Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 109

Wed, 08 Aug 2012

• 1. Magreifah and Yir'ah (Micha Berger)
• 2. Lulav vs Shofar shel Avodah Zara vs Shefoferes shel Parah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Rab Dessler's Givers and Takers (Allan Engel)
• 4. The Mezuzah Is Not an Amulet (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Tzaar Baalei Chayim (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 6. Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: WHAT IT IS PROPER TO LEARN (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Magreifah and Yir'ah (Liron Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Magreifah and Yir'ah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Brush teeth after seudat shlishit (Akiva Miller)
• 13. Re: Shayala of Onaah (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Brush teeth after seudat shlishit (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Shayala of Onaah (Lisa Liel)
• 16. Re: Shayala of Onaah (Micha Berger)

The gemara Eirkhin 10b-11a describes the magreifah, one of the kelei
shir in the BHMQ, which in Leshon Tanakh is either the minnim or the
ugav. Shemuel describes it as a box about 1 ammah square with a board
extending from one side (for keys? to work the bellows?), and 10 tubes
coming out the top. Each pipe had 10 holes allowing for 100 qolos.
A beraisa (meaning: before Shmuel, a first generation amora) says
1,000 qolos. OTOH, in the Y-mi's version (Sukkah 25a), Rav argues with
Shemuel and one of them says (judging from the Bavli, I would conclude
Rav) there were 100 pipes and that both say it could make 1,000 qolos.
While this is often taken as guzma, I would note that 10 pipes, each
of which having only one hole that can be covered to turn it off,
would allow for 1,024 combinations. So 1,000 qolos (Y-mi: minei zemer)
meaning 1,000 chords would be a gross *under*statement for 10 pipes with
10 holes each, not an exageration. Maybe around 1,000 aren't just noise.

There is another keli called a magrefah; it is a shovel (Rashi ad loc)
used to tend the coals. So I picture the pipes together, like a pipe
organ's, thus giving the instrument its name. Similarly, those who
translate the coal-tending magrefah is a rake would probably assume the
pipes fanned out, bagpipe-like.

Guesswork about the magrefah led to the pipe-organ. But it sounds
more like some kind of combination of according (a box) and a bagpipe
(multiple pipes). Although both have reeds, and there is no reason to
believe the instrument had reeds rather than the purer tones (in the
sense of fewer harmonics -- think flute rather than oboe) of blowing
air across the pipe itself.

The Oxfor History of Music says there is a sculpture of bagpipes on a
Hittite slab, dating to around 1,000 BCE. Nero y"sh played one, according
to Suetonius.

In much of the music written for pipe-organ is written with a "pedal point".
Wiki defines it as
    a sustained tone, typically in the bass, during which at least one
    foreign, i.e., dissonant harmony is sounded in the other parts. A
    pedal point sometimes functions as a "non-chord tone"...

Why is it typicall in the bass, the deep end of the instrument? For
the same reason a bagpipe has drones, again quoting wiki:
    a pipe which is generally not fingered but rather produces a constant
    harmonizing note throughout play.

Here's an example of a pedal point to listen to
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Pedalpoint.mid>

The prolonged deep note, because it doesn't change, ends up fading out
of conscious attention, unless you're reading a post like this one and
made to think about it. But it as weight to what you're hearing.

The magrefa was likely played with a pedal point or drones, as otherwise
the player had to work 10 different pipes and the air pumping system
simultaneously. Aside from the archeological evidence that they were
part of bagpipe-like instruments of the era as well.

All of which is a prelude to the following mashal...

Yir'ah is the pedal-point of the shirah of life. Not to get in the way
of the joy of the music, but to add the necessary gravitas to the song
that pushes us to feel its imporance.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS in case you're wondering: Why didn't I post this on Aspaqlaria (my blog
at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp>)? Because I may be using the mashal in
a talk in November, and some of that conference's audience reads my blog.
I have to figure how to do so without spending a distracting length of
time on the lead-in.

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Today's daf yomi Y-mi is Yevamos 67. On amud a, there is a repeat of
a sugya we had in Sukkah. It's parallel to the Bavli's discussion of
mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah, and why a lulav shel asheirah is no good,
but one can be yotzei by hearing qolos made by a shofar shel AZ.

The Y-mi has far more repeated sugyos than the Bavli. I think because
of two factors:

1- Less redaction.

2- The Y-mi gives far more relative weight to quoted mesorah than to
logic compared to the Bavli. (And the logic it does tend to use is more
comparison and analogy based than the vertical reasoning you see in the
Bavli.) So, once a discussion from an earlier generation is referred
to, the Y-mi is more likely to simply quote it again in its entirety
unchanged.

In any case, here are my understandings of the machloqes R' Yosi and R'
Lazar ("understandings" because I can read R' Lazar two different ways)
as it appears on today's daf Y-mi:

In RH and Sukkah we found that the Y-mi uses "shena'aseh saneiguro
gatifuro" instead of the lashom of "mitzvah habaah ba'aveirah". IOW, it
explicitly refers to the pesul being in the cheftza. (And thus eliminating
need to explain when it's a case of mitzvah habaah ba'aveirah and when
we say asei dokeh lav.)

You're not yotzei with a lulav she'll AZ because it lacks lakhem. But
by mitzvas shofar, "Yom Teru'ah yiyheh lakham"...

R Yosi: ... there is also a lakhem, but the "cheftza" is the Yom
Teru'ah. And you will have a day of fanfare.

R Lazar ver 1: ... the mitzvah is the pe'ulah of making a qol. Therefore
there is no cheftzah to turn into a qateigor.

R Lazar ver 2: ... the cheftza is the qol, and since you made the sound,
it is lakhem. In this version, R' Yosi and R Lazar agree that there
is a cheftzah, just that it's not an object, and thus not the cheftzah
tainted by being a qateigor.

The problem I have is that while we say that one could use a shofar shell
AZ, we do invoke "ein qateigor naaseh saneigor" as one of the reasons not
to use a bovine horn, which invokes the eigel. (The other being it's a
multi-layered shefoferes, not the singular sound of a shofar.) Shouldn't
either both be pesulim as kateigarim about AZ, or neither?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle

They may also have lived in London at the same time.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 09:02:23PM -0500, Maxi Yedid wrote:
> : Rab Dessler's famous concept of givers and takers was based and/or
> inspired
> : in Baal HaSulam teachings?
>
> Or visa versa, their lives overlapped.
>     RYA:  1885-1954
>     REED: 1892-1953
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120807/e4dd6005/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9  And write 
them upon the [door-]
posts of your house and upon your gates.

The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the
house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's
content can the people within the house expect help and protection
from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes
of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the
outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120807/03e7abdd/attachment-0001.htm>

Is there a point at which someone can forfeit ownership of an animal of
theirs because they cause it too much pain? Or do we say "azov taazov
*imo*" shows that even if the animal is being afflicted, there is no
responsibility on anyone else to remove that suffering unless the owner is
involved as well?

In common law, it is a criminal act when someone causes an animal unnecessary pain.
People are arrested for this and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Why would Torah law be more lenient?

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 08:35:30PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: In common law, it is a criminal act when someone causes an animal
: unnecessary pain.
: People are arrested for this and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
: Why would Torah law be more lenient?

Because we know that people aren't just quantitatively different than
animals. So the primary reason to prohibit tzaar baalei chaim is because
boys who torture squirrels grow up to do worse things. It's an issue of
middos in the actor, not whether the animal's suffering is real.

Also because American Law is more likely to ban the results of a
crime than Torah is to ban the results of a sin -- ever eat a banana
or grapefruit? So perhaps the animal isn't prohibited to him afterward.

My point is "why would" could have a myriad answers.

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

But the Ashkenazi practice of focusing on Bavli is very old, and is
defended by Rabbeinu Tam (AZ 19b "yeshaleish"). The gemara (Sanhedrin 24a)
asks, "What is 'Bavel"?" I presume this is referring to the yeshivos and
mode of learning there, since Talmud Bavli didn't exist in R' Yochanan's
day, and yet it's R' Yochanan who gives the reply, "Belula bemiqra,
belula bemishna, belula betalmud."

R' Tam says it's for this reason that we focus on shas; that with shas
alone one learns all three -- miqra, mishna, and talmud.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
From an upcoming audioroundup:

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/780602/Rabbi_Arye
h_Lebowitz/Why_Learn_Gemara_An_Appreciation_of_Talmud_Bavli_in_Anticipation
_of_the_Siyum_Hashas
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Why Learn Gemara? An Appreciation of Talmud Bavli in Anticipation of the Siyum Hashas 

Sounding very Litvish (my definition - anyone who says with a straight face
Nasata V'natata b'emunah is a question about your learning and not your
business ethics). R'Lebowitz explains the primary importance of Talmud
Torah [especially halacha; agadah is only a supplement] as a description of
HKB"H.
Why learn Talmud Bavli and not Kitzur Shulchan Aruch?  1) Deeper 
understanding of halacha/applications; 2) connects us to baalei mesorah
(links in tradition)[me - but a real Litvak would say connects us to how
later baalei mesorah understood the earlier ones since else it's academic
talmud!]; 3) promotes engagement of student with the material; 4) connects
us to HKB"H; 5) contains Tanach and Misnah and Mussar (i.e. everything); 6)
more challenging.
My questions - 1) why do many darshanim ignore the opinion that Ben Sorer
etc. did actually occur?; 2) so how could Chinuch (training kids) be only
drabbanan? [much like R'Chaim's argument that prayer must be a Torah
concept - can you imagine a world without prayer?]

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.

> On 7/08/2012 8:35 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> In common law, it is a criminal act when someone causes an animal unnecessary pain.
> People are arrested for this and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
> Why would Torah law be more lenient?

How is Torah law more lenient?  Tzaar Baalei Chayim is a crime, and one
who is caught violating it would be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, and given the penalty, which is presumably malkos, just like any
other lav.  What more should one expect?


On 7/08/2012 9:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Also because American Law is more likely to ban the results of a
> crime than Torah is to ban the results of a sin -- ever eat a banana
> or grapefruit? So perhaps the animal isn't prohibited to him afterward.

Bananas and grapefruits are the results of sin?!  AIUI bananas are
natural, and while grapefruits are a hybrid between oranges and pomelos,
this probably happened naturally.

Also, the actual result of the sinful hybridisation of fruit is in fact
assur, and only the next generation, which was not produced by sin and
contains none of the substance of the product of sin, is permitted.
So if grapefruits were produced through sin, the fruit of that particular
tree in which the sin occurred would be assur.  However when animals are
crossbred, even sinfully, the resulting mule is muttar.  So there's no
consistent rule.

-- 
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

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, Micha Berger wrote:

> The gemara Eirkhin 10b-11a describes the magreifah, one of the kelei
> shir in the BHMQ, which in Leshon Tanakh is either the minnim or the
> ugav. Shemuel describes it as a box about 1 ammah square with a board
> extending from one side (for keys? to work the bellows?), and 10 tubes
> coming out the top. Each pipe had 10 holes allowing for 100 qolos.
> A beraisa (meaning: before Shmuel, a first generation amora) says
> 1,000 qolos. OTOH, in the Y-mi's version (Sukkah 25a), Rav argues with
> Shemuel and one of them says (judging from the Bavli, I would conclude
> Rav) there were 100 pipes and that both say it could make 1,000 qolos.
> While this is often taken as guzma, I would note that 10 pipes, each
> of which having only one hole that can be covered to turn it off,
> would allow for 1,024 combinations. So 1,000 qolos (Y-mi: minei zemer)
> meaning 1,000 chords would be a gross *under*statement for 10 pipes with
> 10 holes each, not an exageration. Maybe around 1,000 aren't just noise.


If each tube is ten notes higher than the next, then 100 tubes with ten
holes equals 1000 notes. Why assume it means chords?

>
> There is another keli called a magrefah; it is a shovel (Rashi ad loc)
> used to tend the coals. So I picture the pipes together, like a pipe
> organ's, thus giving the instrument its name. Similarly, those who
> translate the coal-tending magrefah is a rake would probably assume the
> pipes fanned out, bagpipe-like.
>
> Why would you assume the rake heads are fanning out? Some rakes have all
of the rake heads laid out more poke a comb than a fan. This would very
much approximate the look of an organ.

Kol tuv,
Liron


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120808/0518ecb9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:20:01AM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
:> While this is often taken as guzma, I would note that 10 pipes, each
:> of which having only one hole that can be covered to turn it off,
:> would allow for 1,024 combinations. So 1,000 qolos (Y-mi: minei zemer)
:> meaning 1,000 chords would be a gross *under*statement for 10 pipes with
:> 10 holes each, not an exageration. Maybe around 1,000 aren't just noise.

: If each tube is ten notes higher than the next, then 100 tubes with ten
: holes equals 1000 notes. Why assume it means chords?

Because I was discussing Shemu'el, 10 pipes with 10 holes each.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:45:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Also because American Law is more likely to ban the results of a
>> crime than Torah is to ban the results of a sin -- ever eat a banana
>> or grapefruit? So perhaps the animal isn't prohibited to him afterward.
>
> Bananas and grapefruits are the results of sin?!  AIUI bananas are
> natural, and while grapefruits are a hybrid between oranges and pomelos,
> this probably happened naturally.

I just meant they are both the products of kelaim.

BTW, banana is a family name, not a species name. Since the 1950s, when
disease killed out the gros michal banana, we generally eat
cavendish bananas, which are seedly because the parent species are that
different. Natural bananas are streight and have many large pits.

> Also, the actual result of the sinful hybridisation of fruit is in fact
> assur, and only the next generation, which was not produced by sin and
> contains none of the substance of the product of sin, is permitted.
...

Kelaim 8:1: "Kelai zera'im, assurim milizroa umileqayeim, umutarim
ba'akhila."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Micha Berger asked:

> You mean, who says that chicken cutlets are more appropriate
> for a se'udas Shabbos than tuna fish sandwiches? (At least,
> in this culture...)

I'm glad you added that tag about culture, because it highlights my attempt
to find criteria which are not so personally-defined, but rather
halachically-defined.

For example, there is an acknowledged halachic preference for hot food on
Shabbos, and the reason for it is a specific anti-nonbeliever agenda, to
demonstrate that we *are* allowed to use the heat of fire on Shabbos. This
does not says anything negative about having some cold food along with the
hot.

Similarly, there is an acknowledged halachic preference for meat dishes, on
the presumption that meat brings more simcha or oneg to the person than
pareve or dairy food does. This preference is not as ironclad as above,
however, as it has some wiggle room for those who personally prefer other
foods to meat.

It I remember correctly, there's also a preference for tahor food over
tamei, and/or kodshim over chullin, because the objective ruchniyus of
these foods is more befitting Shabbos.

In keeping with the above, it seems appropriate that halacha might have a
specific and clear preference for foods which are Oleh Al Shulchan
Melachim, over comparatively pedestrian foods. Although this standard will
vary from culture to culture, it can still be called objective, because
within any particular culture, this standard is totally independent of my
personal preferences, but rather totally dependent on how the poskim see
this particular food's status within our culture.

For example, according to http://www.star-
k.org/kashrus/kk-issues-bishul.htm, potato chips are not Oleh Al
Shulchan Melachim today in the United States (though they *are* such in
"certain Third World countries"). And I should remind the readership that
what started this sub-thread, was the idea that a person might eat Pringles
on Shabbos in order to prepare for fasting on Tisha B'Av. Setting aside the
question of preparing for after Shabbos, this person was surprised that
someone would deign to eat such a non-special food on Shabbos at all.

So to get back to R' Micha's question: The policy of the Star-K (http://www.star-
k.com/kashrus/kk-ttts-spring06.htm) is to consider tuna Oleh Al
Shulchan Melachim. As such, it would NOT be any less preferable than
chicken cutlets according to this standard. On the other hand,
"Essentially, the halachic position of the OU is that canned fish does not
become forbidden as a result of bishu1 akum" (http://www.ouko
sher.org/index.php/common/article/playing_with_fire_by_rabbi_yaakov_luban_s
enior_rabbinic_coordinator_ou_kash/), according to which chicken
cutlets *would* be preferable.

Getting back to *my* question: Are there any poskim who use this criteria
at all? It surely seems like a useful yardstick, but is "ruach chachamim
nocheh heymenu"? Do any poskim advise us to eat only elegant desserts on
Shabbos, and to avoid junk foods?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

Shouldn't we be asking in addition to the question of onaah on the airline
tickets, about whether the sale was a meqach ta'us?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:10:08PM -0400, I wrote:
: On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 12:52:34PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
:: So RMP and I wondered -- Is there a posek anywhere, who advises that
:: on Shabbos, people should try to eat foods which are Oleh Al Shulchan
:: Melachim? Or that advises people to avoid foods which are outside of
:: that category?...

: You mean, who says that chicken cutlets are more appropriate for a
: se'udas Shabbos than tuna fish sandwiches? (At least, in this culture...)

It is clear after some private email that I was being too clever, trying
to roll up two points in one sentence, one overly subtlely.

1- I do believe that junk foods are olos al shulchan melakhim. For
example, Ronald Reagan's famous love of Jelly Belly (brand jellybeans)
<http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/jellybellies.html>,
set out to be available for visting heads of state. Kings do and always
have enjoyed nosh.

2- Therefore, discussions about applying this idea do exist, but
instead talk about having light informal Shabbos meals (like tuna fish
sandwiches), rather than avoiding "kol minei mat'amim".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

How could it be a mekach taut?  From the point of view of the buyer, it 
looked like a sale.  In fact, someone posted about it to Facebook, and 
if I hadn't gotten there too late, I'd have gotten some of the cheap 
tickets.  From the point of view of the reseller (because this was on 
Expedia's site and not El Al's), it's hard to say.  If they made the 
mistake, as an shaliach of El Al, presumably their shlichut was invalid, 
and they had no right to sell those tickets.  So possibly it was even 
geneiva on their part.  If there's any cause of action here, it seems to 
be that El Al should be able to demand the difference from Expedia.  
People who bought the tickets should be free and clear.  And in fact, 
while El Al announced that they're going to honor the tickets, they 
didn't say anything about taking the loss themselves.

Lisa


On 8/8/2012 8:39 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Shouldn't we be asking in addition to the question of onaah on the airline
> tickets, about whether the sale was a meqach ta'us?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120808/f7cd1ed6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:01:07PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> How could it be a mekach taut?  From the point of view of the buyer, it  
> looked like a sale...

According to Gittin 14a, the deal is invalid if *either* side had made a
ta'us. I should have said "qinyan beta'us", the terminology there, but
meqach ta'us is the usual idiom, even if here it's the memkar that was
actually in error.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 109
***************************************

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..."