Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 124

Tue, 05 Jul 2011

• 1. soup (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: TWO CHIDDUSHIM Chukas & Balak (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Bracha after Haftara on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Pas Akum and Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 5. R. Hirsch as a Modern Orthodox Leader (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Bracha after Haftara on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh (daniel@kolberamah.org)
• 7. Re: Bracha after Haftara on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh (Akiva Blum)
• 8. Re: Bracha after Haftara on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Pas Akum (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Pas Akum and Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 11. kol for winemaking and besamim (Simi Peters)
• 12. a sinner as chazan (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: Bracha after Haftara on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh (Zev Sero)
• 14. The Rambam's Ikarim (rebshr...@aol.com)
• 15. R Hirsch and MO (Yitz .)
• 16. kavanah in tefila (Ben Waxman)
• 17. Re: loshon of the gemorrah/kol mi she'omer (Arie Folger)

As far as I know everyone treats soup like a ma'achal and not a mashkeh 
wrt the din "pas poter kol minei ma'achal v'yayin poter kol minei 
mashkeh".  How do we know this?

David Riceman

 
From: Richard Wolberg _cantorwolberg@cox.net_ 
(mailto:cantorwolb...@cox.net) 


>> We see in this week's portion that Bil'am strikes his donkey  three 
times, until God gives the power of speech to the  donkey...<<                   
                                                       

 
 
>>>>
 
You know what I always find the most amazing thing about this parsha?   
It's not that the donkey spoke, no.  It's that Bil'am answered!  That  he 
engaged his donkey in conversation!!  
 
He actually said to his donkey, "You mocked me!  If I had a sword in  my 
hand I would kill you!"  And then the donkey said back, "Come on, have I  ever 
acted this way before?"  And Bil'am answered her, "No."  (No  wonder the 
Gemara says she was not only his beast of burden, she was also his  
girlfriend.)
 
If your dog or cat talked to you, what would you do?!  Most people  would 
faint from terror!  And the rest would open one eye and check their  alarm 
clock to see if it's time to get up yet.
 
I haven't looked at the meforshim but does anybody comment on how strange  
it was for Bil'am to engage in conversation with his donkey?  Why does he  
act as if shmoozing with your donkey is a normal thing to do?  He doesn't  
show any sign of fear or remorse until he sees the angel.
 


--Toby Katz
================






_____________________ 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110703/f880899f/attachment-0001.htm>

This bugs me every time there's a Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, but I always 
forget to ask about it after Shabbat is over.

On yamim tovim, we finish kiddush and the middle bracha of the musaf 
amidah with "mekadesh Yisrael v'ha-zmanim".  We also end the last of 
the brachot after the haftarah that way.  On Shabbat, of course, we 
end all three of those with "mekadesh ha-shabbat", and if it's 
Shabbat *and* Yom Tov, we end all three with "mekadesh ha-shabbat 
v'Yisrael v'ha-zmanim".

But on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, we end the middle bracha of musaf with 
"mekadesh ha-shabbat v'Yisrael v'roshei chodashim".  And both kiddush 
and the last bracha after the haftarah end only with "mekadesh ha-shabbat".

Why the inconsistency?  I see why we say a special bracha in the 
musaf amidah, because that whole nusach that precedes it is special 
for Shabbat *and* Rosh Chodesh.  But why do we ignore it during 
Friday night kiddush and the bracha after the haftarah?

Lisa

At 03:09 PM 7/3/2011, Liron Kopinsky wrote:

> >  The following is from http://www.thehalacha.com/attach/Volume4/Issue4.pdf
> >
> > One should try not to buy pas akum foods (even for a snack)27 out of honor
> > for Shabbos
> >
>
>Why would not buying pas akum "out of honor for Shabbos" override eating
>your favorite cookies on Shabbos for the same reason?

Let me say the following regarding things written in Halachically 
Speaking written by R. Lebovits.  R. Lebovits writes in each 
issue  that a good deal of what he writes is from R. Y. Belsky's 
piskei halacha.

Some the things written in Halachically Speaking seem to me to be 
either incorrect or a bit off the wall or both.  This is my personal opinion.

I had a rather extensive back and forth with R. Lebovits on the issue 
of mouthwash.  He wrote that one should use only mouthwash that is 
under rabbinical supervision and that according to R. Belsky 
mouthwash contains glycerin that is from a non-kosher source. IIRC 
Scope and Listerine were named as ones that one should not use.

I pointed out to R. Lebovits that both of these mouthwashes are 
permitted for use on Pesach, and hence most certainly should be OK 
for all year round use.  I further pointed out to him that Listerine 
does not contain glycerin (see 
http://www.Listerine.com/products/product-cool-mint ) and that when I 
called Scope I was told that the glycerin they use is from an 
artificial source.  Based on this I wrote to R. Lebovits that he 
should correct what he had written about not using Scope and 
Listerine.  He wrote back to me saying that one cannot believe what 
the companies tell you!!!!

As a result of all of this, I am not too impressed with a lot of what 
is written on Halachically Speaking.  I send some things out from it 
from time to time get people thinking a bit.

I believe that most people know by now that just because I send 
something out does not mean that I agree with all or even any of it.  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110703/929026a3/attachment-0001.htm>

At 03:09 PM 7/3/2011, R. Akiva Miller wrote:


>I *did* look at the URL. And with all due respect to Rav Gifter 
>zt"l, I don't see where his explained himself adequately. He gave 
>examples of Zionists who were murderers, and even examples of 
>high-ranking zionist who were willing to murder to advance the goals 
>of Zionism. But that does not convince me that the goals of Zionism 
>are wrong, or that "Zionism is a curse".
>
>It is entirely possible that the goals of Zionism are praiseworthy, 
>and that *other* Zionists who would find ways of reaching those 
>goals in proper ways. I did not see anything in that article to 
>suggest otherwise.

The following if 
from 
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zion_or_zionism.pdf>Zion 
or Zionism: Rav Shimon Schwab

On the other hand, truth compels us to state
unequivocally that most certainly Zionism is not at all
identical with Judaism, that in fact it is diametrically
opposed to it. Zionism is a political philosophy which
considers the divine Nation of the Torah a nation like all
others, albeit with certain religious traditions which you are
free to accept or to reject as an individual, and which may
or may not become part of the law of the Jewish land,
subject to a majority vote of a democratic parliament.
Zionism has transformed the holy land, the holy tongue, the
holy nation into secular entities, according atheists and
anti-religionist Jews at best equal status with firm believers.

Please see the rest of this article for more.  YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110703/81b1d7c1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Jul 3, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Why the inconsistency?  I see why we say a special bracha in the musaf
> amidah, because that whole nusach that precedes it is special for
> Shabbat *and* Rosh Chodesh.  But why do we ignore it during Friday
> night kiddush and the bracha after the haftarah?

Off the top of my head: because when R"Ch doesn't fall on Shabbos, we have
a mussaf, but neither kiddush nor haftarah.  So only musaf of Shabbos Rosh
Chodesh is serving a dual purpose.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-
> boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Liel
> Sent: Monday 04 July 2011 1:05 AM
> 
> 
> Why the inconsistency?  I see why we say a special bracha in the
> musaf amidah, because that whole nusach that precedes it is special
> for Shabbat *and* Rosh Chodesh.  But why do we ignore it during
> Friday night kiddush and the bracha after the haftarah?
> 

Because Rosh Chodesh causes mussaf without Shabbos. Therefore, it deserves
its own mention.
Rosh chodesh does not cause haftorah (think RC during the week), RC does not
cause Kiddush. Therefore no mention.

Akiva

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> But on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, we end the middle bracha of musaf with
> "mekadesh ha-shabbat v'Yisrael v'roshei chodashim".  And both kiddush and
> the last bracha after the haftarah end only with "mekadesh ha-shabbat".
>
> Why the inconsistency?  I see why we say a special bracha in the musaf
> amidah, because that whole nusach that precedes it is special for Shabbat
> *and* Rosh Chodesh.  But why do we ignore it during Friday night kiddush and
> the bracha after the haftarah?

 From what I understand, it is all related to why we are doing said thing.
On Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, we are davening mussaf because it is both RCh and
Shabbat, however were it not shabbat, we would not be making kiddush or
reading the haftarah.

Kol Tuv,
Liron

At 03:09 PM 7/3/2011, R. Akiva Miller wrote:

>It is very disappointing and troubling to see 
>pas palter being referred to as pas akum. I'll 
>stop here, before my yetzer hara starts ranting.
>
>Akiva Miller

For a discussion of Pas Akum please see 
http://www.kashrut.com/articles/PasAkum/  Pas 
Akum ?Part I  and Pas Akum ?Part II
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110703/c96adb0e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:03:28AM -0700, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
:> The following is from http://www.thehalacha.com/attach/Volume4/Issue4.pdf
:> One should try not to buy pas akum foods (even for a snack)27 out of honor
:> for Shabbos

: Why would not buying pas akum "out of honor for Shabbos" override eating
: your favorite cookies on Shabbos for the same reason?

Could it be that R' Moshe Dovid Lebovitz (or more likely, the source
he relied upon) feels this is an issue of kavod Shabbos trumping oneg
Shabbos?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I'm way behind on reading Avodah at the moment, but this caught my eye.

Could it be that kol being yafeh for besamim and not for winemaking has
something to do with the different nature of the tasks involved and refers
to the effect on the winemaker or apothecary, rather than on the product? 
When you are concocting a complex formula like a ketoret, which is a
relatively short process, it may be good for you to repeat the 'recipe' as
you work, saying it out loud so that you don't forget the ingredients, the
amounts and the order of execution.  When you are making wine, which takes
months and does not involve a lot of ingredients,talking might just be a
distraction and mean that you end up failing to notice something like the
stage of fermentation, or when you should decant the wine, or similar steps
that rely more on the eye or smell, and not on memory.	

Just a thought.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110704/99b258b6/attachment-0001.htm>

apropos some recent discussions there is an article in the latest
techumim whether a sinner can be chazan
The article is by R. Shmuel Davis the rabbi of Afula.
The question revolved about someone who uses a razor
The article is some 10 pages long and I only bring his conclusions

1. Rav Amram and other early authorities and some later ones including
MB and Kaf Hachaim say that a sinner cannot be chazan even
occasionally (be-akrai)

2. Rambam and others say that a sinner can be chazan except for Yomim
Noraim and taanit

3. In our days many sinners are "omer mutar" or "tinok she-nishba" and
one can be lenient

4. The chazzan today no longer is "motzi" the kehilla. Many halachot
today have changed because of the change in the function of the
chazzan

5. It is customary in many places to allow someone to be chazan even
when it is known that he is a sinner

6. Mechilla of kavod hatzibur can help bring back the sinner to do teshuva

He concludes the article that in the actual case he invited the man to
be chazzan for musaf on shabbat. Some 4 months later he met the person
on the street and said that since the rav allowed him to be chazzan he
bought an electric shaver and no longer uses a razor !

-- 
Eli Turkel

On 3/07/2011 6:04 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> Why the inconsistency?  I see why we say a special bracha in the musaf
> amidah, because that whole nusach that precedes it is special for
> Shabbat *and* Rosh Chodesh.  But why do we ignore it during Friday
> night kiddush and the bracha after the haftarah?

Because Rosh Chodesh does not occasion kiddush or a haftarah.  For the
same reason, on shabbos chol hamoed the kiddush is only for Shabbos,
and there are different minhagim WRT the bracha on the haftara.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

In the Journal "Torah Umadah" of January 1, 1993.   Professor Marc 
Shapiro seems to make a common mistake in explaining what the Rambam 
says in terms of the Masoretic text of the Chumash.   The mistake 
creates an inconsistency with what the Rambam seems to say and his 
knowledge of variant (though minor) differences in traditional Torah 
texts.

Following the words of the Ani Maamin which is a summary (not written 
by the Rambam) of the Rambam's 13 Ikarim, Profeesor Shapiro writes:

"The eighth principle teaches that the Torah was revealed from heaven 
and that the Torah found in our hands is the exact same Torah that 
Moses presented to the children of Israel."

The fact that the Torah is word for word from Hashem is truly an Ikar 
of orthodox Judaism.  The problem arises when Shapiro claims that the 
Rambam wrote that what Moshe received is word for word now in our 
hands.   We are all familiar with the fact that there are varying Torah 
texts with slight differences,  used by various orthodox communities.   
The Yerushalmi, as Shapiro notes, admits to the fact that even in terms 
of some words there were variant texts.   The Rambam was aware of these 
facts, and it is hard to believe that he would claim something which is 
contrary to the facts presented in the Yerushalmi or the varying texts 
extant in his own day.   One could say that the Rambam believed that in 
some miraculous way the decisions of which "vav" to accept or reject 
was the correct decision in all cases for his text though not the other 
texts, but this explanation is less than a satisfying  given our 
knowledge of the Rambam's rationalism.

The truth is that the Rambam in his actual statement of the Ikarim 
found at the end of the Gemorah of Sanhedrin writes something different 
 from what is summarized in the "Ani Maamin".    In Hayesod Hashmini he 
writes:

Hatorah min hashamayim , vihu shaneemin ki kol Hatorah hazot hanitunah 
ahl yedai Moshe Rabeinu (A'H) Shehi Kulah mipi Hagevurah, klomar 
shehegiah eilav kulah meeit Hashem yitbarach ...

"The Torah is from heaven, that is, it is believed that all of this 
Torah that was given by Moshe our teacher (A"H), all of it is from the 
mouth of the Almighty, meaning that all of it came to him (directly) 
from Hashem Who is blessed....

According to the Rambam we are required to believe that whatever Moshe 
gave to us at Sinai, he receieved from Hashem, not that every "vav" we 
now find in our community's texts is what he gave us. The emphasis on 
"all of it" is explained further on where the Rambam says that anyone 
who claims that any part of the Torah was created by Moshe, rather than 
dictated by Hashem is the worst type of Kofer.

I have no question that the Rambam believed that 99.99% of the Torah in 
our hands is what Moshe gave us directly from G-d's mouth (Kaviyachol). 
   Our own faith in the careful transmission of the Torah text, a 
transmission that our Rabbis and fathers believed was of life and death 
importance, parallels what I'm sure the Rambam and all of our Talmidei 
Chachamim, past and present believed.   However, the careful wording 
that The Rambam employed in his Eighth Ikar allowed him to maintain his 
integrity by accepting the existence of minor differences in the Torah 
text and at the same time affirm an Ikar Emunah, that the Torah which 
Moshe has given us is totally Minhashamayim.

Kol Tov,

Stu Grant

You listed six items in which you state for certain that R Hirsch and the MO
agree on. Point number 6 was the value of culture and secular education.
(I'm on my phone, so I can't copy and paste easily, sorry).
I have never been able to get a proper delineation of what exactly MO is and
isn't, so please forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but I had one
question. AIUI, RSRH viewed education and culture as positive only in their
ability to enhance ones knowledge of and dedication to a Torah life, (GR"A
felt the same btw), unless I'm misunderstanding. Is that also the MO outlook
on science and culture?
I think that even if the outcome is parallel, if they are coming from a
different angle, then we cannot say its the same.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110704/f4890377/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav Re'em Hacohen wrote this week a short article on kavana in tefila. After going through the normal sources he has two concluding remarks:

  a.. Despite what the Rishonim wrote (about our lack of kavana today) many
  great gedolim did delve into the issue of kavana in tefila and its
  importance. Those who did this obviously held that it is possible to
  succeed in having kavana.
  b.. We can ask the following: in a generation where so many people delve
  into issues of self awareness (in prayer and in other areas), perhaps it
  is time to return to the din of the Gemara. If someone can pray with
  kavana, then perhaps he should repeat his tefila if he failed to do so
  (perhaps the Rema was not talking about our generation).
Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110705/9599a3e7/attachment-0001.htm>

R'nTK wrote:
> "Whoever says Dovid sinned is mistaken"  MEANS "Whoever thinks that
> Dovid committed the sin that a simple reading of the pesukim would imply
> --  i.e., whoever thinks he committed the sin of adultery -- is mistaken."

Actually, quite a number of commentators explain the gemara exactly as
RAM and RHB did. One of the more interesting readings is kol haomer
David 'hata eino ella to'eh, because while true, one should not say
it. IOW, the gemara may be warning us against cutting those biblical
personalities down to size on account of their sins. Even after
sinning, they remain larger than life heroes. Plus, as is definitely
the case with David, teshuvah was complete. Finally, as is also
manifestly the case with David, the sin may not have been a crime of
passion, but a calculated, well meaning act, that was wrong
nonetheless, but that should not be confused with garden variety
adultery.

However, it is true that many commentaries do read the gemara as you do.

In the words of IIRC R' Tvi Grumet (I am paraphrasing, citing from
memory), restating the widely known limud zekhut R'nTK mentioned: "You
can bet that David haMelekh had his top notch legal team involved to
make sure the union between him and Batsheva' could be legally
defended."

So the issue is not open and shut.

Kol tuv,

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Fr?hling
* Denkmal an den deportierten l?rracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 124
***************************************

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..."