Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 154

Wed, 19 Nov 2014

• 1. Re: Kevurah of Tefillin Kesheirim (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Kevurah of Tefillin Kesheirim (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: Rabbi Lau ()
• 4. Re: Rabbi Lau (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Rabbi Lau (Arie Folger)
• 6. Fwd: Rabbi Lau (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Rabbi Lau (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Re: Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim (Micha Berger)
• 13. Talking to Angels (Kenneth Miller)
• 14. Re: Rabbi Lau (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Re: Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim (SBA)

On 11/18/2014 01:06 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>
> I know that "lo sa'asu kein Lashem E-lokeichem" prohibited the wanton
> destruction of sifrei qodesh that is appropriate for texts of AZ.

Burial is not destruction, which is precisely why we *do* bury Sheimos.
Texts of AZ are *not* buried, they are burned, and that is the litmus
test for whether we consider something to have kedusha.  Thus, a ST
written by an idolater is to be buried, because while we can't use it
we still assume that when he wrote the Sheimos he meant them to refer
to our Gd, while if a Min wrote a ST we assume he meant all the sheimos
to refer to  *his* Gd (since he believes that "kol hatorah shmosov shel
oso ho'ish", so to speak), so they have no kedusha and should be burned.

R' Micha Berger asked:

> I know that "lo sa'asu kein Lashem E-lokeichem" prohibited the
> wanton destruction of sifrei qodesh that is appropriate for
> texts of AZ. So, I would still be happier a maqor to justify
> assuming that the tefillin may be buried.

Let's suppose that "lo sa'asu kein" does prohibit the burial of kosher
tefillin. If that were so, then it would also prohibit the burial of pasul
tefillin; we would be obligated to open the batim, remove the klaf, and
salvage whatever writings have Hashem's Name on them. We might or might not
be allowed to cut out the Shaymos and bury the rest, but our actual
practice (if I'm not mistaken) is to allow burial of the tefillin even for
as trivial a reason as the *batim* being unrepairable. Is there a
requirement to avoid burying the klaf in such a case?

Demonstration #2: Suppose I have a mezuzah. It is safek kosher, safek
pasul. But the problem it has is an unfixable one. So what do I do with it?
I can't put it on my door because it might be pasul. And I can't bury it
either, because if it is kosher then RMB's havamina forbids us to bury a
kosher one. But I suspect that no one would hold himself back from burying
it.

And in fact, don't we bury Sifrei Torah all the time, even though they
*are* repairable, and simply not worth the effort to repair? QED: "Lo
sa'asu kein" does *not* prohibit burial of kosher shaymos.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Odd trick Kills diabetes
100% scientifically-proven way to control blood sugar in 3 short weeks
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/546b97e1b605017e12706st02vuc

From Toby Katz t6...@aol.com
 
 
R' Eli Turkel wrote:

I spent shabbat with a group together  with Rabbi Lau, chief rabbi of 
Israel.

1) He reiterated the improvements  made this year to the "heter mechira"
They found an Arab who said that he was  willing to keep the 7 mitzvot of
Bnei Noach.... 

In addition someone met with each farmer to explain the various  options
(a) leaving the land fallow (b) Otzar Bet din (c) planting in  greenhouses
not directly connected to the ground (d) heter  mechirah...

-- 
Eli Turkel

 
>>>>>
 
I don't know about (c).  Hydroponically grown plants seem to be OK but  I 
don't know about produce grown in dirt in "greenhouses not directly  
connected to the ground."  My sister in Y-m tells me that even houseplants  in 
flowerpots cannot be pruned or picked or anything -- all you can do is give  them 
the minimum of water to keep them from dying.  She has filled her  window 
planters with beautifully colored flowers -- what she calls her "shmitta  
garden" -- made of plastic.  From the street they look real.  However,  plastic 
cucumbers and tomatoes would probably not be so useful.
 
 
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141118/a29c8794/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> 2) In a dvar Torah he presented several midrashim? (and Zohar
> chadash) that talk about a "fifth malchut" after the standard four
> (Bavel, Persia, Greece, Edom=Rome=Xtianity). This 5th kingdom would
> be Ishmael (Arabs). This kingdom would be especially cruel but in
> the end their downfall would lead to the Messiah

You may find this idea in some mefarshim to Daniel's pitaron chalom of
Nevuchadnetzar, where some interpret the feet of clay and iron to refer to
a fifth kingdom, which, however, won't be universal, hence intermingled
with iron, which IIRC is Edom.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Respecting, Caring for and Helping the Convert
* When a Modest Proposal is Unreasonable
* Die Gestalt von Abraham im Midrasch ? Audio-Vortr?ge-Reihe
* Warum das heilige Land in einem Krisenherd liegt
* H?rt G?tt unsere Gebete?
* Sind unsere individuelle Taten von Bedeutung?
* Is Yom Kippur More Festive; Rosch haSchanah More Awesome?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141118/ca6d95db/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> You may find this idea in some mefarshim to Daniel's pitaron chalom of
> Nevuchadnetzar, where some interpret the feet of clay and iron to refer to
> a fifth kingdom, which, however, won't be universal, hence intermingled
> with iron, which IIRC is Edom.


I should also hasten to add that the idea antedates the hitgalut of the
Tiqunei Zohar by centuries. Ibn Ezra cites it in the name of Rav Saadya
Gaon.


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Respecting, Caring for and Helping the Convert
* When a Modest Proposal is Unreasonable
* Die Gestalt von Abraham im Midrasch ? Audio-Vortr?ge-Reihe
* Warum das heilige Land in einem Krisenherd liegt
* H?rt G?tt unsere Gebete?
* Sind unsere individuelle Taten von Bedeutung?
* Is Yom Kippur More Festive; Rosch haSchanah More Awesome?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141119/146941e4/attachment-0001.htm>

[R Arie Folger:]
> [R Eli Turkel:]
>> 2) In a dvar Torah he presented several midrashim? (and Zohar
>> chadash) that talk about a "fifth malchut" after the standard four
>> (Bavel, Persia, Greece, Edom=Rome=Xtianity). This 5th kingdom would
>> be Ishmael (Arabs). This kingdom would be especially cruel but in
>> the end their downfall would lead to the Messiah

> You may find this idea in some mefarshim to Daniel's pitaron chalom of
> Nevuchadnetzar, where some interpret the feet of clay and iron to refer to
> a fifth kingdom, which, however, won't be universal, hence intermingled
> with iron, which IIRC is Edom.

Indeed R David Lau referred to Daniel among other sources. What he claimed
was unique about the 5th kingdom is that the evils against the Jews would
be done in the name of G-d (Allah) rather than the AZ of previous kingdoms

 From http://tinyurl.com/ncoh68x

Misconception:Mayim achronim (washing before bentching) is a chumrah 
(stringency) in which women need not participate. The water used for 
mayim achronim needs to either be covered or removed from the table.

Fact: Mayim achronim is an obligation equally incumbent upon men and 
women. There is scant basis for covering or removing the water.
  See the above URL for more.  YL

This article was written by Rabbi dr. Ari Zivotofsky and appeared in 
Jewish Action Magazine in 2001.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141119/c53f43bf/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 08:41:56AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/ncoh68x

: Misconception:Mayim achronim (washing before bentching) is a chumrah
: (stringency) in which women need not participate. The water used for
: mayim achronim needs to either be covered or removed from the table.

: Fact: Mayim achronim is an obligation equally incumbent upon men and
: women...

From RAZZ's article:
    Tosafot[5] ruled -- perhaps in defense of the prevailing laxity
    in observing mayim achronim[6] -- that since melach sedomit did not
    exist in medieval Europe, it was no longer mandatory to wash mayim
    achronim.[7] This opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (OC 181:10)
    as well. The Mishnah Berurah (181:22), however, notes that the
    Gra was strict about washing mayim achronim. Similarly, the Magen
    Avraham advises one to wash. The Aruch Hashulchan (181:5) states
    that despite Tosafots ruling concerning melach sedomit, one should
    be exceedingly careful to wash mayim achronim and to admonish ones
    family to wash as well.

    Yet, even Tosafot, who ruled that melach sedomit no longer
    applied in his day, maintained that the Talmuds second reason was
    still relevant: blessings should not be recited if ones hands are
    unclean.[8] Therefore, a person whose hands are dirty after eating
    or who regularly cleans his hands after eating is obligated in mayim
    achronim. Based on the Tosafot, however, one who has clean hands and
    is not accustomed to washing his hands after a meal is not required
    to wash mayim achronim (Aruch Hashulchan 181:4).

    This more lenient view of the Tosafot is rejected by the Shla, a
    latter day commentator, (Piskei HaShla, Hilchot Netilat Yadayim:2) who
    held that one should be diligent to always wash before bentching. The
    Chida, who also maintained that mayim achronim should be scrupulously
    observed, based his opinion on a kabbalistic reason...

There are two issues going on here:

1- Uncharacteristically for his columns, RAZZ is giving significant
emphasis to qabbalistically derived pesaqim.

2- But more interesting to me personally is the interplay between the
textual and the mimetic.

In the Y-mi, there is mention of melakh sedomis, but nothing about
"qedoshim tihyu". I have mentioned this repeatedly in the past, as
an example of where we find Ashkenazi mimetic tradition being more
explainable using EY texts than Babylonian ones.

It would seem that Rav's derivation of mayim acharonim from "vehiyisem
qedoshim" is taken by Ashkenazim to be a nice thought, not a din. And in
fact, R Nachman b Yitzchaq, who quotes R' Yehudah quoting Rav in Berakhos
(39b) does not actually state a chiyuv, although he does group it together
with mayim rishonim and actual bentching. Which is why I said Ashk
practice better fits EY sources here, although given that prejudice, the
read is possible.

The sugya starts with a machloqes about whether oil is necessary before
bentching. R' Zilai says it is, R' Ziwai says one doesn't need oil,
and R Acha goes even further and requires GOOD oil. Then we have the
suspiciously named R' Zuhamai, who says that just as a mezuham is pasul to
do avodah, so too yadayim mezumahamos are pesulos for bentching. Zuhama is
used by chazal in both physical and metaphysical senses, so I don't know
what to make of R Zumai's statement. But because of the oil discussion,
I would assume we mean physical dirt; when are we ever metaheir or remove
sitera achara or ruach ra'ah with oil?

RNBY opens "I know nothing of Zilai, Zivai or Zuhamai, but I do
know the beraisa..." So, he comments on the oddities of those names,
they aren't oft quoted. And given R' *Zehumai" speaking about "zuhama",
I would assume these are pseudonyms.

But notice how he opens dismissing the talk of "pasul liberakhah", and
doesn't say this beraisa states an actual chiyuv.

I disagree with RAZZ's opening "misconception". For Ashkenazim, mayim
acharonim -- unless (eg) someone is eating poultry on the bone with
one's fingers -- is indeed a chumerah, and therefore not embumbant
on women. Eating with cutlery or sandwitches have become the norm;
our hands rarely get as dirty as their norm. (In Canterbury Tales, the
nun's daintiness is described by how she wouldn't get her fingertips in
the sauce bowl.) The AhS and MB are not wrong; in the norm, it's a nice
chumerah, and therefore women need not accept it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:01:46AM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
: I should also hasten to add that the idea antedates the hitgalut of the
: Tiqunei Zohar by centuries. Ibn Ezra cites it in the name of Rav Saadya
: Gaon.

Given his condemnation of gilgul in Emunos veDei'os 6:8
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/kapah/6b-2.htm#8>, RSG obviously
never saw a precursor, either. His terms are "among those who are called
"Yehudim' are those who believe in gilgul" "and many things from these
hazayos and bilbulim" "hapesa'im" "hasikhlim" "vehayisi chas al devarai
milihazkir shitasam"....


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 10:45 AM 11/19/2014, Micha Berger wrote:
>I disagree with RAZZ's opening "misconception". For Ashkenazim, mayim
>acharonim -- unless (eg) someone is eating poultry on the bone with
>one's fingers -- is indeed a chumerah, and therefore not embumbant
>on women. Eating with cutlery or sandwitches have become the norm;
>our hands rarely get as dirty as their norm. (In Canterbury Tales, the
>nun's daintiness is described by how she wouldn't get her fingertips in
>the sauce bowl.) The AhS and MB are not wrong; in the norm, it's a nice
>chumerah, and therefore women need not accept it.

 From the links 
at 
http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/anthropology/uten
sil/index.html 
it seems that it is a relatively new phenomenon for ordinary people 
to use utensels when they eat.  It seems to me that the fact that 
common people generally ate with their hands is one of the main 
reasons if not the main reason requiring mayim achronim.

However,  once eating with utensils became common it seems to me that 
this reason falls away.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141119/2cf9baab/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger concluded:

> For Ashkenazim, mayim acharonim -- unless (eg) someone is eating
> poultry on the bone with one's fingers -- is indeed a chumerah,
> and therefore not embumbant on women.

And not encumbent on men either, right?

> Eating with cutlery or sandwitches have become the norm; our hands
> rarely get as dirty as their norm. ... The AhS and MB are not
> wrong; in the norm, it's a nice chumerah, and therefore women need
> not accept it.

And men need not accept it either, right?

And furthermore, if I'm understanding it correctly, even if an Ashkenazi
*did* dirty his hands while eating, if he happened to clean them for
whatever reason, and in whatever manner, even not l'shem mayim acharonim,
that ought to suffice. All the requirements about the method of washing,
and of being silent until bentching, ought to be irrelevant to Tosfos'
view.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Odd trick Kills diabetes
100% scientifically-proven way to control blood sugar in 3 short weeks
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/546cc4709adc344706d9ast04vuc

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:24:08PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger concluded:
: > For Ashkenazim, mayim acharonim -- unless (eg) someone is eating
: > poultry on the bone with one's fingers -- is indeed a chumerah,
: > and therefore not embumbant on women.
: 
: And not encumbent on men either, right?

That is what "is indeed a chumerah" means, yes. My point in singling
out women was that lemaaseh, the chumerah only became a norm among
Ashkenazi men of some qehillos.

...
: And furthermore, if I'm understanding it correctly, even if an Ashkenazi
: *did* dirty his hands while eating, if he happened to clean them for
: whatever reason, and in whatever manner, even not l'shem mayim acharonim,
: that ought to suffice. All the requirements about the method of washing,
: and of being silent until bentching, ought to be irrelevant to Tosfos'
: view.

Which fits R' Zuhamai's statement (quoted in my earlier email, from
Shabbos 39b), if we assume he is speaking of physical zuhama. Mayim
acharonim isn't so much a chiyuv as a prohibition against bentching with
dirty hands.

As the article concludes:
    It should be noted that, unlike the washing before the meal, mayim
    achronim is for the purpose of cleanliness and therefore, is not a
    ritual washing. Thus, there is no need for koach gavrah (pouring by
    a person) or to wash from a keli (utensil). Hence, one may certainly
    wash straight from the faucet.[22]

    22. Aruch Hashulchan OC 181:8. See also: Kaf Hachaim 181:10 in
    the name of the Kol Bo, Raavad, Levush, and Eliyahu Rabba; Mishnah
    Berurah 181:21.

I would just quibble with your language. Washing because your hands are
dirty /is/ mayim acharonim according to this understanding. It's not
merely good enough instead of MA.

(I was objecting to RAZZ's provocative opening, which as I read it
misrepresents the body and his conclusion. Particularly since the
way we today eat, our hands are rarely as dirty as their norms.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I am trying to get a clearer understanding of the definition of a "god" in the context of gods which are assur to believe in or to pray to.

For example, I have never really understood why some gedolim have
objections to singing Shalom Aleichem. It seems clear to me from the Torah
that we are allowed to ask humans for a bracha (but see postscript), and so
I do not understand why there would be a problem to make that request of a
mal'ach.

Is it possible that the opposition to Shalom Aleicheim is merely of the
"public policy" sort, and that no real issur is involved? Could it be that
it is actually mutar to ask a mal'ach for a bracha, but that the gedolim
opposed it because it might lead to actual avodah zara?

I guess I also need a better understanding of "shituf". I perceive a
mal'ach as a creation of Hashem, and therefore a subject of Hashem, and
therefore limited by whatever limitations Hashem chooses to impose -- no
different than humans. But this sounds very similar to how the sun, stars,
et al, were perceived by those in the first generations after Adam
HaRishon. If so, it might confirm my suspicions that talking to mal'achim
is not actual avodah zara, but problematic because it too easily *leads* to
actual avodah zara.

Postscript: There are many cases in Chumash where one human blesses another
human, but when I looked at them, I found that they are usually cases of
where one volunteered and offered his blessing to another. That does not
address the situation I'm asking about; what I want to see is an example of
a human who ASKED another for a blessing. Off the top of my head, I came up
with only two such cases: Esav asking Yitzchak (Ber. 27:34) and Par'oh
asking Moshe (Shemos 12:32). Given that both Esav and Par'oh were not
Jewish, I wondered if this might be evidence that shituf (asking a creation
for a bracha) is mutar for non-Jews.

But then I was struck by the incident when Yaakov's name was changed to
Yisrael. Regardless of whether one prefers to understand his opponent as a
mal'ach or as a human, either way, Bereishis 32:27 shows that Yaakov DID
ask for a bracha. Nowhere is it even suggested that this act was even a
remote form of Avodah Zara.

So now I am stumped. If the opponent was a mal'ach, then it seems to be
clear evidence that we *can* ask a mal'ach for a bracha, so what was the
opposition to Shalom Aleichem about? Is it possible that the opposition to
Shalom Aleichem came only from the minority view, that Yaakov's fight was
with a mere human, and although we can ask humans for a bracha, it remains
assur to ask a mal'ach?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Is this the WORST carb ever?
This 1 carb is HARMING your metabolism & accelerates AGING (avoid)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/546cae99867262e990fb7st04vuc

It depends on the situation, the pots, etc. But yes, it is entirely 
possible (and quite common) to take care of one's potted plants during 
shmitta (and not just watering them the minimum amount).  Any decent 
shmitta book will have details on dealing with potted plants or greenhouses.

Ben

On 11/18/2014 9:57 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> I don't know about (c).  Hydroponically grown plants seem to be OK but 
> I don't know about produce grown in dirt in "greenhouses not directly 
> connected to the ground."

The sefer Minhag Yisroel Torah vol 1 p 326, it discusses these issues.

Ayen shom hataam why women don't wash MA.

 

SBA

 

From: Prof. Levine [mailto:llev...@stevens.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:42 AM
To: avo...@aishdas.org
Subject: Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim

 

From http://tinyurl.com/ncoh68x

Misconception:Mayim achronim (washing before bentching) is a chumrah
(stringency) in which women need not participate. The water used for mayim
achronim needs to either be covered or removed from the table.

Fact: Mayim achronim is an obligation equally incumbent upon men and women.
There is scant basis for covering or removing the water.
 See the above URL for more.  YL

This article was written by Rabbi dr. Ari Zivotofsky and appeared in Jewish
Action Magazine in 2001. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141120/7d7cf47b/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)