Volume 33: Number 122
Fri, 11 Sep 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar
From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500
Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah,
almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the
strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah
brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai
calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick
Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas
Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon
reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation
eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing.
Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah,
curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main
Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the
Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to
the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat
before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a
small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so,
why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar?
<Snip>
To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated,
one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well
as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into
account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23]
Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the
recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this
way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be
able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before
Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening
Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict
on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the
Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim
Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the
clarion call of the Shofar.
See the above URL for more.
----------
Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J
Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be
over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home
and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in
the Simcha Hall.
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150910/6afc3eef/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Michael Poppers
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos
R'Micha responded to me:
>> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what
>> can be seen?
> How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards?
> The only difference is how much cutting is required.
And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external
magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an
external tool is required in order to 'see' something.
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote:
: And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external
: magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an
: external tool is required in order to 'see' something.
You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen
by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark.
I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing
the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying
glass.
To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going
to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate
language for relaying why I find it self-evident.
The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing,
the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside
the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an
aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is
within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation.
The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and
other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't
getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the
cheftzah itself.
To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence.
Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if
you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal
to cheftzah.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction.
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Michael Poppers
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos
R'Micha noted:
> You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen
by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. <
I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a
murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)).
> I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing
the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying
glass. <
And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area.
Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what
level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can
only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the
lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible?
> The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing,
the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside
the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an
aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is
within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. <
I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without
Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a
lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under
this-worldly lighting conditions.
All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote:
> : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external
> : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an
> : external tool is required in order to 'see' something.
>
> You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen
> by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark.
>
> I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing
> the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying
> glass.
>
> To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going
> to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate
> language for relaying why I find it self-evident.
>
> The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing,
> the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside
> the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an
> aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is
> within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation.
>
> The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and
> other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't
> getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the
> cheftzah itself.
>
> To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence.
> Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if
> you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal
> to cheftzah.)
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
> mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
> http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150910/bdce17a9/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Child Conversion
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is
:> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut
:> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting.
I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is
not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice,
particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today)
where there is comparatively little antisemisim?
Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's
influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas".
Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of
mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116,
quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he
knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term).
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote:
: The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious
: Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also
: for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for
: reasons of Nationalism.
Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam
shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking
nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us.
Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert,
since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely
marry Jews either way.
And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells
a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they
were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so
would be to be repeating the avos' mistake.
So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial
for the life they will be leading do matter.
The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at
length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you
want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm
their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming
to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation
would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead,
BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if
they were, we consider the geirus affirmed.
This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when
she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be
given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case
should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara
answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of
the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional.
So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood?
How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work?
R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because
ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>>
Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post
was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher
Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.).
Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to
carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis,
then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series
of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one
lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it.
So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on
what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it
accomplishes.
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150910/f260dda2/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because
: ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>>
:
: Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework...
I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We
can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 13 Middos
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
:> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without
:> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>>
: I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you
: sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing,
: here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for
: you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate
: that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure
: of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah."
But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to
HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah.
And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence
of syllables in and of themselves.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote:
: According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job
: 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and
: 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7).
: R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs...
He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a
"demonstration" is overly confident.
Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever
sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim
who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we
can use mythical creatures as metaphors.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work?
R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack
of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>>
I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras
chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a
chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the
beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what
is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on
my behalf?
If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that
sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo
yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from
being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the
Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need
to own the loan.)
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150910/0c6b1cbb/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: via Avodah
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the
In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mi...@aishdas.org writes:
Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever
sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power.
>>>
That is a fascinating and insightful point!
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150910/fc1dbab0/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha
<Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic
Man approach to Yahadus. >>
Please elaborate
BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO
neo-chassidut.
I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from
Ofra.
To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme
dancing.
The boys mostly has long peyot.
The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I
had never seen.
He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a
shecheyanu but
no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc
However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism.
> : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear
> as
> : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma)
> ...
>
> It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just
> confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly
> the opposite sense. And while you note that:
> : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview
> it.
> : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not
> : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view
>
> This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing
> two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication.
>
> Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested
> me.
>
> You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished
> through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul,
> mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc..
>
> RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which
> the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure.
>
> The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging
> kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra,
> and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days
> because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found
> in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n287.shtml#06>.
>
> I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic
> structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS
> holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel
> mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam
> and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is
> whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah.
>
> However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require
> a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not
> close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not
> a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush.
>
> Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic
> Man approach to Yahadus.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends,
> mi...@aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
> http://www.aishdas.org beginning.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard
>
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150911/d70a76e2/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.)