It may be related to the idea of being nidon on each regel for something;  Rav Dovid Cohen cites that as a reason for 13 midos at kerias haTorah.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4df278813dba933d667st03vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110610/bae52ede/attachment-0001.htm>

The original minhag, dating all the way back to the Tanchumah (end of
Vayeilekh), was to say something and give tzedaqah on Yom Kippur, and it
quotes the Sifrei about saying something on Shabbos le'iluyei neshamos. It
spread throughout Ashk in response to the Crusades, and the Sepharadim took
it on as the Ari's influence spread.

One theory why it got connected to YT is that aliyah laregel was a time for
giving tzedaqah. And therefore that aspect of Yizkor recommended it as a
fitting way to continue the tie between the regalim and tzedaqah.
But I don't have a source, just the grapevine.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Interesting- see Tzitz Eliezer 16:35 quoting sh"ut maharshag quoting
mishnat chassidim that the Ari thought keil maaleh had no value to the
meit. The tzitz eliezer then proceeds to reinterpret the ari as thinking it
does have value but imho it's a real stretch.
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.

Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:40:33 +0300
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
> Our rabbi gave a drasha stressing the elements of chesed in Ruth and Boaz
> and comparing it by varous similar words to the story of Eved Avraham
> and Rivka which also stresses chesed.
...
> Since Boaz now knows that Naomi is in town and is a close relative I would
> have expected him to invite them for meals, perhaps give them money to start
> over with (seems Boaz was rich) etc. Why is allowing Ruth to be with the
> other poor people gleaning but with special privileges that she can drink
> water with the workers, collect more of the leftovers such a chessed?

Rarely if ever does a story in T'nakh  teach one simple lesson.

Medrash Rabba on Ruth:
    "and he reached her parched corn"
   R. Isaac b. Marion said: This verse can teach us that if a man is
   about to perform a good deed,
   he should do it with all his heart....
   had Boaz known that Scripture would record of him,
   "and he reached her parched corn,"
   he would have fed her with fatted calves.

On 10/06/2011 11:15 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> Any idea on how yizkor got tied to shalosh regalim given that
> Vsamachta is directly in opposition to the emotions of yizkor? (I have
> one source with an answer but it's not overly satisfying-and the
> original minhag ashkenaz was clearly not to say it on shalosh regalim)

"Ish kematnas yado".  When we read this portion, the minhag is to pledge
tzedaka, and it's natural to pledge in memory of the dead, so it became
a whole seder of "hashkavot", as the Sefardim call it, which was little
different from the seder of yizkor on Yom Kippur.


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

--- On Fri, 6/10/11, kennethgmil...@juno.com <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:



R' Harvey Benton asked:
> 1. Why is the Torah binding if given to us by force? The answer
> often given is that we re-accepted it during the times of Purim.
> What then was the Torah's status upon us in-between Har Sinai,
> and the times of Purim?

R' Micha Berger responded:

> That answer isn't just often given, it's the next line in the
> gemara (Shabbos 88b). Rava presents it as an answer.

I do not see this as an answer to the question. At least, not an answer to the way RHB presents the question.

That Gemara might explain why the Torah is binding on *us*, and why the
Torah was binding on *Rava*. But RHB's question was whether it was binding
on the Jews <<< in-between Har Sinai, and the times of Purim
>>>.

Not only does that Gemara fail to answer RHB's question, but it seems to me
that it demonstrates the very opposite: If Rava says that the Torah is
binding on us because we accepted it willingly on Purim, then he appears to
accept the idea that the forced acceptance at Sinai did *not* create a
binding obligation.
---------------------------------------
?
Along these lines I saw the following over Shavuos:.
?
1) If We said Naaseh V'Nishma, why did we need?to be forced via holding a mountain over our heads? ?we already accepted!
?
2) If?we were forced, Why the the Beis HaMikdash destoryed? Don't we have a good Taaneh?
?
I saw these questions and an answer quoted in the name Rav Mordechai Meltzer in a Sefer called MeShulchan Gavoha. 
?
Naaseh V'Nishma was said about accepting the Mitzvos. Forcing us was about
Limud HaTorah. i.e. that if we do not study the Torah we will?buried 'Sham'
- there. That answers both questions.? We have no excuse for not observing
the Mitzvos because we accepted them willingly. 
?
A realted Vort from Rav Aharon Bakst (in that same Sefer).
?
When the mountian was raised like a cask over our heads and we were given
the alternative of following the torah or being buried there - Kevurasom
Sham (Shabbos 88b). Why the word 'Sham' - there instead of 'Po' - here? 
?
Because our punishment is L'Doros meaning whenever and wherever we are when we?reject the?Torah?we will be buried 'there'.
?
BTW For an interesting take on why the name of Ploni Almoni is not
mentioned in Megilas Rus one will have to venture into my blog and see my
post on Erev Shavuos. There I wrote an adaptation of?Rabbi Dr. Lamm's
Drasha?from his book?'Festivals of Faith'.
?
HM
?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110610/76642be9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/06/2011 11:15 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> Any idea on how yizkor got tied to shalosh regalim given that 
> Vsamachta is directly in opposition to the emotions of yizkor? (I have 
> one source with an answer but it's not overly satisfying-and the 
> original minhag ashkenaz was clearly not to say it on shalosh regalim)

"Ish kematnas yado".  When we read this portion, the minhag is to pledge
tzedaka, and it's natural to pledge in memory of the dead, so it became a
whole seder of "hashkavot", as the Sefardim call it, which was little
different from the seder of yizkor on Yom Kippur.


-- 
Zev Sero    
-------------------------------
But the minhag was to be nodeir for the chayim on the shalosh regalim and
specifically to avoid for the meitim (see machzor vitri siman 312) so it
sounds like this was "overruled" by the emotional desire? (not unlike
having everyone say kaddish perhaps?)
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.

 
So while we're on the topic, the Gesher Hachayim recommends giving $ prior
to Yizkor (he does not source this).  There are sources concerning not
delaying payment for this neder especially, but why not pay in advance and
use past tense (other than the practical fund raising issue of pulling at
the heart strings)
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.

Someone wrote: Assuming the US government had found out the plot could they have shot down the plane with
the innocent passengers to save the twin towers or the pentagon?

I think that the answer is obvious. These innocent passengers were going 
to be killed in any event, therefore, wouldn't it be logical to shoot down the plane 
to save even one person (let alone thousands) in the towers or pentagon since these 
passengers were doomed from the start. 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 92
**************************************

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..."