Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 144

Sun, 21 Oct 2012

• 1. Re: Az Yashir (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Geshem or Gashem (D&E-H Bannett)
• 3. melech--->malka (saul newman)
• 4. Re: melech--->malka (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: melech--->malka (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: melech--->malka (Saul Guberman)
• 7. Re: Mar Cheshvan? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 8. Re: Mar Cheshvan? (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Mar Cheshvan? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Geshem or Gashem (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Geshem or Gashem (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 12. Re: web site on shabbat (Chana Luntz)
• 13. The Definition of a Tzadik (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Why a Rainbow? (Akiva Miller)
• 15. Re: Why a Rainbow? (Micha Berger)
• 16. May a Man Shake a Woman's Hand? (Prof. Levine)

I wrote:
> I am not sure we need to be doresh the name and the minhag. Is it not that
> it's called 'elyon because it uses far more cantillation marks that appear
> above the line, so as to turn every Gibraltar into a single passuk. No
> festive, not revelatory. If there is any remembrance of revelation,
> which I believe there is, well, it's caused by the content, not the tune.

Ach, blessed autocorrect on my phone... I was not typing anything
about Gibraltar, but rather wrote that the use of ta'am 'elyon, i.e.,
the kind that is mostly written above the letters, rather than below
them, is meant to turn every *dibrah* into a single passuq. (How
dibrah turned into Gibraltar beats me ;-))

Good Shabbos,

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck

Re: pausal forms in prayer?  << RAF wrote: Well, we 
demonstrably do, with the pausal aaatah,  but who says 
that's relevant? I posit that there is no pause there, and 
that is why geshem is correct. I would also say morid hatal 
with a patach.>>

The pausal aata (kamatz under alef) might be relevant except 
that it doesn't appear in old siddurim. The Gr"a has a 
patach under the alef and Eizor Eliyahu says that the change 
to kamatz is a hiddush of R' Zalman Henne who is famed for 
"modernizing" the Ashkenazi siddur.  As I've posted often, 
the Gr"a was opposed and R' Yaakov Me-Emden wrote a book 
denouncing R' Zalman's changes.

As to geshem/gashem, I agree that there is no pause and have 
posted a number of times (probably mostly in the Mesorah 
sublist) about the new siddurim that have returned from 
gashem to geshem but haven't returned the patach to tal. 
Having heard of a mystic reason for tal with kamatz I even 
posted that I had forgotten the reason.  Someone sent me the 
reason.  However, sad to say, I've forgotten it again. Nu, 
that's what happens as one ages.

David 

if not  mistaken , RMBM  describes going out to greet  the  melech shabbat.
  if true,  when did the parlance  change to shabbat hamalka? or is the
RMBM the exception?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121019/c12e9fb2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:24:22AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: if not  mistaken , RMBM  describes going out to greet  the  melech shabbat.
: if true,  when did the parlance  change to shabbat hamalka? or is the
: RMBM the exception?

We discussed this on the second half of a thread titled "sun and moon"
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=S#SUN%20AND%20MOON
starting with a comment by Zev at 
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n177.shtml#14
and Lisa asking why Zev called Shabbos a "king".

The original source isn't the Rambam, it's Shabbos 119a. We ended up
finding two girsa'os of R' Chanina: Bo'u veneitzei liqeras Shabbas
haMalkah (with a hei) or "haMalka" (with an alef, Aramit for "Melekh").

Obviously the Rambam believes it's with an alef. However, I personally
don't see why. The rest of the sentence is Hebrew.

With Qabbalah, Shabbos haMalkah becomes identified with the Shechinah
and the sefirah of Malkhus. So, for reasons that wouldn't bother the
Rambam, assuming the feminine would make more sense to a Mequbal.

And at least I can point to the author of Mah Yedidus wrote "at Shabbas
haMalkah" -- and if he meant "Shabbas haMalka" with an alef, it would be
"ant" (or even the Hebrew "atah"). Contrast to Kah Ribon's "Ant Hu Malka,
Melekh malkhaya", where it's definitely with an alef ("ant Hu"). (Which
is about "Melekh, Malkhei haMelakhim", not "Shabbas haMalka/h". I'm
only using it to show the significance of "at".)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

A half-hour or so ago, I posted:
: We discussed this on the second half of a thread titled "sun and moon"
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=S#SUN%20AND%20MOON
...
: The original source isn't the Rambam, it's Shabbos 119a. We ended up
: finding two girsa'os of R' Chanina: Bo'u veneitzei liqeras Shabbas
: haMalkah (with a hei) or "haMalka" (with an alef, Aramit for "Melekh").

I see I forked a thread off to acknowledge the change of topic. The
discussion continues at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=S#SHABBOS%20KING

REMT points out that correct Aramaic would be "Shabbas Malka", not only
with an alef at the end, but without a hei in the begining, either. He
says in the same post
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n180.shtml#07>:
> In fact, there are two girsaos in the g'mara.  The Rif has "Shabbos
> malka" with an alef; obviously, so did the Rambam, and the Maggid
> Mishne, in citing the Rambam's souurce, likewise quotes the g'mara as
> "malka," with an alef.  Thus, they agree that the reference is to
> king, and not queen.  The Rosh has the girsa "malk'sa,"  which  
> refers to Shabbos as queen.  Our g'mara, which has "hamalka[h]," follows
> the Rosh's understanding, but has it in Hebrew, rather than in Aramaic.

R/D Ezra Schwat chimed in with manuscript evidence
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n184.shtml#12>:
> See <http://imhm.blogspot.com/2011/09/gender-awareness-on-shabbat.html>

> The use of malkah (with a hei) or malkesa (Aramaic feminine) appears to
> correlate with which locales had access to the Bahir (with the exception
> of the Raavan).

In contast to the Andalusian girsa of the Rif and Rambam.

Which probably was what fueled the theory I posted then:
: With Qabbalah, Shabbos haMalkah becomes identified with the Shechinah
: and the sefirah of Malkhus. So, for reasons that wouldn't bother the
: Rambam, assuming the feminine would make more sense to a Mequbal.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM, saul newman <newman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if not  mistaken , RMBM  describes going out to greet  the  melech
> shabbat.   if true,  when did the parlance  change to shabbat hamalka? or
> is the RMBM the exception?

It is probably the other way around.  When did it change to Melech?  the
conjugation is "malk" as in avinu malkaynu

     It behooves writers of columns such as this to check their facts.	He
     cites the Aruch Hashulchan as the source for rendering a get pasul if
     the month is written as Cheshvan.	In actuality, in the siman cited,
     the AH states explicitly that such a get is kasher. EMT	 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121019/bd115de6/attachment-0001.htm>

At 02:42 PM 10/19/2012, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
>      It behooves writers of columns such as this to check their 
> facts.  He cites the Aruch Hashulchan as the source for rendering a 
> get pasul if the month is written as Cheshvan.  In actuality, in 
> the siman cited, the AH states explicitly that such a get is kasher.
>
>EMT
>

I am copying Hakhel on this response.

They have an annoying habit of writing "A Reader" rather than giving 
the name of the person so one could check on this with the person who 
sent it in.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121019/6caf4549/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:13:52PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> They have an annoying habit of writing "A Reader" rather than giving the 
> name of the person so one could check on this with the person who sent it 
> in.

Perhaps you didn't notice when I said I was the author?

Here is how your post began, with my moderator's note:
> The following is from today's Hakhel Email Bulletin.

> [I redivided it back into paragraphs as per my original email to them.
> -micha, author]

And again at the head of Lisa's:
> Just a couple of minor notes.

> On 10/18/2012 11:36 AM, Prof. Levine [inadvertantly quoted me via the Hakhel
> bulletin -mb]:

As for REMT's comment, I cited the AhS to show that the month name is
"Marcheshvan" and that "Cheshvan" and "Marcheshvvan" are only okay
bedi'eved. The AhS holds that common parlance can be used for a month
name, bedi'eved.

There was a change in meaning by their lumping my email into a single
paragraph. I thought it would be clearer what the "see" was trying to
prove.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On 19/10/2012 5:58 AM, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> Having heard of a mystic reason for tal with kamatz I even posted that
> I had forgotten the reason.  Someone sent me the reason.  However, sad
> to say, I've forgotten it again. Nu, that's what happens as one ages.

Shaar Hakollel 9:5 gives a non-mystic reason.  "Morid hageshem" is part
of the original nusach, and continues "...mechalkel chayim", etc.  But
"Morid hatal" is a later interpolation for the days when we don't say
"Morid hageshem", for kabala reasons, so it's treated as an independent
phrase, not as part of the sentence into which it has been dropped.

-- 
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

RArie Folger writes: >RMB assumes the issue is whether we use pausal forms in prayer. Well, we
demonstrably do, with the pausal aaatah, but who says that's relevant? I
posit that there is no pause there, and that is why geshem is correct. I
would also say morid hatal with a patach.<	   That we demonstrably do,
by saying "atah" with a kamatz, is relevant because saying it with a kamatz
and not a patach is roughly coeval with saying gashem rather than geshem. 
Both were introduced in the eighteenth century -- the former by RZalman
Henau in 1786, the latter by Yitzchak Satanov in 1725.	Until then, all
siddurim had a non-pausal form for both.       Henau introduced many
changes, among them replacing Mishnaic language with Biblical in many
places in davening.  RYaakov Emden wrote a sefer, Luach Eresh, attacking
over 600 of his changes, and the Noda Bihudah also criticized him sharply. 
He was, however, an ehrlicher Yid and a baki b'dikduk.	(I believe the
notion of sh'va m'racheif/t'nua kala was his invention.)  Satanov, on the
other hand, was a closet maskil who was not above falsifying sources.  EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121019/fcfb7c45/attachment-0001.htm>

Moved from Areivim at RMB's request:

I wrote:
>there is a machlokus amongst the achronim as to what is meant by TSN.  The
>minority view, but held by the Satmar Rebbe and a few others, is that a TSN
>is somebody who really knows absolutely nothing about yiddishkeit - eg
>somebody who is brought up on an island on which he has never met a Jew or
>was >taught anything at all about yiddishkeit - and the minute that he does
>learn something and does not keep it, he changes from a TSN to a ML.

And RSBA replied:
>Is this view of the SR published anywhere?

Actually, I don't know - I have only heard it orally quoted in his name,
and I could be wrong.

What I have seen in written sources is the Munkatcher Rebbe in Minchas
Eliezer chelek 1 siman 74 who flatly rejected the position of the Binyan
Zion (relying on tinok shenishba) and rather held that the concept of
TSN is only for somebody who lives far from where there are any Jews,
and is not able at all to know the way of Yisrael since he dwells far
from the cities of the Jews (and even then, it only works to exempt on a
d'orisa level, not a d'rabbanan level) and thus the concept is completely
inapplicable to the non religious Jews in his (and hence our) day.

I had been told that the SR followed this position, but no, I don't have
any written source for it. Maybe somebody who is more knowledgeable
about his writings can bring one.

Shavuah tov
Chana

The following if from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6

9 These are the products of Noach. Noach, a righteous man, was 
morally pure in his times: Noach walked with God.

A  Tzadik is one who gives everyone and everything their due.  A 
Tzadik is objective toward everything; he looks at everything from
the standpoint of his duty, and not from the standpoint of his own 
personal interests. The primary meaning of Tzedek is social justice;

When I related this to someone while walking home from shul this 
morning with him,  he said, "There is no mention of piety."  I let 
this comment go,  but I should have replied, "This IS piety."

See http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Fried.pdf

RSRH also writes on this pasuk

Tamim, on the other hand, is usually construed with halach and derech. The
primary meaning of derech is a person's development toward the perfection
of his own personality, his gradual progression from step to step. 
The Tzadik who acts and performs deeds pays no attention
to his own personality. In the case of derech, however, the aim is 
the satisfaction
of one's self and the perfection of one's personality, which,
accordingly, includes also the physical aspirations. Tamim derech is one who
remains pure even when satisfying his physical aspirations.

Later on in his commentary on this pasuk  Rabbiner Hirsch writes, "It 
is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality
than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty."

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121020/599a9189/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbi Yissocher Frand offers this explanation of the symbolism of the
rainbow. The full article is at http://www.to
rah.org/learning/ravfrand/5772/noach.html

> ... Therefore, He created the phenomenon of a rainbow. Whenever
> He gets very angry at the world and is tempted to destroy it
> again with another flood, He has -- as it were -- this "string
> around His finger". He looks at the rainbow and reminds Himself
> of His promise.
>
> ...
>
> Rashi and the Seforno explain what this really means. The
> Almighty is doing the world a tremendous favor. He uses the
> rainbow to send a message to humanity that He is once again
> very angry at the world. The Almighty does not need a rainbow
> in the sky as a reminder. We need a reminder. We look at the
> rainbow and we are supposed to take note that it is a time of
> Anger before the Almighty. At such times, we should think that
> the Almighty is so angry at the world that were it not for His
> Promise, He would again destroy the world. Therefore, we should
> hasten to repent and do Teshuva.
>
> ...
>
> Rav Simcha Zissel - in his writings - says a very interesting
> thing. When we see a rainbow, our reaction is "beautiful". We
> admire the colors, the shape, the impact, and so forth. We
> admire the rainbow and are inspired by it. Consider the
> audacity of this typical reaction. G-d is Angry. He is placing
> a rainbow in the sky as a message to us to get serious, to
> repent, and beseech His Mercy. What is our reaction?
> "Beautiful!" This is the great chutzpah of staring admiringly
> at a rainbow.

My chavrusa asked a very simple question: If so, then why did He choose the beautiful rainbow for this message? Wouldn't something scary be more effective?

My suggestion was that thunder and lightning could have filled this role.
Some might point out that thunder and lightning come before and during the
storm, whereas the rainbow appears after it, but that's really irrelevant.
Hashem could have created some other phenomenon that we can't even imagine
of, which could appear after the storm but be frightening rather than
admirable. Why didn't he?

Perhaps there's a message in here somewhere. In my experience, beauty leads
us to shevach, and it is fear which leads us to teshuva. Why is it
different here? *Is* this case different, or am I missing something?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508346ab987b46aa4c00st01vuc

I once suggested that the rainbow was related to life inside the
teiva, as lit by the tzohar.

http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2001/10/of-arks-and-rainbows.shtml

    There is a famous Rashi on the words of the first verse of this week's
    parashah. "Noach was a wholehearted man in his generation." (Ber'
    6:9) Rashi notes two interpretations of this comment. On the one
    hand, it could be taken as a compliment of Noach. Even in the
    environment and culture of Noach's contemporaries, he was still a
    good person. Alternatively, it could be taken as a criticism. By
    the low expectations of that period, he was a good man. But had he
    lived in Avraham's day, he would have been a nobody.

    There is another debate recorded in Rashi that also touches on our
    question. In (6:16) Noach is told to make a tzohar for the ark. Rashi
    quotes Bereishis Raba, and again there are two positions. One defines
    "tzohar" to be a window, the other a gem.

    I would like to suggest that these two Rashis are recording different
    aspects of the same disagreement. According to the first position, we
    look at Noach in terms of the relative scale of his potential. Noach
    did an excellent job, given what he had to work with. In that light,
    he merited being saved. Therefore, Noach was not in the position of
    Lot, he was allowed to see what transpired to his peers. Therefore,
    this tanna would have no problem saying that the ark had a window
    through which Noach could see out.

    The second looks at him in an absolute scale. By that standard, he
    didn't get as far. His salvation would therefore be seen as an act
    of Divine Mercy, a yeshu'ah. So to this opinion, the tzohar couldn't
    have been a window. It was a gem that obscured his view.

    After Noach left the ark, Hashem made a covenant with him. Hashem
    gave Noach seven mitzvos for all of humanity to observe and promised
    Noach that He would never again flood the entire world.

    There are two seemingly contradictory halachos about rainbows. The
    first is that we make a berachah of thanks when seeing a rainbow
    (Berachos 59a). On the other hand, we are told not to gaze at a
    rainbow because it's a sign of Divine Anger, that G-d is telling
    us that it's only his promise to Noach that keeps Him from again
    flooding the world. (Chagiga 16a)

    There is another difference between having the light come into the
    ark via a window or a gem. Light that comes in through a cut stone
    will be refracted. The inside walls of the ark would have been
    covered with little rainbows.

    Perhaps this is another reason why G-d chose the rainbow to be the
    sign of his covenant with Noach. The rainbow reminds us that the
    world is our "ark" by painting a similar spectrum on our "walls". The
    sign of the rainbow is therefore that of a yeshu'ah, of unmerited
    salvation. For which we should be thankful, but not proud.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 From http://tinyurl.com/98zqg7y

Is it permissible according to Halacha for a man to shake a woman's hand?

The Ben Ish Hai (Rabbi Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) addresses this
question in his work Od Yosef Hai (Parashat Shofetim, 22; listen to audio
for precise citation). He records there the practice that had become
customary in Europe for guests to tightly grasp the hands of the host and
hostess upon arriving in the home. The Ben Ish Hai writes that since a
handshake serves to express mutual feelings of friendship and affection,
it falls under the Halachic category of "Derech Hiba" affectionate
contact with a member of the opposite gender and is forbidden.

<Snip>

Thus, it is strictly forbidden for a man to shake a woman's hand,
regardless of whether or not she is Jewish; this prohibition applies
even in professional contexts, where the accepted protocol is to shake
hands even with members of the opposite gender.

----------
However, not everybody agrees with this psak.
From http://tinyurl.com/8zhguxs

Rabbi Yuval Sherlo, head of the Petach Tikvah Hesder yeshiva and the
Tzohar organization, has released a psak stating that men and women may
shake hands because of kavod habriyos and to avoid causing embarrassment.

In his controversial ruling, Rabbi Sherlo stated that if a woman has stuck
out her hand, a man may shake it so as not to cause her embarrassment. It
is thus permitted, he said, because there is no chibah yeseirah.

Rabbi Sherlo, on his yeshivas website explains the basis for his psak,
stating that the prohibition for a man to shake hands with a woman is
not so severe, since shaking hands is not a clear expression of closeness
that it should be forbidden, writes Rabbi Cherlow. In light of this,
there is room to consider whether additional consideration is to be
given to allowing a handshake.

See the above URL for more.


R. Gil Student sent me the following:

See here:
http://torahmusings.com/2005/07/shaking-hands-with-women/
http://torahmusings.com/2005/07/shaking-hands-with-women-ii/
http://torahmusings.com/2005/07/shaking-hands-with-women-iii/
http://torahmusings.com/2008/11/shaking-hands-with-women-iv/
http://torahmusings.com/2008/12/shaking-hands-with-women-v/

Yitzchok Levine 


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 144
***************************************

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..."