Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 159

Tue, 10 Sep 2013

• 1. Re: A THOUGHT FOR EREV YOM TOV (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. text of alenu (saul newman)
• 3. Re: text of alenu (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: text of Alenu (Lisa Liel)
• 5. How many Korban Pesachs could be sacrificed in 1 day (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: text of Alenu (Micha Berger)
• 7. text of Alenu (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: text of Alenu (Micha Berger)
• 9. Nesane Tokef (Eli Turkel)
• 10. shma kolenu (Eli Turkel)
• 11. kezayit - weight or volume (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: kezayit - weight or volume (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Nesane Tokef (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Nesane Tokef (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: defense against rape or assault (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: vidui ma'aser (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: self defense against rape or assault / stand your ground (Micha Berger)

 
From: _cantorwolberg@cox.net_ (mailto:cantorwolb...@cox.net) 


>> It was told that the President of Argentina
in 1960,  Arturo Frondizi, met Roger Babson, famous statistician and 
founder of Babson  College.

In the course of their discussion, Babson asked the President  why South 
America, with all its 
natural resources, its mines, its rivers and  waterfalls, is so far behind 
North America. The President
replied with an  answer you will never forget. He said: "South America was 
settled by the  Spanish, 
who came in search of gold; but North America was settled by the  Pilgrim 
Fathers, who came in search of God."

What a powerful response!  <<





>>>>>
 
It is powerful and it does ring true.   Additionally, South  America was 
founded by the same people, Spanish and Portuguese  Catholics, who murdered, 
exiled and persecuted the Jews in the name of the  Spanish Inquisition.  
North America was founded by people, Puritans and  other G-d-fearing 
Protestants, who were in general philo-Semitic, who  believed in religious tolerance 
and who founded a country known for its  exceptionally benevolent treatment of 
the Jews.  America has been the  beneficiary of Hashem's promise, 
"Va'avorchah mevorchecha umekalelcha a'or" (Ber  12:2).
 

--Toby  Katz
..GCT
=============


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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/ab53961f/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/rosh/Repled.pdf
does anyone know if the minhag referred to about nittel is observed
anywhere?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/3feea7d9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/09/2013 12:03 PM, saul newman wrote:
> http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/rosh/Repled.pdf
> does anyone know if the minhag referred to about nittel is observed anywhere?

Nowadays, when there is no sakanah, everyone seems to say Aleinu aloud
(if not to actually sing it) all year around, not just on nittle.  The
point of the Sefer Minhagim is that even when it was dangerous, they took
the risk on nittle.

-- 
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 9/8/2013 10:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 3- In any case, whichever was the original... Once you concede that
> "lesaqein" appears in numerous rishon-approved texts (e.g. Machzor
> Vitri), then you have established (pun intented, sorry) the idea's
> acceptability. One doesn't need the antiquity of being the first nusach
> to prove an idea is Jewish rather than an error.
>
> And you may have noticed I tend to post versions of #3 in every discussion
> of historical analyses of Judaism. This comment is a sibling to my
> assertion that it's up to a halachicist, not a historian, to decide
> whether more information about what a kezayis /was/ has halakhah lemaaseh
> impact on what a kezayis /is/.
>    

I don't see the connection.  Nusach isn't the same as halakha.  
Otherwise people who say "she-hem mishtachavim" and people who don't 
couldn't both be yotzei saying Aleinu.  K'zayit is a concrete, 
fact-based measurement.

Lisa

Just as an aside there are huge crowds that come to the old city of
Jerusalem (including many chilonim) during the days of slichot both for
prayers and for to see the various archaeological sites even at 1am. There
is a guard at the gates into the old city who counts people coming in. When
the crowds get too large they dont let more people in for a while. In the
area of the kotel frequently one cant move.

All this with a larger area than the azarah and with way less than a
million people and without animals, an alter etc

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/d5a3cf6c/attachment-0001.htm>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 1702 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/ce8e2062/attachment-0001.bin>

Micha wrote

<<And you may have noticed I tend to post versions of #3 in every discussion
of historical analyses of Judaism. This comment is a sibling to my
assertion that it's up to a halachicist, not a historian, to decide
whether more information about what a kezayis /was/ has halakhah lemaaseh
impact on what a kezayis /is/.>>

going from intrepreting texts to deciding on the kezayit is a big stretch.
Though CI  agrees with Micha ROY certainly doesnt. The sefardi/yershulami
shiur of kezayit is based on the mesorah of EY/Eygptian Jewry on what the
Rambam held when he said that a reviit is 27 drams of water and so a dram
is 3.3 grams and a betitzah is 57 cc. ROY concedes that since we now know
that the Arab dram changed over time and so a dram is 2.83 grams and a
beitzah is 50cc.
Hence, these poskim certainly take into account historical facts.

In addition we have the famous Ramban who changed his mind about the shekel
once he came to EY and actually saw an ancient shekel that agreed with
Rashi.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/1a6cd133/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 09:42:59PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: going from intrepreting texts to deciding on the kezayit is a big stretch.
: Though CI agrees with Micha ROY certainly doesnt...

But I didn't assert either position.

Rather, I said that it's the topic for a discussion between the CI and ROY
and the like *after* the archeologists have their say. People have been
tending to skip that step, thinking that halakhah or aggadita are to
tightly coupled to the findings that there is no second question for the
rabbis to address.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

In spite of the popular legend azttributing UNesane Tokef to Rav Amnon who
was a gadol hador (though unknown outside of the legend) we know today from
the Cairo Genizah that in fact it is much older going back to Yannai.

I saw an interesting comment from from R. Brander. He says that the Or
Zarua uses the language
"Yesed Unesane Tokef". Thus his interpretaion is that it was established in
Ashkenaz by a Rav Amnon. However, indeed it was written many centuries
earlier.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/9edea535/attachment-0001.htm>

Question:

1) why is the phase yewhi leratzon imre phi ... recited quietly
2) why do we say the last part after  cichlot cochenu al taazvenu quietly
(Mateh Efraim 581/18 brings the minhag but doesnt give a reason)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/8358c3fd/attachment-0001.htm>

We have discussed in the past whether the size of zayit is measured by
weight or volume. I found this from Rav Rimon (Gush)

Volume or Weight?



     The Rambam (Hilkhot Chametz U'Matza 5:12) defines "shi'ur chala" (the
minimum amount of dough that requires the separation of "chala") as
approximately 43.5 eggs, and he adds, "like the body of an average egg -
not its weight."  As the Maggid Mishna explains, the Rambam here
establishes that these measurements are determined by volume, not weight, a
principle that seems to emerge as well from the mishnayot (Keilim 17:6 and
elsewhere) and many other sources.  This is also the view of the Mishna
Berura (486:3).  However, the Kaf Hachayim (168:46) observes that common
practice was to calculate according to weight, seemingly against the
straightforward reading of all the poskim.  We may perhaps attribute this
practice to the difficulty involved in constantly measuring volume.


     Today, Ashkenazim calculate volume, in accordance with the
aforementioned ruling of the Mishna Berura, and this is also the oft-cited
view of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.  The Sefardic authorities dispute the
issue: Rav Ovadya Yosef (Yechaveh Da'at 1:16) writes that the weight
measurement should be used, while Rav Shalom Messas ("Tevu'ot Shemesh")
maintains that we determine measurements based on volume.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130908/b3a53a17/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 10:09:02PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: We have discussed in the past whether the size of zayit is measured by
: weight or volume. I found this from Rav Rimon (Gush)

Wow this is huge tropic drift! Still, since you reraised the subject...

It's clear the kezayis is a measure of volume, as we shouldn't have needed
the Rambam and Magid Mishnah to prove. However, there is an old tradition,
predating the Rambam, to estimate volume using the expected weight of
a kezayis of matzah. So, the Rambam reminds the masses (pun intended)
that it's only an estimation method, not that the shiur is a weight.

Ashkenazim don't have such a history, so we use volume, although really
most of us rely on VERY ROUGH estimations based on area.

And then Sepharadim end up split, whether to use the age-old measuring
system, estimating based on weight (ROY) while Teshuvos Shemesh holds
that Sepharadim should also use whatever measuring scheme works best --
which happens to be measuring the volume using rulers. (Given the size of
safety margin built-in to using the weight of a kezayis of water rather
than a kezayis of dough.)

AISI, the machloqes among Sepharadi acharonim is about whether the
ubiquity of rulers and the decrease in commonality of scales should
change the norm or if the water weight over-estimation has been enshrined
as minhag.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On 8/09/2013 2:27 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I saw an interesting comment from from R. Brander. He says that the
> Or Zarua uses the language "Yesed Unesane Tokef". Thus his
> interpretaion is that it was established in Ashkenaz by a Rav Amnon.
> However, indeed it was written many centuries earlier.

The Or Zarua doesn't testify to the historicity of the story.  He merely
reports that he found it written in a book, and thought it worth repeating.
Since he didn't know the book's author, he couldn't possibly know whether it
was intended as fact or fiction, or, if fact, how reliable the author was.
So not believing the story is not at all a pegam on the Or Zarua.

However, if the story were true, it wouldn't be surprising for this R Amnon
either to say an existing piyut rather than compose his own, as R Brander
suggests.  But it would also not be surprising for him to  compose his own
piyut but quote in it some powerful lines from an existing piyut that he
knew.  (AFAIK the Cairo geniza does not have the whole text that we do; it
has fragments, which might be from an earlier piyut that merely influenced
the author of ours, whoever he might be.)

-- 
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 9/8/2013 1:27 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> In spite of the popular legend azttributing UNesane Tokef to Rav Amnon
> who was a gadol hador (though unknown outside of the legend) we know
> today from the Cairo Genizah that in fact it is much older going back
> to Yannai.

Yannai?  How do we know this?


> I saw an interesting comment from from R. Brander. He says that the Or
> Zarua uses the language
> "Yesed Unesane Tokef". Thus his interpretaion is that it was
> established in Ashkenaz by a Rav Amnon. However, indeed it was written
> many centuries earlier.

What's his source for that conclusion?

Lisa

On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 01:29:00PM -0400, M Cohen wrote:
: RZS writes ..that one may take "life" to mean "life or limb",
: Or that that rape of a single woman who is tehorah and not related to her
: attacker can also be regarded as included in arayos, 
: and in the right the Torah gives to kill the would-be rapist of an ervah.

: I see no evidence whatsoever of this.

See the beraisa quoted on Sanhedrin 73a (and the mishnah 73b) -- any
arayos that would carry a chiyuv misah or kareis. Even if the person
himself would not be. See Sefer haMitzvos (lav 293) which says even a
qatan would be killed.

And we actually learn dimin about a rotzeiach from a heqesh from someone
pursuing a naarah me'orasah. Rape of a na'arah me'orasah (at least) is
considered in the same category of evil-ness as murder.

And then a little bit furhter on, we get the beraisa saying it's also
numerous other arayos (and? including? MZ).

...
: He shows that the nirdaf (and family) could hit an attacker in rtn in cases
: of assault
...
: (ie they 'know' that the attack is not a case of attempted murder or arayos,
: but 'just' to rape a penuaya or beat them)

But there is no way to know that raping a penuya won't lead to fighting
and a fatal blow. Following R' Yehudah (which the Or Sameiach argues
is the din, Rotzeiach 1:13, invokig the above din about a qatan rapist)
that someone attempting to rape a penuyah is a rotzeiach. Which makes the
question you're asking to abstract for it to be likely addressed anywhere.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:43:03PM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: see r frand's take...  http://torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5767/kisavo.html
: so why in fact does RBSO mandate one to 'boast' before him?

I know it's not exactly in line with RYF's wording, but could it be that
the context -- that one is bragging about something they acknowledge they
accomplished in partnership with the Almighty -- not on one's own --
and according to His Will, is an approriate thing to brag about? Midas
hadin is invoked ("hashkifah"), but if you did everything right, the
resulting din is a good thing!

GCT!
-Micha

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 09:07:08AM -0400, M Cohen wrote:
: If the attacker is a nJ and actually strikes, then it would appear they are
: chayav misah and one could kill them (because nJ who hits a Jew is chayav
: misah)

How does that follow? A chiyuv misah doesn't equate to kanaim pog'im
bo. Misah requires due process (which isn't as alaborate of a process
as for a J, but that's a different question).

Some of your other issues were addressed in the prior email.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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 159
***************************************

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