Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 83

Sat, 04 May 2013

• 1. Re: Lag Baomer (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: doresh el hameisim (hankman)
• 3. Re: doresh el hameisim (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Loeg Larash in front of a non-metzuveh? (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Rav Menashe Klein: A Day At The Races? (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Bechukosai (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 7. Re: doresh el hameisim (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Rav Menashe Klein: A Day At The Races? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Lag Baomer (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag BaOmer (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: doresh el hameisim (Zev Sero)
• 12. Whey (Was: [Areivim] How the OU Kashrus Division Works) (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Loeg Larash in front of a non-metzuveh? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag BaOmer (Zev Sero)
• 15. 20th of Sivan (RCK)

R' Eli Turkel asked:

> RMF seems to be talking about New York City. Does it apply to
> chassidic courts where everyone keeps the same minhag but one
> wants to attend the wedding of a sefardi with a different minhag?

It seems to me that there were two distinct parts to the teshuva (Igros Moshe Orach Chayim 1:159) that I quoted (in Avodah Digest 31:81).

In the beginning, he did indeed give New York as an example of a place
where many communities are mixed together and there is no longer any
specific "minhag hamakom". But he uses that to explain why individuals are
not locked in to one specific way of counted the 33 days of aveilus, and
have a certain degree of freedom in switching from year to year.

The second part of the teshuva, which is what I quoted, dealt with a
different question, which is that of whether a person who counts the 33
days of aveilus one way is allowed to attend the wedding of a person who
counts the 33 days of aveilus a different way. His argument there was that
as long as *I* am not getting married on a day that *I* am observing
aveilus, then there's no problem. This seems to be the exact situation that
RET is asking about.

And in fact, Rav Moshe goes even farther than that. You'll notice that I
wrote "as long as *I* am not getting married on a day that *I* am observing
aveilus, then there's no problem." I COULD have focused on the *friend* not
getting married on a day that *he* is observing aveilus, but that's not the
way Rav Moshe sees it. Picking up from where I left off in my previous post
(i.e. Igros Moshe O"C 1, very last lines of page 280), he writes:

"It is mashma that even if he violated (the minhag) and got married (when
he should not have), the guests ARE allowed to be m'sameach him. For the
Shulchan Aruch writes in seif 1 that if he "jumped and entered (the
chupah)" we do NOT punish him. And if it would be assur to go to the seudos
and give him simcha, there is no punishment greater than that. SO, since in
this city it is allowed, since there's no contradiction when a chasan and
kallah making the chupah on Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and there's no contradiction
when making a chupah during the Threed Days Before Shavuos in another city,
- then there's no prohibition for the mesader kiddushin and guests against
attending both weddings."

Getting back to RET's specific question, it is clear to me that according
to Rav Moshe, one may attend the wedding of a Sefardi on the 35th day of
sefirah, even if one is a member of an Ashkenazi community for whom the
35th of Sefira is still aveilus. Further, Rav Moshe would allow this even
if that Ashkenazi community was so united that it has a clear minhag
hamakom (unlike New York). Further, he would allow it even if that Sefardi
actually lived in that united Ashkenaz community. And in fact, he would
allow Ashkenazi members of that community to attend the wedding even if it
was *not* a Sefardi, but was Ashkenazim of that community, who for whatever
reason chose that day to get married.

But, I suppose, these guests would not be allowed to shave for the occasion, unless one might argue that it enhances the simchas chasan v'kallah.

Akiva Miller

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

On 2/05/2013 2:12 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> I think the larger question is what does it mean for one who is no
> longer in this world to pray or to grant mechilah. Is there some type
> of bechirah chofshit that survives death?

RZS responded:
Yes, absolutely. Why would you think otherwise?

CM remarks:
My understanding has always been in line with RJR. I have been under the
impression that bechira derives from the harkava of the neshama with the
guf. Neither capable of bechira on  their own. The neshama of its own is
tehora and will make the ?right? choice. It is the joining to the guf that
enables bechira. This is the reason that a meis is naseh chofshi min
hamitzvos, as he is now not a bal bechira anymore since the body and
neshama have now been separated. Furthermore, if there is no bechira then
there can be no sechar ve?onesh for ?actions? after death. According to
RZS, the reason for naseh chofshi min hamitzvos would have no rationale and
must be a gezeiras hakosuv ? mitzvos only during life ? but bechira and
sechar ve?onesh continue after life?? 

RJR wrote:
> If so, why is there no reward/punishment for decisions made in the
> olam haemet?

RZS reponded:
Who said there isn't? 

CM:
See my remarks above.

RZS wrote:
On the contrary, Navoth was punished for his
eagerness to act as Hashem's agent to punish Ach'av.

CM remarks:
I am not sure of your meaning here. There must some medrash or gemara you are refering to?

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130503/76fa875c/attachment-0001.htm>

> I think the larger question is what does it mean for one who is no
> longer in this world to pray or to grant mechilah. Is there some type
> of bechirah chofshit that survives death?

Yes, absolutely.  Why would you think otherwise?


> If so, why is there no reward/punishment for decisions made in the
> olam haemet?

Who said there isn't?  On the contrary, Navoth was punished for his
eagerness to act as Hashem's agent to punish Ach'av.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So one who weas a complete rasha bolam hazeh can redeem himself after mita by his "actions" in the olam haemet?
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.

R' Micha Berger asked if lo'eg larash says one should tuck in one's tzitzis at the funeral of a non-Jew:

> First I thought: Well, the meis wasn't mechuyav in tzitzis,
> so no. But then I thought: Neither would be a Bas Yisrael,
> and we tuck in our tzitzis then.
> ...
> Does a nakhri who wears tzitzis any different than a bas
> yisrael who fulfills a mitzvah asei shehazman gerama? ...
> Are there gradations, or are all instances of eino metzuveh
> ve'oseh identical?

We often forget that "mitzvah" is an ambiguous word, which sometimes refers
to an actual obligation, and sometimes refers to an optional act.
Consequently, "eino metzuveh ve'oseh" can mean either of two things:

1) One who is not *obligated* but does it anyway

2) One who was not... hmmm... I'm not really sure how to phrase it. One who
was not advised about it? One who was not suggested to do it? One who is
not even in the parsha, but does it anyway? There may be subtle differences
between these, and those differences are probably very relevant to the
question at hand, namely: What is the relationship between a non-Jew and
tzitzis? I don't recall it being listed as among the mitzvos which a
non-Jew should *not* do (like Shabbos or learning Torah). And I don't think
it is one which would be irrelevant for a non-Jew, like matzah. Maybe it's
an optional sort of mitzvah, for which he does get some s'char, like
tzedaka and kibud av v'em.

Still, I think it is fair to say that a Jewish woman has a closer
relationship to tzitzis than a non-Jew has. We - the Jews - are ALL
m'tzuveh in no less than 613 mitzvos, even one who is not a kohen, even one
who is not a land-owner, even one who is not a male. As such, even if a
woman gets less s'char for wearing tzitzis than a man does, I'm confident
that it is far more than a non-Jew gets (even if he does get some s'char,
and certainly if he does not). Thus, it seem appropriate to me to hide
one's tzitzis at the funeral of a Jewish woman, but it is not needed at
that of a non-Jew.

If anyone wants sources for this assertion, I'm sorry. The best I can come
up with is a vague memory of poskim (who we *don't* pasken like) who say
that women CAN be motzi men in a Mitzvas Aseh Shehazman Grama, or at least
in the bracha on it, because even if they are not actually obligated, the
mitzvah is still relevant to them, and not merely because of arvus.

And now, to work on the same question from an entirely different angle:

Suppose, for a moment, that a non-Jew who wears tzitzis gets absolutely no
s'char for it, or even that he does get some s'char but comparatively
little. Wouldn't that mean that loeg larash would apply even when he is
alive, i.e., that even under normal circumstances, wearing tzitzis out in
his presence is to make fun of him? Can we go so far as to suggest that if
we do mitzvos publicly, in a manner which flaunts our status as The Chosen
People, then Loeg Larash should prohibit it?

The suggestions I made in the previous paragraph are not meant to be taken
very seriously. Rather, those extreme (some might say ridiculous)
conclusions are intended to suggest that Loeg Larash simply does not apply
to things we might do in the presence of a non-Jew.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
BlackBerry&#174 10
Find out more about the new BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5183c092af1c340920b20st03vuc

(Note the third paragraph in particular. YL)

From  http://tinyurl.com/casvbkf

Rav Menashe Klein discusses (Mishneh Halachos 6:270) if it is 
permitted to go to the race track and bet on horses or even to watch 
horse racing just for fun.  The Mekor for this Halacha is a Mishna in 
Sanhedrin (3:3) that says Mafrichei Yonim, pigeon flyers, are Pasul 
for Eidus.  The gemara says that according to one explanation this 
means pigeon racing for money and it applies to any other animal 
racing including horses.  The Rambam (Eidus 10) and Shulchan Aruch 
(CM 34:16) say this only applies to people who are not gainfully 
employed and do this for a living.  However says Rav Klein that while 
the threshold to be pasul for eidus is that it must be your means of 
earning a livelihood, nevertheless it is assur to bet on these races 
even if it is just a hobby.

This all implies that if you are merely going to be entertained by 
the spectacle and are not involved in any betting, then it would be 
permitted.  However says Rav Klein, there is a Mahari Bruna that 
speaks about this.  He says that watching horses race is not assur 
because it is educational and can teach you how to ride horses faster 
for a living and to run from your enemies.  The Mahari Bruna then 
says that if your intention in going is simply to enjoy a jousting 
match then it might be assur.  In our case says Rav Klein since there 
is no redeeming value whatsoever it is certainly assur.

This issur he says, would extend to all spectator sports and would 
fall under the issur in the gemara Avodah Zara (18b) of going to 
stadiums since it is considered Moshav Leitzim, which Rashi says is 
Bitul Torah.  Moreover, he says, even if you were to watch it on 
television from the comfort of your own home, which would eliminate 
the issur of Moshav Leitzim, still you will be left with Bitul Torah 
and anyone with Yiras Shamayim should stay far away.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130503/33396414/attachment-0001.htm>

A very interesting interpretation of "Im bechukosai teileichu": Ordinarily translated as "If you will follow my decrees,"
has been interpreted by some Sages as: "If ONLY you would follow my decrees." 

I find the following quite revolutionary and something not ordinarily taught.
Reference is made to the Gemara, Avodah Zara 5a, concerning an interesting discussion on sin.

R' Yehoshua ben Levi said that the Jews made the egel zahav in order to teach that teshuva is always possible.
What's even more remarkable is Rashi's commentary that God made the temptation overwhelming. In other words,
their free choice was taken away. To further that theme, it goes on to say that since they were filled with fear of HaShem,
they would never have sinned on their own. (I find this to be astounding). 

The same daf (5a) says that David would not have sinned with Bathsheba if God had not made such an overwhelming temptation 
and that He caused David to sin in order to teach that yeshiva is always possible. As well, the Jews sinned in order to teach that 
teshuva of a congregation is always possible. Tosfos comments that since David and Yisrael were great tzadikim, it was not appropriate 
that the Torah record their sins. (However, it goes on to justify and reiterate that David's sin was recorded to teach that teshuva of a person
is always possible and Israel's sin was to teach that teshuva of a kahal is always possible).

Molad for Sivan, Friday, May 10th at 7:49am and 16 chalakim.

On 3/05/2013 8:52 AM, hankman wrote:
> RZS responded:
>> On 2/05/2013 2:12 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:

>>> I think the larger question is what does it mean for one who is no
>>> longer in this world to pray or to grant mechilah. Is there some type
>>> of bechirah chofshit that survives death?

>> Yes, absolutely. Why would you think otherwise?

> My understanding has always been in line with RJR. I have been under
> the impression that bechira derives from the harkava of the neshama
> with the guf. Neither capable of bechira on their own. The neshama of
> its own is tehora and will make the ?right? choice. It is the joining
> to the guf that enables bechira. This is the reason that a meis is
> naseh chofshi min hamitzvos, as he is now not a bal bechira anymore
> since the body and neshama have now been separated. Furthermore, if
> there is no bechira then there can be no sechar ve?onesh for
> ?actions? after death. According to RZS, the reason for naseh chofshi
> min hamitzvos would have no rationale and must be a gezeiras hakosuv
> ? mitzvos only during life ? but bechira and sechar ve?onesh continue
> after life??

The whole purpose of mitzvos is to elevate this world and refine the
sparks that are in it; in Olam Ha'emes there is no such thing as mitzvos.
Yoshvin venehenin miziv hashchina, but for mitzvos one must be in this
world.  There's choice, but nothing for the choice to act on.  This is
unlike mal'achim who really have no choice.


>>> If so, why is there no reward/punishment for decisions made in the
>>> olam haemet?

>> Who said there isn't? On the contrary, Navoth was punished for his
>> eagerness to act as Hashem's agent to punish Ach'av.

> I am not sure of your meaning here. There must some medrash or gemara
> you are refering to?

Shabbos 149b, Sanhedrin 89a, Sanhedrin 102b  (Note that these three
gemaros have the baal hamemra as Rav, Rav Yehuda, and Ravina; I wonder
what that's about.)  But this is a choice that he made and was punished
for; what it shows is that neshamos Above are capable of bechira, they
just don't have much opportunity to exercise it.  I suppose they can
choose which "shiur" to attend in Yeshiva Shel Maalah, or whether to
visit this tzadik's hechal or that one's, but not a lot of meaningful
choice.  In Navoth's case his choice wasn't an avera, it just wasn't the
choice that Hashem would have liked him to have made.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:19:34AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> (Note the third paragraph in particular. YL)
>
>> From  http://tinyurl.com/casvbkf
>
> Rav Menashe Klein discusses (Mishneh Halachos 6:270) if it is permitted 
> to go to the race track and bet on horses or even to watch horse racing 
> just for fun.  The Mekor for this Halacha is a Mishna in Sanhedrin (3:3) 
> that says Mafrichei Yonim, pigeon flyers, are Pasul for Eidus..

Does that include someone who bets once or irregularly? "Mafriach yonim"
implies something more like a professional gambler, no? As the Rambam
(Eidus 10:4) says on "mesacheiq bequbios", that it's only someone who
has no other job. (Although he undestands "mafriach yonin beyishuv"
to be about stealing others' birds, not gambling.) AFAIK, someone who
participates in his kid's school's lottery or chinese auction (even the
50-50 pool) isn't pasul le'eidus.

Or to rephrase, obviously RMK holds it is more inclusive. I am fishing
for a source.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 5/1/2013 9:48am, R Eli Turkel wrote:
>> Sawe an article over shabbat that the (DL) rabbi said that he insists
>> that in his yishuv everyone keep the same minhag of Omer to limit
>> problems.

>> RMF seems to be talking about New York City. Does it apply to
>> chassidic courts where everyone keeps the same minhag but one wants to
>> attend the wedding of a sefardi with a different minhag?

At 10:20pm +0300, Ben Waxman replied:
> Why dafka sefirat ha-omer minhagim?

I think because the question of attending someone else's simchah. They
may invite you based on the part of the omer they don't mourn.

But if that is the reason, it shouldn't be limited to NY. Even within a
yishuv... there are many semachos held by outsiders that one is invited
to. And in fact, by allowing people to stay with the minhag they grew
up with, you increase the chance they share the same minhag as other
family members, and thus minimize the number of problematic invitations.
Assuming people get more invitations from family than from neighbors.

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 10:40:51AM +0000, R Akiva Miller replied to RET:
: It seems to me that there were two distinct parts to the teshuva
: (Igros Moshe Orach Chayim 1:159) that I quoted (in Avodah Digest 31:81).

So I started with RAM's second issue first, where the only answer I
can think of to my question about actually creating more conflicts is,
as he wrote:
: ... the way Rav Moshe sees it. Picking up from where I left
: off in my previous post (i.e. Igros Moshe O"C 1, very last lines of page
: 280), he writes:

: "It is mashma that even if he violated (the minhag) and got married
: (when he should not have), the guests ARE allowed to be m'sameach him...

But on RAM's first issue:
: In the beginning, he did indeed give New York as an example of a place
: where many communities are mixed together and there is no longer any
: specific "minhag hamakom"....

This is suboptimal. We're supposed to have a minhag hamaqom. We rely
on minhag avos only because inheriting minhag hamaqom from the last
place our lineage lived that had one is all we have left. (I have been
questioned on the validity of this assumption, but it seems to me to be
a central thesis of pereq Maqom Shenahagu.)

So, if this rav wants to and can insititute a minhag hamaqom, isn't
that great?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 10:31:56AM +0100, Heather Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
: >WADR to RSM, bonfires aren't un-Jewish, non-Jewish or Jewish, they are
: >primal. They instigate an emotional response for reasons universal to
: >all humans. It's like discussing the origins of making a big meal to
: >celebrate a happy occasions.
: 
: Weel I have to say that the likenesses to Bethane are a bit uncanny...

But we traced the practice to Chassidim in Eastern Europe. (Speaking of
bonfires in particular, not the hilula, not going to Meiron, not playing
with bows and arrows, etc...) The right to light the bonfire at Meiron
was bought by the Ruzhyner Rebbe, R' Yisrael Friedman (1796-1850), and
that "title" is still honored. (I believe the Sadigorer Rebbe lit this
year.)

Not really a group I would expect had opportunity for cross pollination
with Celtic culture.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

On 3/05/2013 6:56 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
>>> If so, why is there no reward/punishment for decisions made in the
>>> olam haemet?

>> Who said there isn't?  On the contrary, Navoth was punished for his
>> eagerness to act as Hashem's agent to punish Ach'av.

> So one who weas a complete rasha bolam hazeh can redeem himself after
> mita by his "actions" in the olam haemet?

I don't see what opportunity he would have to do so.  What could he do in
Gehenom that would change anything?  But ein hachi nami, in principle if
he found some way to do something positive I don't see why it should not
cause a reconsideration of his gzar din.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Fri at 1:47 PM, Dorron Katzin wrote [on Areivim]:
> On Fri at 11:37 AM, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
>> On Thu at 3:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> On Thu at 10:53 AM, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:

>>>> I was under the impression that Rav Moshe zt"l permitted all whey,
>>>> even if it was recovered from a 'non-kosher' cheese production.
  
>>>I've never heard that and can't think what grounds there would be for a
>>>heter.  Did you actually see this in IM?   In any event, the OU's policy
>>>is that such whey is treif.

>> Cf. Teshuvot /Igrot/ Moshe Y.D. 3:17.

That is indeed what he says.  Thank you for pointing it out; it's a very
interesting teshuvah.


>> But recognize what you are saying: Minhag Yisroel is to be lenient
>> about purchasing butter from any source.

Is it really, nowadays?  I'm surprised, at least in the USA.


>> Rav Moshe /zt"l/ says that
>> whey used in some butter production is not a concern.

Or in any other product.

>> The OU said that Rav Moshe /zt"l/ is wrong and whey needs an
>> /hashgacha/. Also that /rov/ of butter comes from whey. Therefore
>> butter needs an agency like the OU to supervise it. And this is
>> then used at proof in the book that the OU Kosher supervision is
>> necessary.

> Is the OU saying that Rav Moshe zt"l was wrong then, or are they saying
> that conditions have changed since his petirah?

This made me dig out some old material I had. It seems there are two
separate issues with whey. About the first issue, that the whey itself
is cooked with the cheese, the following is from R Zushe Blech, of the OU:

    RMF held [1] that all whey could be mutar [2] even if the cheese
    from which it is derived was made with animal rennet, and even if the
    whey were cooked together with the curd (which is considered gevinas
    akum) at temperatures above yad soledes.[3] R Wosner holds that when
    non-kosher rennet is used the whey is mutar, but prohibits any whey
    from gevinas akum which is heated together with the curd above yad
    soledes.[4] The policy of the OU is to permit whey recovered from
    gevinas akum productions, but to be machmir and require that all
    ingredients used are kosher [ZS: not like either RMF or RSW], and
    that the whey is not heated together with the curd to temperatures
    in excess of 120F (49C) [ZS: like RSW but not like RMF]. [5]

    1 IM YD 3:17
    2 Even without the heter for chalav hacompanies
    3 It seems from his language that he permitted the whey from
      cheese made with animal stomach only because it's dry like wood.
      Since nowadays rennet is made from fresh stomachs this might not
      apply, vetzarich iyun
    4 Shevet Halevi 4:86
    5 For this purpose the OU accepts R Aharon Kotler's lenient shita
      in yad soledes, since RMF permits it even above yad soledes.

In practise most cheeses are cooked at less than 49C, but Swiss cheese
is cooked at higher temperatures, so the OU would not permit whey made
from it. The second issue is cooking water. This, says R Blech, is
assur lechol hade'os.

    Mozarella curd must be cooked and stretched in a hot water bath.
    The water in which the gevinas akum is cooked must be constantly
    changed, and the spent water contains significant amount of butterfat
    and milk solids. The common practise in the industry is to skim the
    fat off this water and use it to make butter, and to mix the cook
    water together with the rest of the whey. Since this cook water is
    not considered kosher, a hashgocho for whey in such a plant poses
    serious problems and affects the kosher status of such whey according
    to all shitos.

Regarding butter, he notes that R Moshe Heinemann has suggested that
since Grade AA butter can in most cases contain only a small amount of
this "whey cream", and since it's only a safek issur derabanan, it can
be considered batel berov. This would not permit granting a hashgocho,
but it could permit using the butter without one.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Perhaps the issue of lo`eg larash doesn't depend on whether the deceased
was commanded in the particular mitzvah that one is flaunting, but that
s/he was able to do mitzvos in general, and is no longer.  So any mitzvah,
even one that she wouldn't have been able to do in her life, even if she
had been male, e.g. birchas kohanim, might still be lo`eg larash.  But the
situation of a nochri is different, because he was never shayach to the
whole concept of mitzvos, so he's not mourning their loss.

On 3/05/2013 2:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 10:31:56AM +0100, Heather Luntz wrote:
> : RMB writes:
> : >WADR to RSM, bonfires aren't un-Jewish, non-Jewish or Jewish, they are
> : >primal. They instigate an emotional response for reasons universal to
> : >all humans. It's like discussing the origins of making a big meal to
> : >celebrate a happy occasions.
> :
> : Weel I have to say that the likenesses to Bethane are a bit uncanny...
>
> But we traced the practice to Chassidim in Eastern Europe. (Speaking of
> bonfires in particular, not the hilula, not going to Meiron, not playing
> with bows and arrows, etc...) The right to light the bonfire at Meiron
> was bought by the Ruzhyner Rebbe, R' Yisrael Friedman (1796-1850), and
> that "title" is still honored. (I believe the Sadigorer Rebbe lit this
> year.)

In Meron, not in Europe.  TTBOMK no chassidim in Eastern Europe ever had a
custom of lighting bonfires on Lag Baomer.  They honoured the custom that
existed in EY.   And RSM's theory seems to be that that custom was copied
from Arabs, who in turn copied it from Crusaders, who brought it from North-
Western Europe.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

In previous generations the 20th of Sivan was observed as a fast time
in commemoration of Geziras Tach-Tat. I have heard that after the Holocaust
the Hungarian Jewish community decided to continue observing the 20th of
Sivan as a fast day (or special day of Teshuva with selichos, etc...)
because that was when the Holocaust reached Hungary. My question is what
exactly happened on the 20th of Sivan in 1944 that is considered the
beginning of the Holocaust in Hungary? The secular date was 11 June, 1944
and I do not see that day as bearing any significance in the history of the
Holocaust.

RCK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130504/31a34e51/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 83
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)