Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 162

Tue, 04 Dec 2012

• 1. preparation for war (saul newman)
• 2. Re: corkinet (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: HaKafos (was HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH etc) (Ilana Elzufon)
• 4. Re: Was Eisav a Rasha by nature? (Marty Bluke)
• 5. WAS EISAV A RASHA BY NATURE? (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 6. Re: Was Eisav a Rasha by nature? (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Re: HaKafos (was HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH etc) (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: HaKafos (was HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH etc) (menucha)
• 9. Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: WAS EISAV A RASHA BY NATURE? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Goebekli Tepe (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Tuesday Evening begin Prayer for Rain (Ari Meir Brodsky)
• 14. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: preparation for war (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Marty Bluke)
• 17. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Micha Berger)

seen online--

On the contrary, he sent gifts to his brother, and prepared for war, which
included dividing the camp into two parts in case one was lost. He did not
simply trust that "everything would be okay."

--- i have  seen this  a few times  in that  'preparation for war '  sounds
 like not  going into battle    , but  preparing  for  defeat.  is  that
what milchama means?
[could  shtei machanot  imply  that  one machaneh is the fighting class ,
and the other  gets an exemption from battle  ?]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121130/906e0cea/attachment-0001.htm>

I spoke with one of the local rabbanim. He felt that the issue is one of 
"is it shabbasdik or not".  He went on to say that in America, 
particularly in the Litvish communities, they are stricter on this issue 
than in Israel. Things accepted here are not accepted there.  He 
personally felt that a corkinet would be OK (here).

Ben

On 11/14/2012 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But the uvda dechol issue is more about how it's used than how it's 
> made. And that would lump scooters with bicycles, not baby carriages 
> (a/k/a "prams", to make our non-American chaveirim more comfortable). 

>
> RZS: Indeed, in the communities where this occurs, why don't the women
> organise
> something for themselves?  Whether it's dancing in the women's section, or
> if there's not enough room then in another place, or a women's kiddush with
> speakers, etc.  I'm not talking about women's hakafos with a sefer torah,
> which is controversial, though I don't really understand why; I'm talking
> about things that are surely acceptable in even the most conservative
> circles.


I have found that, at least in more conservatively oriented circles, there
just isn't enough dissatisfaction with the status quo for anything to
change. Most women are perfectly happy to sit and chat for whatever portion
of the hakafot and/or interminable Torah reading they happen to be in shul
for. In our community, the HS age girls go away to help bring "ruach" to
some other community, and without them the possibility of "ruach" in our
community drops precipitously. The little girls have fun together with the
little boys. There isn't really much for the girls in between. This year,
my 13-year-old did not go to shul on ST at all except for Yizkor. I thought
this was horrifying, but to be honest she herself did not seem particularly
alienated or upset.

With my background, I find that there is one advantage in the lack of women
dancing - my memories of Simchat Torah dancing are of my teens and early
twenties, and I don't need to deal with the fact that in my forties I would
probably need to slow down considerably. Also, a quiet women's section is a
nice safe space for toddlers and preschoolers who need to escape from the
wildness in the men's section.

We were once invited to a Rav's home for the evening seudah on ST. When we
arrived, the Rebbetzin and her sister (also a Rebbetzin, widowed),
apologized that they had not made it to shul for hakafot. They had been too
involved in learning Torah! (Both are very learned in their own right).
That put things in perspective for me.

And now a halachic question. Normally, we are makpid to stand when the
sefer Torah is being carried. Why not during hakafot?

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121202/fb9db899/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<You take it for granted that fetuses can sense what is outside their
mothers and actually make coordinated motions toward one point or another.I
<took the medrash to be more metaphoric.

I am just reading the words. That is what the the Medrash says, it says
that Eisav tried to get out when Rivka passed a house of avoda zara. The
Maharal seems to take this pretty literally that Eisav by nature was drawn
to Avoda Zara.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121202/71cdfc29/attachment-0001.htm>

Rashi's commentary on 25:24 clearly states: "aval kan echod tzaddik v'echod rasha." 
To strengthen his position, in the next verse (25) Rashi comments that his ruddy complexion
is a siman that he will shed blood. So even before he is born, he has already been labeled a
rasha and a murderer. So in answer to the question posed: "Was Eisav a rasha by nature?",
according to Rashi, the answer is a resounding YES! My point, (which has been attempted to
be suppressed and censored at worst and sanitized at best) is to say a fetus in the womb is a 
rasha and a murderer runs contrary to our theology. If Eisav was a rasha in the womb, then
what chance did he have in life?! Why would he even want to be born. If I were a rasha in the
womb and knew about it, I'd commit suicide even before I was born. It's one thing to say a 
fetus in the womb has certain proclivities and tendencies, but it's quite another to say the fetus
is a rasha. We have been taught that everything in life is predetermined except for yiras shamayim.
To say Eisav was a rasha in the womb contradicts a fundamental teaching. You can rationalize and
try to justify anything you want, but Rashi clearly said that Eisav was a rasha. He didn't say that he
had tendencies. If that's what Rashi meant, he would have articulated it. 

R' Marty Bluke asked:

> Predisposed to AZ is one thing, running to worship
> it from the womb is another and that was my
> question. How did Eisav start worshipping AZ even
> before he was born?

We tend to consider newborns as automatons who need some time in this world
to reach even the most very basic decision-making abilities, such as, "Look
at this or at that?" or "Cry or don't cry?"

I have no problem with that, but we generally presume that a fetus has even
less cognition than that, and I'd like to suggest something different. If
we take literally the midrashim about the malach teaching Torah to the
fetus, then there is an active mind there, quite capable of making choices,
and developing likes and dislikes. The conscious memory of these things
gets lost at birth, according to these midrashim, but they were very much
there beforehand.

These are things which science can prove or disprove only with great
difficulty, if at all. Maybe Esav learned about AZ from his mal'ach, and
chose to embrace it? Why not?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50bba1bce51fd21bc598fst03vuc

See http://www.zomet.org.il/_Uploads/1443.pdf (Refua V'Halacha) where 
the bring a psak of Rav Shlomo Zalman in which he is meiqil, allowing 
people to sit for most of the time that the haqafot are going on.

Ben

On 12/2/2012 1:11 PM, Ilana Elzufon wrote:
> And now a halachic question. Normally, we are makpid to stand when the 
> sefer Torah is being carried. Why not during hakafot?
>
> - Ilana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121202/dcf8a3c1/attachment-0001.htm>

And now a halachic question. Normally, we are makpid to stand when the 
sefer Torah is being carried. Why not during hakafot?

- Ilana

Aruch Hashulchan YD 282, 5
During the actual Hakafa around the Bima one must stand but in between 
when it is being held (I guess that's what it was like in his shul) that 
is considered "Sefer Torah al mikoma" and one does not have to stand.
Yechave Daat 6, 42- Lehalacha, those who are old or sick or "weak of 
feet" can rely on the Aruch Hashulchan but bri'im should remain standing 
until the Sifrei Torah are returned to the Heichal

menucha




>
>

Daf Yomi just started the 6th perek of Shabbos which deals extensively
with gezeros related to carrying on Shabbos. The Gemara has extensive
discussions about what jewelry women can wear on Shabbos, what are
animals allowed to go out with, etc. all gezeros in fear of the person
violating the issur d'oraysa of carrying 4 amos in a reshus harabim. It
is patently clear that in the the time of Chazal that they felt that
this was a very valid concern as we know that that Chazal followed a
number of rules when making Gezeros 2 of them being:

1. milsa d'lo shchicha lo gazru bei rabanan - Chazal did not make gezeros
for far-fetched cases.
2. we don't make a gezera l'gezera - Chazal only make gezeras to protect
people from violating an issur d'oraysa

Based on the above Chazal would only have made all of these Gezeras
regarding carrying if there was a real concern that people would violate
the issur d'oraysa of carrying in a Reshus Harabim. What this means is
that there must have been MANY places deemed Reshus harabim in existence
in Israel (and Bavel) otherwise they never would have made all of these
gezeros.

However, this is very very difficult. Tosafos on 64b already makes the
claim that we don't have a reshus harabim d'oraysa nowadays because
we don't have 600,000 people and our streets aren't wide enough.
This opinion of Rashi and Tosafos has been accepted l'halacha and is
the basis of all city Eruvin. But, if this is true, then how in the time
of Chazal did they ever have a Reshus Harabim d'oraysa? Why would they
make all of these gezeros if they didn't? It is not believable that in
the time of Chazal the population of the cities in Israel was larger
then today. The only city today in 2012, with a population over 600,000
is Jerusalem and only a faction of that is in the old city (which is
the only part of the city that existed 2000 years ago and in fact was
smaller). Every other city in Israel today has a population less then
600,000 people. There is no way that in the times of Chazal the cities
were anywhere near as large given what we know of the population etc.

In short, how could it be that in the time of Chazal 2000 years ago
they were so worried about people violating an issur d'oraysa of
hotzaa when we can't find a Reshus Harabim d'oraysa today? Brooklyn,
with a population of 2.5 million people (larger by far then any city
2000 years ago) is the only place that I have heard of that there even
is a discussion about. There are Eruvin in every large city in Israel
(based on the presumption that the city is not a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa)
and many large cities/communities in America. How do we reconcile this?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 10:09:25AM -0500, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: Rashi's commentary on 25:24 clearly states: "aval kan echod tzaddik
: v'echod rasha."

Going back to the Rashi we were discussing, 25:22 "vayistotzetzu". Rashi
says "raboseinu darshuhu lashon ritzah..." First, he notes it's a drashah,
not peshat. Second, the point is where they ran to -- which is why I think
he did mean propensity or tendency rather than a fixed innate setting.

So Rashi opens by saying we're talking about propensities. "Ritzah".
I take this as his definition of terms. And rather than look at the
centrality of free will as a question on Rashi or the Maharal, I would
use it as proof that they could be mean nothing but a shorthand for
those concepts Rashi opens with.

The Maharal on this first Rashi
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39759&;st=&pgnum=138> calls
Yaaqov a tzadiq gamor before being born, which is why he's already called
"toledos Yitzchaq", but does not say the inverse about Eisav. Which
raises the same question, since free will should mean we don't call
Yaaqov fully righteous by birth. (But at least this version of the
question doesn't irritate as badly as thinking about someone born to
be evil.) But he's discussing the lashon ritzah -- even if he says
Yaaqov is a tzadiq, he is referring to Yaaqov's *ritzah* to tzidqus.

In 25:24, you're quoting a Rashi that contrasts Rivqa's twins with
Tamar's. Tamar's twins are called "te'umim", in full spelling, because
they both had similar propensities. Whereas here they started out
with very different characters, and therefore they are merely "somim"
(no alef).


: To strengthen his position, in the next verse (25) Rashi comments that
: his ruddy complexion is a siman that he will shed blood....

And Moshe is described as having the physiognomy of a highway robber.
(Quoted in Tif'eres Yisrael, Qiddushin 4:77 yachin; and in Noam haMidos
cheleq 1, maarekhes 8, 78:2. H/T RMYG
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n382.shtml#02 )

Clearly such simanim, however we moderns make our peace with them,
are not a person's character etched in stone, but the tendencies he can
choose to develop or resist.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

(That's actually spelled with an o-umlaut after the G -- "Gobekli
Tepe". It's what you get when Germans study something with a Turkish name,
so I'm not sure if the usual umlaut-o -> "oe" for German is valid here.)

See http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html .

    ...
    The oldest man-made place of worship yet discovered, Goebekli Tepe
    is "one of the most important monuments in the world," says Hassan
    Karabulut, associate curator of the nearby Urfa Museum. He and
    archaeologist Zerrin Ekdogan of the Turkish Ministry of Culture
    guide me around the site. Their enthusiasm for the ancient temple
    is palpable.

    Excavations have revealed that Goebekli Tepe was constructed in two
    stages. The oldest structures belong to what archaeologists call
    the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period, which ended around
    9000 B.C. Strangely enough, the later remains, which date to
    the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period, or about 8000 B.C., are less
    elaborate. The earliest levels contain most of the T-shaped pillars
    and animal sculptures.
    ...

Anyone want to play Torah-and-Archeology on this one? We're talking about
religion and art that carbon-dates to millenia before Adam. Even if you
define Adam as the first homosap to have been blessed with a soul, not
the first of the biological species, this is still a stickler.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/01/part-1-shishim-ribo-myste
ry-solved.html
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/01/part-2-shishim-ribo-myste
ry-solved.html
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2009/06/reprinting-of-berlin-e
dition-of-behag.html


-- 
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

Dear Friends,

        This is a friendly reminder to Jews outside of Israel that our daily
prayers should include the request for rain, beginning with Maariv this
Tuesday evening, December 4, 2012, corresponding to the evening of 21
Kislev, 5773.  The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" -
"Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of
the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach.  I encourage everyone to
remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may
not be in shul at that time.

        We begin requesting rain in the Diaspora on the 60th day of the fall
season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a).
For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a
fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish
calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we
do: 
http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for
providing the link.)

        Also, here is a number-theoretic explanation of why Yaakov sent Esav
220 goats in last week's Torah portion: 
http://cheshbon.weeklyshtikle.com/2010/11/goats-and-amicable-numbers.
html


Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, which, incidentally, begins on a Saturday
night this year for the first time in 20 years.
-Ari Brodsky.

-----------------------
Ari M. Brodsky
ari.brod...@utoronto.ca

On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 02:40:44PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: However, this is very very difficult. Tosafos on 64b already makes the
: claim that we don't have a reshus harabim d'oraysa nowadays because
: we don't have 600,000 people and our streets aren't wide enough.
: This opinion of Rashi and Tosafos has been accepted l'halacha and is
: the basis of all city Eruvin..

As shown in the blog entries already posted to this thread, it's the
shitah of the vast majority of rishonim.

I think what changed, though, wasn't the number of people, since as you
note in the past few hundred years the change has been grossly in the
other direction. But the other criterion, the width of our public areas,
did shrink compared to old norms. We no longer have a public square in
every city where everyone from that city and neighboring towns (as per the
first mishnah in Megillah) would gather, eg on Mon and Thu market days.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18:30AM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: seen online--
:> On the contrary, he sent gifts to his brother, and prepared for war, which
:> included dividing the camp into two parts in case one was lost. He did not
:> simply trust that "everything would be okay."

: i have seen this a few times in that 'preparation for war' sounds
: like not going into battle, but preparing for defeat. is that
: what milchama means?

Milchamah strikes me as a very Marxist word. Isn't the shoresh "lechem",
thus making the word hyper-literally mean "a way to get bread"? According
to R' Matisyahu Clark's dictionary,
<books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C&pg=PA131#v=onepage> RSRH says
/l-ch-m/ refers to the struggle for existence, and in that way includes:
fighting, struggling, warring for national existence, finding food,
(Tehillim 141:4), bread, intestines (Iyov 20:23) and warfare. Perhaps RSRH
would ammend my gut impression to "a way to get the means of survival".

This Rashi associating 32:9 "vehayah hamachaneh hanish'ar lifleitah
with milchamah is a quote of the Tanchumah (Vayishlach 6 in the Buber
edition). That Tanchumah ends with HQBH saying that of course He would
answer the tefillah: "He calls to Me, 'You are my Father, my G-d, and
the Tzur of my salvation." (Tehillim 89:27) No mention of the hishtadilus
legs of the tripod.

It would seem that specific to this example, this was a war with no
derekh hateva way to win. Which is why Yaaqov continues with "qatonti
mikol hachasadim", (32:11) "vehikani eim al banim" (v 12). Even though
the concept of milchamah isn't limited to such desperate situations,
in this case, all Yaaqov could do on a hishtadlus level is whatever
possible to minimize his losses.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

R' Micha Berger wrote:

I think what changed, though, wasn't the number of people, since as you
> note in the past few hundred years the change has been grossly in the
> other direction. But the other criterion, the width of our public areas,
> did shrink compared to old norms. We no longer have a public square in
> every city where everyone from that city and neighboring towns (as per the
> first mishnah in Megillah) would gather, eg on Mon and Thu market days.
>
> The populations were so much smaller then and transportation so much more
difficult that it is hard to believe that they ever had 600,000 people
gather in the public square.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121204/bd0fdf1e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:40:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: The populations were so much smaller then and transportation so much more
: difficult that it is hard to believe that they ever had 600,000 people
: gather in the public square.

Tacitus said J-m had 600,000 people at the time of churban bayis. Josephus
who I think we could agree tended toward hyperbole said 1.1mm, with
115,800 killed between Nissan and Tamuz of that year, and 97,000 sold
into slavery.

OTOH, BAR (vol 4 #2) has an article by Magen Broshi that estimates
Y-m held 40,000 permanent residents during that period. But that's
without everyone else from the area coming in on Mon and Thu to trade,
as recorded in Mes' Megillah. Most people farmed, not lived in cities.

I therefore think the idea that Israel's cities had squares that
frequently (even if not every market day) held 600,000 people to be less
than muchrach, but quite plausible. Romans of the period thought it was
plausible; I doubt Tacitus and Josephus published obvious tall tales.

I find this possibility far more likely than Hashem letting the majority
of rishonim head off in the wrong direction halachically. Although that's
possible too -- witness the evolution of the kezayis. That doesn't make
the halakhah wrong, though, just ahistorical.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 162
***************************************

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..."