Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 173

Wed, 24 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: sun and moon (David Riceman)
• 2. Fighting To Be Chazan? (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 3. Fighting To Be Chazan? (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: walking between 2 women (Akiva Blum)
• 5. Re: shelo asani isha (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 6. tchiyas hameisim/which spouse (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 7. Re: Fighting To Be Chazan? (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: sun and moon (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: sun and moon (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: tchiyas hameisim/which spouse (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 11. Re: tchiyas hameisim/which spouse (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: sun and moon (David Riceman)
• 13. She-lo Asani Isha (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 14. Re: She-lo Asani Isha (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Shelo Asani Ishah (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 16. moon and sun (Eli Turkel)
• 17. Re: walking between 2 women (Zev Sero)

RMB:

<<Chazal probably didn't know that moonlight is reflected sunlight, and 
even if they did, they aren't likely to have assumed the listener would 
know that. Tir'u baTov! -Micha>>

How do you construe "pnei Moshe kipnei hama upnei Yehoshua kipnei levana"?

David Riceman

"Afterwards, Reb Yisroel was asked why he did this.  After all, he was 
entitled al pi din to daven for the Amud and to say kaddish. He 
replied, "I thought it was a bigger zechus for my father not to pain 
this fellow and let him daven and say kaddish."

Too bad people do not have this attitude, but instead fight for the 
Amud and insist on saying kaddish in mass."

Who says they don't. In my shul that is exactly the attitude they have.  In
the two years I was in aveilut, I did not see a single instance of a
disagreement over the amud (the minhag in my shul is not to limit the
saying of kaddish to one person so that was never an issue), and, in fact,
I heard RYS's advice quoted a number of times.	On second thought, that's
not exactly accurate.  There were some disagreements; i.e., "you take the
amud; no YOU take the amud."

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110824/1da912b3/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:05 PM 8/24/2011, R. Zev Sero wrote:

>On 23/08/2011 4:49 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> > There is a hierarchy in halacha regarding who gets precedence.
>
>First of all, I've seen such hierarchies for aliyos and for kaddish,
>not for the amud.  Second, if there's only one minyan, then you have
>no choice, and someone has to take precedence.  But whoever misses out
>is going to be hurt.  Or do you expect them to be happy that their
>parent or relative or whoever will miss out on the zechus just because
>someone else showed up with a greater claim?  "Oh, that's OK, tatty
>didn't really need my davening anyway, you go ahead, I'm sure your
>father needs it much more than mine does...."  However you cut it,
>surely you see that this is not a recipe for shalom and goodwill.
>So if there are enough people, why *not* split up?   You're worried
>about "berov am"?  You're constantly quoting R Yisroel Salanter; what
>would he say about the relative values of an impressively large minyan
>davening together versus someone upset and angry that he missed out on
>the amud?

WADR, I have to point out that much of what you have written above 
does not see to be correct.  Please see 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/areivim/mourning_kaddish_amud.pdf 
which are some pages from Rabbi Chaim Binyamin Goldberg's Mourning in Halacha.

Note page 375 regarding precedence in leading the davening.

Note footnote 70 on page 367 in particular regarding only one person 
saying kaddish.


> >  In addition, according to the din, which most places do not follow,
> > only one person is supposed to say kaddish at a time.
>
>There is no such halacha.

   While there may be "no such halacha," this is an ancient custom.  Again see

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/areivim/mourning_kaddish_amud.pdf

as well as http://tinyurl.com/4yceq9x


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110824/1ae1a9ef/attachment-0001.htm>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-
> boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Zev Sero
> 
> > a woman should nor pass between two stationary men if there is less than
> > four amos between them [for this reason no shura is made for an aveila.
> >[...]
> > This however does not include women standing behing one another in a
> > queue. They are connected by being 'together the queue'.
> 
> I dispute the whole notion that passing between two rows each consisting
> of many people is an issue. 

He quotes Gesher Hachayim page 152


 By the same logic one would have to avoid
> walking down a tree-lined avenue or a forest path!  Whoever heard of such
> a thing

What does this have anything to do with trees? The poskim do not say this is
at all connected to shadim.

Akiva

On 8/21/2011 2:30 AM, Esther and Aryeh Frimer wrote:
> In light of all the above, your response: "R' Meir means that a person
> to whom these berachos are relevant must recite the relevant ones." Is
> exactly right!  Hence,  the following statement is quite a stretch
> (dahuk beYoter).

> "Relevance for this kind of brachah includes feeling the sense of
> hoda'ah it implies."  The Berakhot are not Triumphal thanks - more like
> the acknowledgement of Barukh Dayan haEmet!

I find this perspective remarkable. I cannot fathom such an understanding
of these berachos. See the Yesod v'Shoresh ha'Avodah (2:4):
http://tinyurl.com/3pn5yll

    ...Certainly a person must take care in every brachah that comes
    out of his mouth which are of the brachos of thanksgiving such
    as Birchos HaShachar etc., that he inculcates in his heart and his
    thought praise and thanks to the Creator according to the content
    of the brachah. And thus it should come out of his mouth. And then
    automatically will there come into his heart love and awe of Hashem...

He goes on to speak of the awesome joy one should experience during the
first two brachos of the set, then says:

    Also in the brachah of Shelo Asani Ishah - even though she is also
    a daughter of Israel, but in account of Hashem exempting her from
    learning His holy Torah, and that she is also exempt from time-bound
    mitzvos, therefore this brachah was enacted to give Hashem powerful
    praise and thanks in his mind, for the Creator having sanctified
    him more than a woman with mitzvos and the study of the holy Torah.
    (Slightly off on a tangent: The word "triumphal" distorts the type of
    thanksgiving that is to be given by a true Oved Hashem. Triumphalism
    is the negative middah of "Hisnatzchus" - and rarely, if ever,
    appropriate.)

KT,
YGB

http://www.ravaviner.com/2011/08/spouses-during-resurrection-of-dead.
html 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110824/7f2ace0b/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:43 PM 8/24/2011, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
>Who says they don't. In my shul that is exactly the attitude they 
>have.  In the two years I was in aveilut, I did not see a single 
>instance of a disagreement over the amud (the minhag in my shul is 
>not to limit the saying of kaddish to one person so that was never 
>an issue), and, in fact, I heard RYS's advice quoted a number of 
>times.  On second thought, that's not exactly accurate.  There were 
>some disagreements; i.e., "you take the amud; no YOU take the amud."
>
>Joseph Kaplan

This is not what I have seen in Brooklyn in some places.  True, there 
are people who are considerate of others and people do share. 
However, one fellow who was an avel for his mother a few years ago 
insisted that, because he was an only son, that he had to daven for 
the Amud all of the time and would not share the Amud.  The same 
thing happened when he lost his father about a year and half 
ago.  This attitude led to a number of unpleasant situations and 
almost to a fist fight at one time!

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110824/1e20ec25/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Chazal probably didn't know that moonlight is reflected sunlight,
> and even if they did, they aren't likely to have assumed the
> listener would know that.

Really? I would think that even the most cursory study of the moons phases and eclipses would lead to the conclusion that the moon is lit up by the sun.

On second thought, if the sun goes *above* the rakia at nighttime, then I
shouldn't be so quick about what they'd learn from that. But certainly by
the time they understood that the sun is *below* the horizon at night
(relativistically speaking), they'd realize that that's why (for example)
such a tiny sliver of the moon is lit up after the molad, and only
immediately after sunset, etc etc.

Whether the ordinary folk understood this I don't know, but certainly anyone who studied it to any depth at all. No?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e5532aac2aa86207bst05vuc

On 8/24/2011 11:12 AM, David Riceman wrote:
> RMB:
>
> <<Chazal probably didn't know that moonlight is reflected sunlight, and
> even if they did, they aren't likely to have assumed the listener would
> know that. Tir'u baTov! -Micha>>
>
> How do you construe "pnei Moshe kipnei hama upnei Yehoshua kipnei levana"?

At the time, I'm guessing they simply meant that Yehoshua was secondary. 
  Now that we know it's reflected sunlight, there's a new dimension to 
the drash, but even if we say that isn't a coincidence (and I don't 
think it is), that doesn't mean Chazal were aware of it at the time.

Lisa

On 08/24/2011 12:53, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> _http://www.ravaviner.com/2011/08/spouses-during-resurrecti
> on-of-dead.html_
>

Interesting that both Q & A assume that reunion will happen with one of 
the prior husbands. Source? (Wow, this is pretty concretely esoteric...)

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 01:37:19PM -0400, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
> Interesting that both Q & A assume that reunion will happen with one of  
> the prior husbands. Source? (Wow, this is pretty concretely esoteric...)

Last Jan, when we were discussing brain-death, I was asked if I believe
that a wife whose husband underwent heart-death would have to remarry
her husband.

As for sources, I found this in "To Live and Live again" by R' ND Dubov,
on Sichos in English
<http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/to-live-and-live-again/13.htm>:

    Marriage Forever

    Will a man and his wife when newly resurrected need to be remarried,
    or does the original marriage bond continue? Some authorities suggest
    that a new marriage will have to be contracted.[373]

    A Woman With Two Husbands

    A divorcee who remarries will remain married to her second husband
    upon Resurrection.[374] There is a difference of opinion as to the
    status of a widow who remarries.[375]
    ...
    [373] See the Ben Ish Chai in the Responsa entitled Rav Pe'alim,
    loc. cit. [Copying from 371, that should be Vol. II, Sod Yesharim,
    sec. 2 -micha]

    The poskim debate the case of a person who died momentarily and
    was immediately resurrected (cf. the case cited in Kesubbos 62b,
    and the incident involving Rabbah and R. Zeira in Megillah 7b). See
    Knesses HaGedolah, cited in Baer Heitev on Even HaEzer 17:1; Birkei
    Yosef on the same source; Siach HaSadeh, Vol. II: Likkutim, sec. 4;
    the Responsa entitled Chessed LeAvraham (Mahadura Tinyana), sec. 14;
    Shoel U'Meishiv, Vol. II, sec. 131; Beis Yitzchak on Even HaEzer,
    Vol. I, 6:14; Avnei Nezer on Even HaEzer, end of sec. 56.

    On the related question as to whether there will be procreation
    after the Resurrection, Rambam answers affirmatively (in Iggeres
    Teiman, cited in Chiddushei Yad Rama on Sanhedrin, beginning of
    Perek Cheilek). See, however, ch. 10 above.

    [374] The Responsa entitled Rav Pe'alim, loc. cit.; Anaf Yosef
    on Sanhedrin (beginning of Perek Cheilek), in the name of Sefer
    HaNitzachon; Yad Shaul on Yoreh Deah 366:3.

    [375] The author of Rav Pe'alim holds that she will return to her
    first husband; the author of Sefer HaNitzachon holds that she will
    return to the second. The author of Piskei Teshuvah (sec. 124) first
    cites the reply of Sefer HaTechiyah of R. Saadiah Gaon - that this
    question will be resolved by Moshe Rabbeinu upon his resurrection -
    and then proceeds to cite the Zohar (I, 21b) as evidence that a woman
    in this situation will return to her first husband. (The question
    of where a remarried widow should be buried is discussed in Gesher
    HaChaim, Vol. I, ch. 27, sec. 7:3.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RLL:
> At the time, I'm guessing they simply meant that Yehoshua was secondary.
The pasuk reads "v'nasata mehodcha alav".  See Rashi Pinhas 27:20 s.v. 
"mehodcha" citing BB 75a.

David Riceman

Chana Luntz wrote:
"But I can see no way that the level of obligation in commandments of a woman can be said to be greater than that of a (male) eved... "

I don't understand your problem. An Eved is worse than an Isha because it
lacks the Kedushat Yisrael of a Jew!!  An eved is forbidden to marry a
Jewess for this reason

        Aryeh (from home)


--------------------------------
Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il or Fri...@biu.ac.il
E-mail (home): Frim...@zahav.net.il
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110824/18fb9ff6/attachment-0001.htm>

> Chana Luntz wrote: 
>> "But I can see no way that the level of obligation in commandments of
>> a woman can be said to be greater than that of a (male) eved... "
 
> I don't understand your problem. An Eved is worse than an Isha because
> it lacks the Kedushat Yisrael of a Jew!! An eved is forbidden to marry
> a Jewess for this reason
 
> Aryeh (from home) 
 
Also see Horiyot 13a -- an eved was bchlal arur. 

KT 
Joel Rich 

RYGB writes:
I find this perspective remarkable. I cannot fathom such an understanding of these berachos. 
See the Yesod v'Shoresh ha'Avodah (2:4): http://tinyurl.com/3pn5yll

Also in the brachah of Shelo Asani Ishah - even though she is also a
daughter of Israel, but in account of Hashem exempting her from learning
His holy Torah, and that she is also exempt from time-bound mitzvos,
therefore this brachah was enacted to give Hashem powerful praise and
thanks in his mind, for the Creator having sanctified him more than a woman
with mitzvos and the study of the holy Torah.

I guess the Maharsha and Rav Reuven Margaliyot whom I cited Just disagree with him!!!!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110824/f519b5f6/attachment-0001.htm>

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

How do you know?  The Rambam says they are intelligent; what grounds
exist to question that?  >>

I am having trouble believing that Zev is serious. Does he know that men have
landed on the moon and they did not talk to the moon. The sun consists
of gases undergoing
various nuclear reactions.

We can ask a question on the Rambam what is the origin of his theory.
The whole difference between modern and ancient science is that
ancient science rested on
authority while modern science relies on experimental evidence. I
understand that Zev
prefers ancient science where we prove scientific facts by quoting a Rambam.

Micha and Simi both intreret the midrash metaphorically which I
personally agree with.
My problem is that many meforshim take it literally. From the recent
Meorot Hadaf
Maharatz Chajes explains that because the moon was diminished it
caused people to worship the sun
because now the sun is special. Thus we bring a "sair" on rosh chodesh
to stress our worship of G-d.
The Chatam Sofer explains that because of the sins of the Jews the
galut is lengthened causing the
moon to have to wait longer to regain its size and so the Jews need a kapparah.
Also Lev Aryeh has a discussion why we need to worry about the moon
since it was diminsihed because
of its own argument and hence it is the moon's fault. He answers the
sun originally was much bigger
but was diminished by G-d because the world didnt need it (chagigah
12a). As a consequence the moon
was diminished. The moon's request was that the sun be restored to its
original size and then the moon could keep its original size.


-- 
Eli Turkel

On 24/08/2011 12:48 PM, Akiva Blum wrote:
  
>> I dispute the whole notion that passing between two rows each consisting
>> of many people is an issue.

> He quotes Gesher Hachayim page 152

Nu nu.  I still dispute it.  What basis could it have?


>>  By the same logic one would have to avoid walking down a tree-lined
>> avenue or a forest path!  Whoever heard of such a thing

> What does this have anything to do with trees?

Women, dogs, and trees are all listed together.  What possible basis
could there be for distinguishing them?


>  The poskim do not say this is at all connected to shadim.

Their source is the gemara, which does say exactly that.

-- 
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

                    
                


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 173
***************************************

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..."