Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 17

Wed, 11 Apr 2012

• 1. Re: Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Dorron Katzin)
• 4. Re: Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 6. Re: When do princes say Shema (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Learning from the past - another look at the 10 plagues (Beth & David Cohen)
• 8. Re: Chief Rabbi Metzger: Women can lead Seder (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: Chief Rabbi Metzger: Women can lead Seder (Harry Maryles)
• 10. What does "Redemption/Geulah" mean? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: What does "Redemption/Geulah" mean? (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: What does "Redemption/Geulah" mean? (Ben Waxman)
• 13. Gebrokts! (Prof. Levine)
• 14. RSZA on kitniyot (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Kama Maalot Tovot Lamakom Aleinu? (Liron Kopinsky)

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:39:57PM -0400, Beth & David Cohen wrote:
:                         IOW, assuming metzitza is a l'chatchila
: requirement, but b'deeved the bris milah is kosher, does pikuach nefesh
: override the requirement?

Let's also disambiguate the two meanings of bedi'eved -- there is the
post-facto question of whether there was a chalos and the separate
question of whether one was yotzei. The former: you shouldn't do X, but
if you did, there is still a change of halachic state. The latter: the
proper way to do the mitzvah is to do X, but if you erred, and omitted
that step, you're still yotzei.

RZS said the baby is not left an areil. That doesn't mean that one still
fulfilled the mitzvah of milah. We are still talking of asking those who
hold metzitzah is part of milah to altogether do away with one of the most
cenral of mitzvos.

:-)||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 9/04/2012 12:39 PM, Beth & David Cohen wrote:
> Then this leads me back to my original question: do we have any
> sources that deal with balancing l'chatchila requirements with
> possible pikuach nefesh considerations?  IOW, assuming metzitza is a
> l'chatchila requirement, but b'deeved the bris milah is kosher, does
> pikuach nefesh override the requirement? Sources??

I don't see how that's relevant.  The fact that bedi`avad the boy is
not an `arel doesn't change the fact that metzitzah is an integral
part of the mitzvah, and cannot be lightly dispensed with.  Nor does
it make the slightest difference *why* it came to be part of the
mitzvah; all that matters is that it *is*.  Would anyone suggest that
since tzitzin she'einan me`akvin are kosher bediavad, one can treat
lightly the requirement to remove them?

As for why metzitza is not me`akev, I think it's pretty obvious; it's
impossible to rectify.  There is no metzitza with hatafas dam, so
what are you going to do?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

Reb Micha,

I am not qualified to analyze the sources for the purpose of determining
whether MBP is, or is not, an integral part of the mitzvah.

It may be that this group has discussed this in the past.  If so, I will
examine the archives when I can.

If not, I suggest that this might be a worthwhile discussion.

DK


On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 16:31, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:39:57PM -0400, Beth & David Cohen wrote:
> :                         IOW, assuming metzitza is a l'chatchila
> : requirement, but b'deeved the bris milah is kosher, does pikuach nefesh
> : override the requirement?
>
> Let's also disambiguate the two meanings of bedi'eved -- there is the
> post-facto question of whether there was a chalos and the separate
> question of whether one was yotzei. The former: you shouldn't do X, but
> if you did, there is still a change of halachic state. The latter: the
> proper way to do the mitzvah is to do X, but if you erred, and omitted
> that step, you're still yotzei.
>
> RZS said the baby is not left an areil. That doesn't mean that one still
> fulfilled the mitzvah of milah. We are still talking of asking those who
> hold metzitzah is part of milah to altogether do away with one of the most
> cenral of mitzvos.
>
> :-)||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?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120409/e1612886/attachment-0001.htm>

BTW one proof that metzitzah is part of the mitzvah is from the halacha
regarding tzitzin she'einan me`akvin, when one does a bris on Shabbos.
During the week, of course, there is no problem with cutting these off,
so if the mohel realised while bandaging the wound that he hadn't done
a good job, he can fix it.  But on Shabbos there is an av melacha of
shechita, which is overridden by the asei of "uvayom hashmini yimol".
So the law is that during the process of the milah one may cut these
parts as well, but if the milah is over and then one noticed the problem
one may not go back and remove them until after Shabbos.  So it becomes
crucial to determine when the milah is over.  Obviously during the cutting
itself, one cuts off the entire orlah, and tries to do a perfect job,
leaving nothing that ought to be removed.  But if one noticed the error
during the peri`ah *or the metzitzah* one goes back and fixes it.  Once
the metzitzah is done the mitzvah is over; bandaging the wound is not
part of the mitzvah, and there is no longer a heter to remove the tzitzin.
However if metzitzah were only a medical practise to be done after the
mitzvah, then it would be no different from bandaging the wound, which
is also a medical practise and not part of the mitzvah; so how could one
cut the tzitzin then, once the peri`ah is over?


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

     The g'mara in Shabbos 133b proves that failure to perform metzitza is
     a sakana, from the fact that it is done despite its being chillul
     Shabbos.  If it is an integral part of the mila, what is the proof? It
     has to be done because mila is doche Shabbos, not necessarily because
     of pikuach nefesh.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f835ad47f42b2392dest03vuc

I think the answer lies in resolving the Gemara Berachos 3b which indicates
that princes would get up after "Tartei Dyemama" in the context of "Derech
Bnei Melachim Laamod Beshalosh Sha'os." The Bach (Simman 58) explains that
they would wake up at the end of the second hour, get dressed etc., and
would recite Kerias Shema by the end of the third hour.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120410/9b5cab15/attachment-0001.htm>

"When looking at the 10 plagues of Egypt, the question arises - why those?
Hashem could have achieved the same effect of liberating the Israeli nation
by bringing in an enemy that would have let the Jews go "

Rav Moshe Tarragin of Yeshivat Har Etzion has a 10 part series in English
on the various makkot available as podcasts on KMTT, kimitzion.org.

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120410/60485244/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Thu, 4/5/12, Poppers, Michael <MPopp...@kayescholer.com> wrote:

>>I don't understand, R'Micha -- isn't it true that there's a machloqes
whether women are chayav in BhM mid'Oraysa or only mid'Rabbanan and no such
>>machloqes whether they (shehayu b'oso haneis) are chayav in sippur
y'tziyas Mitzrayim?
-----------------------------------



>Once again: Sipur Yitzias Mitzrayim is a D'Oraisa for women (MItzvah 21 in
the Chinuch).

Well my reading of the Minchas Chinuch is that he actually disagrees and
holds it is only d'rabbanan, see there.  I am not sure that anybody else
does though.

> 'Af Hein Hayah B'Oso HaNes' is not a Sefora that is used for D'Oraisos. It
is used for D'Rabbanans - like the Daled Kosos.

The Minchas Chinuch does assert this, and indeed this is one answer given in
Tosphos (Megilla 4a "af hen") - to the question of why we need to learn out
the chiyuv of eating matza from the prohibition on chometz, won't af hen
b'oso hanes do, but I am not sure it is so pashut.  Tosphos itself there in
Megilla brings, in the name of Rabbanu Yosef Ish Yerushalayim, an
alternative reason - ie we might have learnt the gezera shava tes vav, tes
vav that women should be exempt (which would suggest that indeed af hen
b'oso hanes does give rise to d'orisas).

And indeed, the Tosphos on Pesachim 108b (as opposed to Megila) seems to
imply this.  The Tosphos on "she'af hen" says - "v'i lav have ta'ama lo hayu
chayovos mshum d'nashim peturos memitzvos aseh shehazman grama af al gav
d'arba kosos drabbanan k'ain d'orisa tikun".  What you are saying is that
*because* arba kosos are d'rabbanan then the reason of af hen b'oso hanes
applies - but that is not the usual meaning of "af al gav" - rather, it
seems to suggest that even though the arba kosos are d'rabbanan, just like
the d'orisas in which women are included because of af hen b'oso hanes, so
too the rabbis enacted the d'rabbanans to match.

> The Minchas Chinuch >questions how this Mitzvah (Being?a MASHZG from which
women are exempt -?is nonetheless a Chiuv D'Oraisa for them.

Yes, but the logical conclusion of this questioning is, as he suggests, that
women are only obligated in sippur yitzias mitzrayim d'rabbanan.  If you
reject the Minchas Chinuch, and follow the Chinuch, then it might be that
you are also rejecting the idea that af hen boso hanes as being necessarily
only for d'rabbanans.  

>The Kehilas Yaakov suggests that since it is Makish to Achilas Matzah in
the sense that one of the meanings of Lechem Oni is that it is something
over >which many questions are answered (i.e. the Haggdah that begings with
the Arba Kushios) it derives its Chiuv D'Oraisa from that. Matzah is also a
MASHZG >and a Chiuv D'Oraisa for women. We apply the following dictum: Kol
Sheyeshna B' Bal Tochel Chametz - Yeshna B'Kum Ochel Matzos.

This seems to suggest that, according to the Kehilas Yaakov, if somebody did
not have any matza to make a seder on, they would therefore be exempt from
sippur yitzias mitzrayim (at least on a d'orisa level), just as we are
currently exempt (d'orisa) from mitzvas maror, because we cannot bring the
korban pesach (the current obligation for maror being only d'rabbanan).
That doesn't seem right to me.   While the timing of sippur yitzias
mitzrayim is explicitly linked to the time ordained for the eating of
matzah, it seems a bit farfetched to say that one drags along the other.

In addition, Tosphos's question regarding the need for the pasuk re matza,
assumes that, af hen beoso hanes would, if it applied to d'orisas, naturally
mean that women were included in achilas matza.  But is that necessarily the
case? - yitzias mitzrayim was a nes, the korban pesach involved a nes (being
passed over), sipur yitzias mitrayim is the telling over of the nes, but
what is the actual *nes* involved in matza?  Not rising is perfectly normal
if you don't have time to let it rise.  And as the gemora makes clear, there
are two mitzvos involved in eating matza.  One with the korban pesach (and
maror), but which aspect disappears, like maror, when there is no korban
pesach. And one independent obligation to eat matza even b'zman hazeh when
there is no korban pesach.  Is it necessarily the case that, even were af
hen b'oso hanes to apply, that it would apply to this obligation to eat
matza b'zman hazeh, without kol sheyeshna b'abal tochel chametz?

>HM

Moed Tov

Chana

--- On Tue, 4/10/12, Chana Luntz <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:


?RHM replied:

>Once again: Sipur Yitzias Mitzrayim is a D'Oraisa for women (MItzvah 21 in
the Chinuch).

Well my reading of the Minchas Chinuch is that he actually disagrees and
holds it is only d'rabbanan, see there.? I am not sure that anybody else
does though.

> 'Af Hein Hayah B'Oso HaNes' is not a Sefora that is used for D'Oraisos. It
is used for D'Rabbanans - like the Daled Kosos.

The Minchas Chinuch does assert this, and indeed this is one answer given in
Tosphos (Megilla 4a "af hen") - to the question of why we need to learn out
the chiyuv of eating matza from the prohibition on chometz, won't af hen
b'oso hanes do, but I am not sure it is so pashut.? Tosphos itself there in
Megilla brings, in the name of Rabbanu Yosef Ish Yerushalayim, an
alternative reason - ie we might have learnt the gezera shava tes vav, tes
vav that women should be exempt (which would suggest that indeed af hen
b'oso hanes does give rise to d'orisas)... (the rest deleted for brevity - HM)
-------------------------
I am awed by your Bekius. Even thoughh you've showed it many times here on this list on may different subjects, it still never fails to amaze me.
?
My source was not taken directly from the Chinuch or the Michas Chinuch. It
was?from a secondary source - Torah L'Daas?(TLD) on Moadim by Rabbi Matis
Blum. I was therefore not aware that aside from questiong the Chiunch -?the
MC also asserted that Sipur Yetzias Metzrayim for women is?a D'Rabbanan.
?
Now that you mentioned it - I now kind of recall that the Gemarah that uses
'Af Hein' as a reason for mandating a D'Oraisa?that women are normally
exempt from because it is a MASHZG. 
?
But I believe that it is generally accepted that 'Af Hein' is reserved mostly for D'Rabbanans.
?
Also, the Kehilas Yaakov is not necessarily the definititve answer to the
question. It is however the answer I saw in TLD - and I liked it. That you
could so easily 'Shlug it up' testifies to your keen ablities in Limud
HaTorah. Very impressive!
?
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/20120410/7b10e3af/attachment-0001.htm>

In recent weeks and months, I've been working on trying to understand the concept of "redemption/geulah".

Based on phrases like "the Final Geulah" and "connecting Geulah to
Tefilah", I've gotten the impression that Geulah is a very big deal. It
seems to mark an elevation in the status of a person or a people.

But when I look for examples of Geulah, it seems to be a notable event, but
not as big of a deal as I thought it would be. Let's call it "a small
deal", perhaps. For example, Avraham Avinu went from being a nobody, to
being a major world power, financially and militarily, and theologically,
chosen by HaShem to be the father of a great nation. But I don't recall
that ever being referred to as a Geulah. In contrast, Nisan is said to be a
time of Geulah, but of the 15 wonderful things listed in Dayenu, only the
first eight happened on Pesach. Furthermore, of those eight, I think only
one ("gave us their money") can be considered an "elevation", whereas the
other seven merely repaired the injustice of the slavery.

This is NOT to suggest that I'm ungrateful that the slavery was repaired,
but frankly, perhaps we'd be better off not having been slaves to begin
with. Keep in mind that I'm only looking at the first 8 items in Dayenu.
They were a necessary prelude to the 7 items which cam later: getting the
Shabbos, our Achdus at Sinai, receiving the Torah. *Those* things are the
real "big deals" of the story, but they come *after* the Geulah, and I
don't recall them being *part* of the Geulah.

I hope you won't mind if I compare this, l'havdil, to two stories in
popular culture, in which "redemption" is the main theme. In "The Shawshank
Redemption", the protagonist is framed for his wife's murder. After several
decades in jail, he escapes from jail with a lot of money and retires very
wealthy, but I'm guessing that he'd prefer his wife not to have been
murdered. The second, "Les Miserables", is often described as "a story of
redemption", in which the protagonist was jailed for stealing a loaf of
bread to feed his family. He too broke out, impersonated someone, and
became a successful businessman. But he was always on the run, afraid of
being recaptured, and I think he wished that he had never been jailed to
begin with.

L'havdil, I can't help making comparisons to Yetzias Mitzrayim. Yes, we
came out ahead financially. But, standing on the other side of the Yam Suf,
not knowing about the Torah that lies in our future, was this worth all
that slavery? If this is Geulah, then I think Geulah is closer to "relief"
than to "greatness". In fact, I saw something this week which seems to
support this-

In this week's English Hamodia, Kinyan L'Shabbos magazine, page 5, South
Africa's Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein quotes Rav Yitzchak Kossowsky, the Av
Beis Din of Johannesburg from 1933 to 1951. Referring to the Midrash about
charus and cheirus, he writes: "From this Midrash, we see that the concept
of cheirus is something far more transcendent and powerful than mere
chofesh. Cheirus, said Rav Kossowsky, based on this Midrash, is the eternal
freedom from the ordinary laws of history, by which nations come and go...
He said that this is why Chazal chose the term 'zman cheiruseinu' to
describe Pesach, rather than 'chag geulaseinu', the festival of our
redemption. Geulaseinu would have implied solely the redemption from the
Egyptian slavery, which has since been replaced with other oppressions and
redemptions; whereas cheiruseinu describes the eternal, transcendent, and
indestructible dimension of Klal Yisrael."

Does anyone else have this feeling, that Geula is a good thing, but not an extremely great thing?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Mom Makes Botox Doctors Furious
Mom Reveals Clever Wrinkle Therapy That Makes Botox Doctors Furious&#33
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f846566df589295266st05vuc

Well, I think it's used in different ways in different contexts.  I've 
seen it used as the opposite of Galut.  I've heard Geula and Geula 
Sheleima contrasted.  We know that one of the four leshonot of "geulah" 
(a generic?) is v'ga'alti.  In that context, it seems to be a question 
of mindset more than anything else.  Hotza'ah mi-sivlot Mitzrayim is a 
physical removal from the suffering the Egyptians put on us.  Hatzalah 
me-avodatam seems to be saving us from working for them at all, even 
without suffering.  Geulah me-avdut l'cheirut seems like a change in 
mindset from being slaves to being free.  Only after those three do we 
have Lekicha l'Hashem l'am.  Hashem taking us as His people.

Lisa

On 4/10/2012 11:51 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> In recent weeks and months, I've been working on trying to understand the concept of "redemption/geulah".
>
> Based on phrases like "the Final Geulah" and "connecting Geulah to
> Tefilah", I've gotten the impression that Geulah is a very big deal.
> It seems to mark an elevation in the status of a person or a people.
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120410/08ecf182/attachment-0001.htm>

The Ramban in his introduction to Shmot wrote that the Geulah was only 
completed at Har Sinai.

Ben

On 4/10/2012 7:51 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> L'havdil, I can't help making comparisons to Yetzias Mitzrayim. Yes,
> we came out ahead financially. But, standing on the other side of the
> Yam Suf, not knowing about the Torah that lies in our future, was this
> worth all that slavery? If this is Geulah, then I think Geulah is
> closer to "relief" than to "greatness".

From  http://tinyurl.com/d2xkayc

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 461:4) writes that one 
fulfills the Mitzvah of Matzoh with matzoh 
shruyah - gebrochts, soaked Matzah - as long as 
the Matzoh remains intact and whole.  This is 
based upon the Gemorah itself (Psachim 41a) which 
states the very same law.  What then is the 
source for the custom of avoiding Gebrochts - dipped or wetted Matzoh?

Almost without exception, the custom to refrain 
from Gebrochts has spread throughout the 
Chassidic world and even among others.  How did 
this Minhag develop?  In this article we will 
attempt to trace the origin of this stringency.
The first reference this author could find that 
directly mentions the Minhag is the Olas Shabbos 
(453:3) who discusses a halacha in the Bach that 
Matzos should be baked prior to Pesach and not 
during Pesach, as Chometz is only batel before 
Pesach and not during Pesach.  The Olas Shabbos 
adds, ?And one who is concerned for this 
stringency should not cook a baked Matzoh on 
pesach either, for how is it different than 
baking??  In other words, the Olas Shabbos is 
concerned that the Chametz that was mixed into 
the Matzoh but became nullified before Pesach is 
now re-awakened on Pesach itself.

<Snip>

There are also opinions that it is forbidden to 
be stringent.  The Sheilas Yaavetz (Vol. II #65) 
cites his father the Chacham Tzvi that it is 
wrong to disallow the Simchas Yom Tov with far-fetched stringencies!

So when did the Chassidim start it?  Reb Mendel 
of Vitebsk is cited by many of the early 
Chassidim as attributing it to the Maggid of 
Mezrich and that, believe it or not, the Baal Shem Tov did eat Kneidlach!

The Chsam Sofer (Responsa OC 138) also used to 
consume Gebrokts ? especially with soup 
Kneidlach.  Rumor has it that some members of the 
Chsam Sofer?s family even have the recipe for Kneidlach that his wife used.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120411/65095e5a/attachment-0001.htm>

some psakim from RSZA

1. It wasn't clear to him what the halacha was for cottonseed oil and so he
relied on the minhag not to use it.
2. He allowed eating kitniyot on the shabbat immediately after Pesach but
not cooking. He allowed using chametz then only for chametz that is
rabbinically prohibited
3. He was upset from people who made cakes etc from potato starch and
certainly matzoh meal. He felt that this should be included in the kitniyot
decree of being confused with chametz items


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120411/eb3e801b/attachment-0001.htm>

In the Hagaddah, we go through the math of how many makkot there were in
mitzrayim and at the yam suf. We say that since each maka in mitzrayim was
an "etzba" and at the yam suf it was a "yad" that there were 5X as many
plagues at the yam than in Egypt.

This is fine except for the fact that we say "B'yad chazaka: zo hadever"
(With a strong hand: this refers to the dever.) Why don't we say that dever
counts as 5 times more than the other plagues?

Kol Tuv,

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120411/e9630857/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 17
**************************************

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..."