Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 171

Tue, 23 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: : shelo asani isha (Micha Berger)
• 3. walking between 2 women (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Leading the Maariv Service Motzoei Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Fighting To Be Chazan? (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: walking between 2 women (Goldmeier Family)
• 7. Re: walking between 2 women (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: walking between 2 women (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Birds vs waterfowl - daf yomi 56b (Hankman)
• 10. Re: walking between 2 women (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 11. Re: Birds vs waterfowl - daf yomi 56b (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: walking between 2 women (Zev Sero)
• 13. THE HEAD MOVEMENTS OF SHEMA? (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: THE HEAD MOVEMENTS OF SHEMA? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: walking between 2 women (Liron Kopinsky)
• 16. Re: walking between 2 women (Zev Sero)
• 17. sun and moon (Eli Turkel)
• 18. treifos (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 12:17:18PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: > I still don't think shemittah is even applicable, since there are no
: > lavin or chiyuvin deOraisa that the deRabbanan tells you to violate. 
: 
: You don't, but Abaye does.  Abaye uses the language of shev v'al ta'aseh.

Which doesn't mean "violate", it means "do nothing".

...
: > Again, I was just trying to be more specific about what you wrote
: > about when chazal can order a shev ve'al ta'aseh. Not in a din built
: > on trying to implement an idea from the Torah (eg turning pirsumei nisa
: > into neir Chanukah or Megillah), but only when making a gezeirah (which
: > is legislation that prevents accidental violation of another deOraisa).
: > Obviously, if one is calling for the violation of one deOraisa as part
: > of a new law to protect another, it would only make sense if the one
: > being protected is more chamur.
: 
: But nobody is talking about a "violation" of a d'orisa - by which I would
: understand a violation of a lo ta'aseh...

... or a bitul asei. Such as not blowing shofar on Shabbos RH, which is
a gezeirah which calls for a bitul asei that is only okay because it's
besheiv ve'al ta'a.

...
: And, as you have identified, it seems to mean that RYS has to see Kavod
: Habriyos as d'orisa - so where is he getting that from? ...

:        nobody can say that it is a particularly "chamur" d'orisa, given that
: it is not powerful enough to overrule anything except listening to the
: rabbis and shev v'al ta'saeh....

Is qedoshim tihyu deOraisa? Does it overrule too many black-letter halakhos?
I don't see how a fundamental principal like kavod haberios would be much
different.

In any case, see R Dr Nachum Rackover's article at
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/shana/kvod-4.htm>, the section titled
"'Gadol Kevod haBeriyot sheDocheh Lo Taaseh shebaTorah'". The quote is from
Berakhos 19b "Gadol kevod haberiyos shedocheh [es] lo sa'asei shebatorah".
(I'm curious to know why there is a shinui girsaos over an "es" -- lemai
nafaq mina?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:01:10PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
: > Who is the earliest source for positing another reason for these three
: > berakhos *to the exclusion of* the number of mitzvos? (Rashi gives two
: > sevaros, including this one.)

: But isn't the classic reason why Rashi gives two sevoros because the first
: one is problematic, even if it seems the most straightforward one.

The bit about more mitzvos is Rashi's second explanation, not first.
Menachos 43b d"h "hainu ishah. So, it would seem the problematic answer is
"de'ishah nami shifchah lebaalah ke'eved lerabo", and therefore Rashi
gives the second one. In which, BTW, he says that "L"A hainu ishah
dele'inyan mitzvos, ISHAH VE"EVED SHAVIN..." So, according to Rashi,
the three berakhos are about number of mitzvos, and yet he is clear to
assert that in the 2nd and 3rd berakhos men thank HQBH for the same set
of mitzvos!

...
: But that leaves you with an understanding that the reason today men say
: shelo asani isha is due to minhag and possibly nothing more....

Preserving Chazal's matbei'os is more than simple minhag, no?

:> The Perushim say "shelo asani nakhri/ah",
:> which is an old Ashkenaz variant, thereby avoiding members of the "goy
:> qadosh" saying "shelo asani goy".
: 
: Yes, the Sde Chemed does not like shelo asani hakhri either (he also doesn't
: think it gets you there).
: 
: As I said, I think the reality of the world is that they understand "goy" as
: in colloquial speech and refuse to get hung up on grammatical niceties.
: Point being, that if it doesn't bother you as untrue...

My point was that I don't think the Gra advocated "she'asani Yisrael", since
his successors say a "shelo asani" variant.

...
: That seems to be ROY's position - although only up to a point, because of
: course he won't allow sheasani k'rotzono with shem and malchus given that it
: is not a bracha in the gemora, regardless of the siddur...

As an Ashk (which is itself an arguable proposition), I am at least
within the realm of my mesorah to be less bothered by such things.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

<<The gemara says that a person should not walk between two women.  If
he does, it is Kasheh L'Shikcha.  Does this mean even little girls?>>

Are most people really makpid on this?

I find it hard to believe that a chasid in the jewelry exchange can
walk down 47th st or fifth avenue in the middle of the day and never
be between 2 women with a good chance they are both Jewish

-- 
Eli Turkel

The following is from Mourning in Halacha by 
Rabbi Chaim Binyamin Goldberg, pages 409 - 410. 
Note the reason given as to why R. Shmuel Salant 
was opposed to someone who has yahrtzeit during 
the week davening Maariv for the Amud on Motzoei Shabbos.

Leading the Maariv Service

The custom is to lead the prayer-service for Maariv at the conclusion of the
Sabbath before the yahrzeit. 6

6. Gesher HaChaim (Joe. cit.). In his note 6 ad. 
Joe., he writes: "We have heard an explanation from
the rav R' Baruch Zeldovitch, zatzal, as to why 
one leads the services at the conclusion of the
Sabbath before the yahrzeit: [On the Sabbath, a 
person receives an extra soul, the neshamah
yeseirah .] At the conclusion of every Sabbath, 
the neshamah yeseirah departs from him, with the
intention of returning on the following Sabbath. 
At the conclusion of the final Sabbath of a person's life,
it leaves him, without intending to return. Thus, 
at the conclusion of the Sabbath before a person dies,
it is like the death of his neshamah yeseirah. 
Therefore, that Sabbath's conclusion is also like a
yahrzeit ."

Chazon LaMo'ed, in his notes at the end of his 
book, raises an objection to this line of reasoning: It
applies only if the person died on a weekday, but 
not if he died on the Sabbath.
Ner Eliyahu (Minhagei Yom HaZikaron ? 17) writes: 
"However, in the holy city of Jerusalem, may it
be rebuilt and established, many follow the 
custom of the gaon R' Shmuel Salant, zatzal. He opposed
letting the sons lead the Maariv services at the 
conclusion of the Sabbath before the yahrzeit. The
reason one generally leads the services at the 
Sabbath's conclusion is because that is the time when the
wicked return to Gehinnom. By leading the 
services [at the Sabbath's conclusion], one gives the
impression of considering one's parents wicked. 
Thus, one should not lead the services then, just as one
does not lead the services after the first eleven months"


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110822/52b32365/attachment-0001.htm>

On 22/08/2011 8:40 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Although I am sure that the above writer did not have this in mind
> when he wrote, "Do not make Klal Yisrael into many different groups by
> having Divergent Halachic Practices."  to me this brings to mind the
> practice that seems to have become increasingly common today of making
> more than one minyan if there are two or more chiyuvim.  How do those
> who do this reconcile this practice with the principle of	B'rov Am
> Hadras Melech?

You just gave the answer: in order not to make machlokes.  If there
aren't enough minyanim for all the avelim then who should get precedence?
Why should one be more important than another?  So "lo titgodedu" means
that the minyan should split up in order to accommodate both.  (The gemara
says explicitly that lo titgodedu does not apply when there are two batei
din in a town, each ruling its own way; presumably each person may choose
which BD to follow, and this is not called "divergent practises".  By the
same principle, splitting into separate minyanim is not a violation of
"lo titgodedu", whereas having two chazanim in the same minyan might be.)

-- 
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

                    
                

the rule against walking between 2 women only applies to jewish women? 
where did you get that from?

---------


On 22/8/2011 9:28 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that a chasid in the jewelry exchange can
> walk down 47th st or fifth avenue in the middle of the day and never
> be between 2 women with a good chance they are both Jewish
>

On 22/08/2011 2:28 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<The gemara says that a person should not walk between two women.  If
> he does, it is Kasheh L'Shikcha.  Does this mean even little girls?>>
>
> Are most people really makpid on this?

Certainly.


> I find it hard to believe that a chasid in the jewelry exchange can
> walk down 47th st or fifth avenue in the middle of the day and never
> be between 2 women with a good chance they are both Jewish

On the contrary, he would be very unlikely to find a place where there
were two women standing alone; the street is crowded with both men and
women, as a forest is crowded with trees.

-- 
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

                    
                

At 03:35 PM 8/22/2011, Goldmeier Family wrote:
>the rule against walking between 2 women only applies to jewish 
>women? where did you get that from?
>
>---------
>
>
>On 22/8/2011 9:28 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>>I find it hard to believe that a chasid in the jewelry exchange can
>>walk down 47th st or fifth avenue in the middle of the day and never
>>be between 2 women with a good chance they are both Jewish

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=4128

The Shevet HaKehosi reasons that since we do not know the reason for 
this takana we should not extend it beyond its literal meaning, and 
only Nashim are included.  With regard to non-Jewish women he says 
that the Maharsham was Misupak.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110822/694e5562/attachment-0001.htm>

In the daf yomi at the top of 56b, Rav Shizvi says "hani avzi didan ke'oif
shel mayim damyan." Rashi explains, "ho'yil vetomid hain bamayim," meaning
and therefore their krum is rach as well - just like waterfowl.

This sounds pretty Lamarkian to me.

Also, is anyone aware what difference we can see nowadays if we examine the krum of an oif and that of waterfowl?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110822/a9fd7dde/attachment-0001.htm>

R' YL:
<<The gemara says that a person should not walk between two women.  If
he does, it is Kasheh L'Shikcha.  Does this mean even little girls?>>

R' ET:
Are most people really makpid on this?

I find it hard to believe that a chasid in the jewelry exchange can
walk down 47th st or fifth avenue in the middle of the day and never
be between 2 women with a good chance they are both Jewish
---------------------


question, it seems that those who are are only worried about it if the two
women are walking or talking together, i.e., they're a pair. If two women
happen to be walking parallel to each other - like on 47th St. - but are
unrelated in any way, then they wouldn't be makpid. Purely based on my
observations and impressions; take it for what it's worth.

KT,
MYG

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:59:09PM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: In the daf yomi at the top of 56b, Rav Shizvi says "hani avzi didan
: ke'oif shel mayim damyan." Rashi explains, "ho'yil vetomid hain bamayim,"
: meaning and therefore their krum is rach as well - just like waterfowl.

Just thinking out loud...

Wouldn't skull structure be largely determined by beak, and thus by
diet? In which case, I could see why birds that fill similar niches
would have similar skulls, regardless of taxonomy. See also the first
Rashi on 56b, which appears to be saying the difference is in the
placement and size of the hole of the skull.

Admittedly, that doesn't necessarily translate to differences in
the meninges, but it would explain the differences in din.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 23/08/2011 1:51 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:

> I don't think that most people are makpid on this, but, to answer your
> question, it seems that those who are are only worried about it if the two
> women are walking or talking together, i.e., they're a pair. If two women
> happen to be walking parallel to each other - like on 47th St. - but are
> unrelated in any way, then they wouldn't be makpid. Purely based on my
> observations and impressions; take it for what it's worth.


I don't think they have to be relating to each other in any way, but they
do have to be *two*.  That's the whole point.   After all, the other two
things one should not pass between pairs of are dogs and palm trees; now
I've never seen trees talking to each other.  But it should be obvious
that it's OK to walk through a forest or a plantation!  The problem
exists only when there are two trees near each other, and one has a choice
of going between them or around them.

As for the reason for this whole thing, I suspect it has to do with
zugos.


-- 
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

                    
                

 From http://tinyurl.com/3mcolml

The most important utterance in Judaism is the Shema': Shema' yisrael 
adonai eloheinu adonai ehad. (Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the 
Lord is one.) This declaration of the absolute unity of God is the 
cornerstone of our faith. By Biblical mandate, a Jew recites the 
Shema' twice daily, be-shokhbekha u-ve-kumekha ("when you lie down 
and when you rise up"). See Deuteronomy 6:7.

All of the above is quite famous. What remains today a little known 
fact is that once upon a time this recitation was accompanied by head 
movements to the four directions, and up and down. This practice is 
recorded both in the Ge'onim (post-Talmudic Babylonian sages) and the 
Rishonim (medieval European sages).

See the above URL for the rest of this article.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110823/7f57fcf2/attachment-0001.htm>

> All of the above is quite famous. What remains today a little known
> fact is that once upon a time this recitation was accompanied by head
> movements

I was not aware that this was little-known, especially since it's in
the Shulchan Aruch.  I think it's a lot more common than the author
realises; I do these movements, but so small that I'm not sure even a
keen observer would notice them, and I assume that many other people do
the same.  Since the purpose is to concentrate the mind, even a tiny
movement is enough; indeed, even merely imagining the movement is enough,
as the quoted article cites from the rishonim.


-- 
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

                    
                

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 23/08/2011 1:51 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
>
> As for the reason for this whole thing, I suspect it has to do with
> zugos.


 My understanding was that it had to do with zugot for the palm trees, but
Keshafim for the women and was therefore more chamur.

Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110823/10d4b2f5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 23/08/2011 9:56 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name <mailto:z...@sero.name>> wrote:

>> As for the reason for this whole thing, I suspect it has to do with
>> zugos.

> My understanding was that it had to do with zugot for the palm trees,
> but Keshafim for the women and was therefore more chamur.

The gemara doesn't distinguish in any way between the three examples, so
what grounds are there to suppose their reasons are different?


-- 
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

                    
                

A recent daf yomi brought the famous story that the moon complained that the
both the sun and moon are the same size and in response G-d make the
moon smaller but in the future the
moon will return to its original size.

Questions:
What does it mean that moon and sun talked - they are inanimate

the moon's light is only a reflection of the sun so what does the
whole story mean and how can
it be as big in the future


-- 
Eli Turkel

http://www.the-daf.com/talmud-conceptual/hullin-5
4-we-dont-add-to-the-list-of-treifot-really/ 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110823/7544ecba/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 171
***************************************

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..."