Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 138

Tue, 27 Oct 2015

• 1. Re: Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm ()
• 2. Tefillin once per lifetime? (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: Tefillin once per lifetime? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Akiva Miller)
• 5. informing on death (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Akiva Miller)
• 13. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Micha Berger)

 
From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah@lists.aishdas.org_ 
(mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org) 



so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do  we put
tephillin on our weaker arm?

mc

 
 
>>>>>>>
 
Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful?  Are they  allowed 
to be just practical?  The most obvious reason is that it is much  easier 
to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand --  hence 
you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin.
 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


 
 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151025/5394b77f/attachment-0001.htm>

in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote:

> b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it.
> Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY
> bizman hazeh, etc...

and later:

> I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo
> manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no
> bitul asei in omiting tefillin.

I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my
admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a
shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!",
which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin,
in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum."

R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded:

> R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for
> someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that
> most people around him didn't.
>
> The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect.
>
> Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah").
>
> Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB
> as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put
> ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold
> or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin.

I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at
Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to
Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in
tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for
Shacharis rather than all day.

Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many
people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up
with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis
mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that
other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some
would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time,
and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too.

In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is
not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151026/9e17c322/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded:

Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for
clarification. He asked:
> [Me:]
>> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be
>> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW
>> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order
>> to say Shema without looking like liars...

> Please elaborate on the highlighted portion.

So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin
at all.

Which explains why:
: I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at
: Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to
: Tefillin being a chiyuv only once...

More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin
as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although
I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara
to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called
"mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah
after the first night, gittin, and others.

He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit
it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh,
etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really
"carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not
quibble over that.)

RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of
going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur
(a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah
once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it
is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice,
but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.)

It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur
and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one
has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum
aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status
(whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has
reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not
possible to do the mitzvah again.

On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die
chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status,
and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is
"yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting
married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee
get the chiyuv again.

I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories:

A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to
accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita,
tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh)

B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at
all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent.
(milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time,
*if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it
is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned.

C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a
mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that
matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one
has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.)

D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and
seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category,
but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure.

I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories,
and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these
issues. Here's one that I touched on above:

I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A
single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of
a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to
marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah
kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but
I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman
unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they
actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already
married, is it a mitzvah to marry another?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151026/f54c7d4b/attachment-0001.htm>

One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to
tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even
daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days.
(BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R.
Hiya)

A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in
another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an
excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long
time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help.
Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was
not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me".

As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a
favor.  Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav
Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky,
because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel  of RYBS died,
RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his
wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife
would not know of the death.

Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that
one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a
soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a
social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several
times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard
through messages.
I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all
family members because of these concerns.

Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people
send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close
relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at
the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we
were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the
loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's
phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at
some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or
screaming in public.

In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of
informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or
postong on facebook is the wrong way

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151027/0b176919/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation"
> category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status
> changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and
> although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I
> suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is
> in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed
> to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin
> and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere
> procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a
> mitzvah to marry another?

He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu
bemitzvosav.  If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas
hoda'ah, then you have your answer.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu
: bemitzvosav.  If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas
: hoda'ah, then you have your answer.

It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number
of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu
es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a
birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said
upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very
few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus
and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and
wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin.

Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha:
- Hashem commanded us about arayos
- He forbade an arusa even to her husband
- He allows an arusa after chupa

I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something
similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on
it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was
somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this?

Akiva Millet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151027/b44799ab/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu
> : bemitzvosav.  If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas
> : hoda'ah, then you have your answer.
>
> It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number
> of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu
> es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv.

The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it
goes away.  It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a
negative.  "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You
by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will
be lifted."


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it
: goes away.  It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a
: negative.  "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You
: by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will
: be lifted."

Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical
sense.

This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though
ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's
a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin.

But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through
eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter
created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could
qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah.

In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the
birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he
is discussing.

I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more
comprehensible.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though
> ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's
> a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin.

Except this one.

> But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through
> eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation

What do you mean by that?  It's a brand-new issur that affects him
from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch".


> and a heter
> created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could
> qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah.

I don't see where you're seeing a group photo.  This is one mitzvah,
the issur on arusos.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after
birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur
against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for
"oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it
does remove one objection against it.]

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151027/e8d814b7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote:
: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after
: birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur
: against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for
: "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it
: does remove one objection against it.]

See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in
as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress!
BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote
earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would
include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah."

I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then
"vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says
that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom
of Berakhos 46a)

And why isn't the husband saying it for himself?

As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam
exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah
on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the
iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah),
being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally
say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a
: mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that
: matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one
: has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.)
: 
: D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and
: seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category,
: but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure.

This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum
shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D).

Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary".

Nezirus.

Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al.

...
: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A
: single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of
: a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to
: marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah
: kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but
: I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman
: unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they
: actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already
: married, is it a mitzvah to marry another?

A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for
a weekday meal.


Tir'u baTov!
-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.


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



_______________________________________________
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.)