Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 147

Sun, 02 Nov 2014

• 1. Re: man-made climate change (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. ani vahu/vaho (Avi Goldstein)
• 3. translate 'af-bri' (saul newman)
• 4. Re: ani vahu/vaho (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: ani vahu or ani vaho (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: translate 'af-bri' (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Sukka on Shmini Atzeres? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Ushpizin for non-owners? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Ushpizin for non-owners? (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Re: chapters in the Bible (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: chapters in the Bible (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Halachah keBasrai? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 13. 1Shmuel 30:30 ()
• 14. Re: Halachah keBasrai? (Micha Berger)
• 15. heter mechira - lo techanem (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: 1Shmuel 30:30 (Achdut18)

R' Saul Newman brought our attention to Rabbi Avi Shafran, who blogged:

> Some of us, though, feel that a passuk we recite daily ? "Tremble
> before Him, all the earth; indeed, the world is fixed so that it
> cannot falter" (Divrei Hayomim 1 16:30) - reassures us that Hashem
> has built self-correcting mechanisms into nature, and that our zeal
> should be reserved for Torah-study and mitzvos.

It was only on my second reading, that I noticed the phrase "some of us".

It is not obvious to me which side of this argument Rabbi Shafran is
taking. It is quite possible that he does not personally with those who
would rely on that pasuk to ignore the dangers of what humans are doing to
the earth. He does mention that viewpoint, but does not specify who the
people are who feel that way.

As I read Rashi on that pasuk, it seems that Hashem did NOT build
self-correcting mechanisms into nature. Rather: "...when the olam has
yir'ah of Him, then the world is fixed so that it cannot falter... but when
the b'rios do not have yir'ah of Him and they sin, then He will overturn
them and destroy them."

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/544eab87ded902b877d95st04vuc

I wrote: > I have for many years chafed at the sound of the tzibbur saying:
"Ani
vaho hoshia na." I recall that when I was younger, before the appearance of
a certain siddur, many people said "ani vahu," with a shuruk, not a cholam.
Today, it seems that most people say vaho, with a cholam.
> There are numerous proofs that the word is "vahu." This phrase comes from
the Mishnah in Sukkah 45a. In some editions of the mishnayos, the word is
actually written with an aleph at the end, a clear indication that the
vowel is a shuruk.

> ...I would like to hear what others have to say about this matter.<


Michael Poppers responded:
Baer (Avodas Yisroel) has "vaho" w/out comment.  Years ago, my thought was
that "Ani VaHo" was an anagram of the *sheim HaVaYaH*, with the "Ho" being
the "do" in the *sheim adnus* we use to pronounce the Tatragrammaton -- if
it was "Hu", what *sheim-adnus* syllable would it represent? -- but, of
course, it's just a thought.

"Hu" is exactly what is sounds like: "him." The aleph is missing, but as I
wrote, in some texts there actually is an aleph (see Shinuyei Nuscha'os to
Sukkah 4:5). I hope to elaborate further shortly. Avi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141027/bf54de59/attachment-0001.htm>

http://forward.com/articles/207061/whats-an-angel-of-rai
n-doing-in-a-jewish-sukkot-pr/
iyov remains material for Hebrew finals...

R' Avi Goldstein wrote:

> I have for many years chafed at the sound of the tzibbur saying:
> "Ani vaho hoshia na." I recall that when I was younger, before the
> appearance of a certain siddur, many people said "ani vahu," with
> a shuruk, not a cholam. Today, it seems that most people say vaho,
> with a cholam.

"Vaho", with cholam, appears in these: ArtScroll, pg 736, dated 1984; Birnbaum, pg 683, dated 1949; Otzar Hatefilos, dated 5674

My Rinat Yisrael (pg 412, from 1976) does have "vahu", with shuruk.

My Minchas Terushalayim (1977) has "vaho" on pg 918, and "vahu" on pg 920.

Michael Poppers responded:
> Years ago, my thought was that "Ani VaHo" was an anagram of the
> *sheim HaVaYaH*, with the "Ho" being the "do" in the *sheim
> adnus* we use to pronounce the Tatragrammaton -- if it was "Hu",
> what *sheim-adnus* syllable would it represent? -- but, of
> course, it's just a thought.

I'd like to combine this thread with the view propounded by R"n Lisa Liel,
that Hoshana Raba commemorates a major event in Jewish history which has
not yet occurred. According to this, any attempt (for me or people on my
level) to understand anything about Hoshanos in general (and Hoshana Raba
in particular) is still premature.

"The custom of beating the aravah on the ground contains profound esoteric
significance, and only the Great of Israel merit the knowledge of those
secrets. The uninitiated should intend merely to abide by the custom of the
Prophets and the Sages of all the generations. Their reward for emulating
their actions, will be regarded by God as if they had indeed had their
profound intentions." (Eliyahu Kitov, Sefer Hatodaah, as translated by R"n
Toby Katz's father in The Book of Our Heritage, pg 208)

By the way, going back to the first question, on page 207 of that volume,
from 1968, Rav Bulman transliterated the word as "va'ho" ("o" as in "oh!")
and translated it as "He -- God".

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/545131d93e1a931d93a81st04vuc

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:59pm EDT, R Michael Poppers wrote:
: Baer (Avodas Yisroel) has "vaho" w/out comment.  Years ago, my thought was
: that "Ani VaHo" was an anagram of the *sheim HaVaYaH*, with the "Ho" being
: the "do" in the *sheim adnus* we use to pronounce the Tatragrammaton -- if
: it was "Hu", what *sheim-adnus* syllable would it represent? -- but, of
: course, it's just a thought.

I would suggest a variant...

Ki yad al keis Kah, milkhamah baAmaleiq... -- Shemos 17:16

Yehei shemeih rabba... -- may His name be enlarged...

Tosafos (Berakhos 4a, "veonin") quotes Machzor Vitri as explaining
this reponse in Qaddish as praying that Sheim Kah -- "Shemeih" being a
contraction -- be expanded in our world to the complete manifestation
of Sheim Havayah.

The Avudraham points out that "Yisgadal veYisqadash" is a reconjugation
of "hisgadalti vehisqadashti" from Yecheitzqil (38:23) talking about
Hashem vanquishing Gog uMagog.

Now the suggestion... The missing piece that we're asking for is the
"H-o" we're referring to. The bit about G-d we cannot readily see because
of the presence of evil in the world.

Bayom hahu yihyeh H' Echad ushemo echad!

________________________________________________________________________
Side note about "yehei Shemeih..." That only works if you exclude
yisbarakh from the response. Then you can parse it:
    Yehei Shemeih rabba -- a request about the sheim Y-H
    mevorakh le'olam ule'almei almaya -- a second element

But, it leaves Ashkenazim with a problematic EIGHT element list of
praises from Yisbarakh to veyishalal. The list should only have 7.

If you include yisbarakh, mevorakh can't stay in the second clause,
it wouldn't scan to have both "mevorakh" and "yisbarakh" in the
same phrase. OTOH, if you have "mevorakh" in the first clause, rabba
can't be a verb. To wite:
    Yehei Shemeih rabba mevorakh -- may His great name (or may the name
        "Kah"?) be blessed
    le'olam ule'almei almaya yisbarakh -- for all eternity it will
        be blessed

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:47:46AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: http://forward.com/articles/207061/whats-an-angel-of
: -rain-doing-in-a-jewish-sukkot-pr/
: iyov remains material for Hebrew finals...

Just today I heard RMTorczyner mention how much of Iyov is in our liturgy
<http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/817867> (16-Sep-2014).

Also, in a separate comment, RMT repeated a thought from someone who
emailed in response to the prior Iyov shiur about how much Iyuv is the
flipsiode of Tehillim. When Tehillim asks "Keili keili lamah azavtani" it
answers "velo ra'isi tzadiq ne'ezav" or "qarov H' lekhol qor'av". Whereas
in Iyov...

Both appear relevant to the borrowing of "Af Beri" from Iyov's rare
mention of G-d's benevolence.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Cc: RMT, kindly make sure to include him in any replies --
    torczy...@torontotorah.com

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:50:10AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: As the sun sets on Hoshana Rabba, effectively ending the holiday of
: Sukkos, an annual machlokes dawns...

: To find out why, read the full article "<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/141326
: 6456-b2776ff773b318c092aaad472709f0c2-75a0df6?pa=25632613172>Insig
: hts
: Into Halacha: Sukka on Shmini Atzeres?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos
: / sources, just ask.

The best I've seen for defending the chassidish position is the Minchas
Elazar. The gemara says "meisiv yasvinan, berukhi lo mevarkhinan" --
we sit [in the Sukkah], but we do not bless. However, the doubled
language might suggest that we're missing something about the tone. So
it's plausible to read it as the Munkaczer Rebbe suggests, "Sitting
we would sit, but without making a berakhah?" As in, could that be
possible? And since a berakhah is inappropriate, the mitzvah it is on
would be as well. Even though the berakhah isn't me'aqev, it's
appropriateness is a red flag.

So, compelling logic or not, it is (to my ear) a plausible reading of
the gemara. The complaint that they're simply ignoring the meqoros has
a response.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:31pm GMT, R Akiva Miller wrote:
: So this year, where I was always a guest borrowing someone else's
: sukkah, I simply skipped the ushpizin entirely...

The question I would have is iqar and tafeil. Are we inviting in
7 souls as guests, or are we invoking 7 sefiros as exemplified by
those 7 people?

So, if the iqar is not the guest, but the sefirah, I would think
a guest or borrower could still invoke the ushpiza for that day.

BTW, the Zohar simply says Avraham, David, and 5 other tzadiqim,
which explains how we end up with different minhagim -- whether we
include Yoseif or (as in the Mi sheBeirakh for cholim) Shelomo.

We never discussed how Shelomo would fit the 7 sefiros, and MJ's
discussion didn't generate answers. But I think that while the popular
minhag has Yoseif haTzadiq as Yesod (given his resistance of eishes
Potifar) and David as Malkhus, this minhag would have David as Yesod
(think Bas Sheva) and Shelomo as the more complete Malkhus of the
two.

OTOH, Or Gedalyahu (R' Gedaliah Shorr) says that Shelomo would be
an 8th ushpiza for SA. (H/T RGDubin 2001.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> The question I would have is iqar and tafeil. Are we inviting in
> 7 souls as guests, or are we invoking 7 sefiros as exemplified
> by those 7 people?
>
> So, if the iqar is not the guest, but the sefirah, I would think
> a guest or borrower could still invoke the ushpiza for that day.

Interesting idea, thank you. And it reminds me of a related issue which I had thought of previously, but not asked until now:

Suppose the rain is so heavy that an entire day passes with no opportunity
to eat in the sukkah. Alternatively, suppose one is ill and bedridden, and
has no ability to eat in the sukkah. Or a woman simply chooses not to
bother with a sukkah. How is Ushpizin handled in these cases?

"If the iqar is not the guest, but the sefirah", then is the sefirah
relevant even indoors? What is meant by "the sefirah"? Is it connected to
the Itzumo Shel Yom, or is it present only in the sukkah?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54514b966778c4b965370st01vuc

When we speak of chapter origins, we should be clear that Tehillim is
a special case, being written in chapters.

Ironically, that's the one book for which we are most likely to refer
to its kapitelakh (Capitulum is Latin for, and the shoresh of "chapter".)

In Tehillim, the lasts splits were peraqim 1 & 2 (Berakhos 9b) and
9 & 10 (Tosafos Megillah 17b "veDavid"), which were split by Chazal.
Which raised questions of how, which R Harvey Benton asked back in 2009
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n016.shtml#08> and AFAIK didn't
get an answer.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 29 October 2014, Micha Berger wrote:

> In Tehillim, the lasts splits were peraqim 1 & 2 (Berakhos 9b) and
> 9 & 10 (Tosafos Megillah 17b "veDavid"), which were split by Chazal.

It's clear from the gemara in Berachos that (what we call) #9 & #10
must have been separate from the beginning, and the only change
since David's time has been the splitting of what was #1 into what we
call #1 & #2.   Otherwise that whole gemara just doesn't work.

The Tosfos you cite is a bit difficult to understand, since it's explaining
a Rashi that is itself probably a wrong girsa.   The pasuk the gemara
says is in #9 is in fact in what we call #10, which fits very  well with the
gemara in Brachos.   We now call it #10, but when David wrote it it
was #9, and thus it corresponds to the 9th bracha.   The problem is
that Rashi (as printed) seems to think it's in #8, and has to explain how
it's really #9, which he does by explaining that now that the old #1 has
been split, it's in #9.  The easiest way to explain Rashi is to fix the girsa,
but if our girsa is correct then in his hava amina he must be combining
not only #1 & #2, but also #9 & #10, and his answer is that #1 got split.

Tosfos asks how can Rashi say the gemara is  referring to the post-split
situation, since it attributes the pasuk's placement in #9 to David, who
was before the split.   And he answers that the #9/10 split is original
to David, not later.   Which leaves us (or at least me) wondering, "what
#9/10 split, what's the hava amina that they should be together?"
I can only speculate that this baal-tosfos had a girsa of tehillim in
which what we call #9 and #10 were combined; but in order for him to
have made sense of the gemara in Brachos I must further speculate
that in his girsa some chapter between 11 and 18 was split, so that
by #19 his tehillim matched ours.

At any rate, it's clear from the gemara in Brachos that what we call
#19 is what David called #18, and what we call #104 is what David
called #103,  and from the gemara in Megilla that what we call #10
is what David called #9, so it's impossible that David combined #9
and #10.

By the way, I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the split of #1
predates Chazal by a long time, and perhaps goes back to Bayis
Rishon.   Certainly nothing in the gemara indicates that the split
was Chazal's work.

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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> AhS OC 301:37 posed a conundrum for me.
...
> In the closing explaination (parens, small print) the AhS explains that
> the Rambam is following Rabba over Abayei veRava (on Shabbos 80a).
> As explained by the Magid Mishnah, this is because "ein halakhah
> ketalmidim bemaqom rabam".
>
...
> we have a kelal that halakhah kebasrai...

> So, shouldn't be be ketalmidim bemaqom rabam?

...
> (My theory is that HkB begins with AvR because they began the process that
> Rav Ashi and Ravina completed. Until then, sevara wasn't organized, so
> talmidim couldn't be sure to get those of other shitos. Possible check:
> when does the kelal of HkB start among amora'ei EY?)

I think Hilchasa k'Basra'i only applies if it can be assumed that the
later generation had more data than the earlier generation. I don't
think that applies to talmidim of a rebbe unless they had more rabbeim
from whom they received additional insights and information.

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygbechho...@gmail.com
y...@aishdas.org

I noticed something odd in different versions of pasuk 30:30 in 1 Shmuel. Some versions 
have "... v'la'asher B'CHOR-ashan ..." (bes-kaf-vav-reish). Other versions have "... v'la'asher 
B'VOR-ashan ..." (bes-ves-vav-reish). 

The Art Scroll Tanach & the Art Scroll Navi have "b'vor" in the Hebrew, but the translation has 
it as "in Chor-Ashan" (or somthing like that... I don't have those versions in front of me). 

Does anyone know what the correct version is, and where the error came from? 

Thanks, 

Shalom Yitz Scher 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141030/288623bb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:15am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
:> (My theory is that HkB begins with AvR because they began the process that
:> Rav Ashi and Ravina completed. Until then, sevara wasn't organized, so
:> talmidim couldn't be sure to get those of other shitos. Possible check:
:> when does the kelal of HkB start among amora'ei EY?)

: I think Hilchasa k'Basra'i only applies if it can be assumed that the
: later generation had more data than the earlier generation. I don't
: think that applies to talmidim of a rebbe unless they had more rabbeim
: from whom they received additional insights and information.

Much like the discussion of whether the Me'iri carries less authority
than other rishonim, because his opinion didn't impact the flow of the
pesaq for centuries. Or do we say halkhah kebasrai because we assume
the later rav considered the earlier one's shitah, but found another one
more compelling. And that kind of comparison of shitos didn't involove
choosing someone else over the Me'iri.

HOWEVER, can't a talmid come up with his own shitah or see new things in
his rebe's shittah in the years after he was a talmid?

But we don't need to discuss Abayei veRava collecting shitos for the
first attempt to compile shas. They did have rabbeim other than Rabba,
such as R' Yosef (Qiddushin 33a, bot) and R' Nachman,

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

I just heard today in a shiur that Rav David Lau (chief rabbi) found this
year a ger toshav to sell the land to for shemittah thus overcoming the
problem of lo techanem (probably the major objection to heter mechirah). It
seems this ger toshav has a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother and
undertook to keep the 7 mitzvot of Bnei Noach.

In addition in the past few years the rabbanut has taken other measures tro
reduce the halachic objections to heter mechirah. First the Israeli
government passed a law making the sale legal under Israeli law thus
overcoming the objection that the sale was a legal fiction since it didnt
follow Israeli law. In addition the sale is now done by each farmer rather
than using the rabbinate as an agent thus overcoming the objection of "ein
shaliach le-dvar averah"

Thus, IMHO (and many rabbis!) there is very little problem on the consumer
side of using the heter mechira. Most of the opposition is more political
than halachic (note the problem to the farmer is more serious).
According to poskim like Rav Rimon and others the order of priorities for a
consumer is

1) Otzar Bet Din
2) products from the south of the Negev and other similar areas
3) products from hot houses (these usually have heter mechira as an
additional chumra)
4) heter mechira
5) imports from outside of Israel
Never to use Arab produce from Gaza (probably doesnt exist) or the PA.
I am sure what the attitude is to Jordanian produce
Note that many products are imported from outside Israel all year round
independent of shemitta

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141102/1b636aed/attachment-0001.htm>

Thursday, October 30, 2014, 10:23:06 AM, Yitz Scher wrote:
> I noticed something odd in different versions of pasuk 30:30 in
> 1 Shmuel. Some versions have "... v'la'asher B'CHOR-ashan  ..."
> (bes-kaf-vav-reish). Other versions have "... v'la'asher B'VOR-ashan ..."
> (bes-ves-vav-reish).

The Koren Tanach has b'Chor Ashan.

The translation says "Kor-'ashan." 

Avi
Avram Sacks


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



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


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


***************************************

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.)