Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 24

Thu, 23 Feb 2017

• 1. Re: Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Amah Ivriya ()
• 3. Re: Amah Ivriya (Michael Poppers)
• 4. Re: Totafos vs. tefillin ()
• 5. Re: Totafos vs. tefillin (Ben Bradley)
• 6. On the Lomdus of the OU Responsum (Professor L. Levine)
• 7. Re: On the Lomdus of the OU Responsum (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Totafos vs. tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 9. Choice in mitzvot (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Tfilat nedava (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Choice in mitzvot (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Choice in mitzvot (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Tfilat nedava (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Tfilat nedava (Rich, Joel)

On 21/02/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
> It has been my understanding throughout whatever little bits of Torah
> that I've been privileged to learn, that if a kezayis of something is a
> shiur d'Oriasa for whatever halacha, then a partial kezayis would be a
> chetzi shiur d'Oraisa, or at least a d'rabanan, for that same halacha. I
> am surprised that chometz (which is generally so very severe!) is an
> exception to this, and becomes mutar when less than a kezayis. The
> reasoning does seem to be that a partial kezayis is not chashuv -- but
> can't that be said about ANY partial shiur? [sarcasm on:] A half-kezayis
> of chazir is not chashuv, so why not eat just a nibble? [sarcasm off]
> What makes chometz different?

Because for most issurim it doesn't matter whether something is chashuv. 
  It's just as assur to eat a neveila's offal as it is to eat its filet 
mignon.  The same is true of chametz, both for eating it and for owning 
it; the point here is not that there's no issur in owning something that 
isn't chashuv, but that something that isn't chashuv is automatically 
batel and therefore *you don't own it*.  It's as if it doesn't exist. 
There's not even any need to explicitly be mevatel it, because it's 
batel by its very nature, unless you explicitly decided to keep it, 
which is machshiv it.

Remember that mid'oraisa bittul of anything is enough to avoid the issur 
of ownership.  Chazal said it's not enough, for two reasons: One might 
find a nice roll on Pesach and think to keep it, thus cancelling its 
bitul; and one might find chametz and absentmindedly eat it.  Neither of 
these reasons applies to a dirty breadcrumb.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

 

From: Marty Bluke via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


>> The statement "the Torah  forbids a woman to be under the control of
anyone other than her father or  husband." is clearly an exaggeration meant
to emphasize the problems/severity  of women going to the army. It is not
meant to be taken literally and there  is no such Torah prohibition. The
proof is that thousands of 18-19 Charedi  girls leave their homes every year
in chutz laaretz and come to seminary in  Israel. In seminary they are
clearly under the control of the seminary  administration which is neither
their father nor their husband and yet this  is the accepted practice in the
Charedi (and MO) world,....  <<

 
 
>>>>>
 
When a girl is in the army and there is a conflict between what her father  
wants her to do and what the army wants, the army wins.  I am pretty sure  
the same is true of Sherut Le'umi.  In contrast, a seminary acts in loco  
parentis and in the case of a conflict, the parents rule.  
 
 

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


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170222/5ac2fdc1/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V35n23, RMartyB wrote:
> In seminary they are clearly under the control of the seminary
administration which is neither their father nor their husband <
Shaliach shel av c'moso?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170222/e78b489d/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Ben Rothke via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

In the parasha 2 weeks ago, Shmos 13:16  uses the word [totafos].
Onkelos translates it as [tefillin].
Any idea why  we use the term [tefillin] as opposed to [totafos]?

 
>>>>>>
 
My impression is that totafos are the boxes -- the batim.   Tefillin are 
the boxes and the straps together.  I base this on Rashi  who indicates 
(somewhat strangely) that "totafos" isn't even a Hebrew word  but a portmanteau 
word combining the Caspi word for "two" with the Afriki word  for "two."  This 
suggests, as I said, that the totafos are the  four-chambered boxes.  It's 
true that Targum translates "totafos" as  "tefillin" but my understanding is 
that he isn't being precise in translating  the word exactly but is telling 
you in context what the word  means.  There are many places where Onkelos 
gives an explanation or  paraphrase rather than a literal translation.
 

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


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170222/3d00b04f/attachment-0001.htm>

Because the gemara chooses uses to the aramaic presumably. As the gemara
simialrly often uses a different to the lashon of the Torah shebichsav. Eg
Rosh Hashana for yom hazikaron, chag for succos, atzeres for shavuos etc

Why the gemara itself prefers the term tefillin is another question





In the parasha 2 weeks ago, Shmos 13:16 uses the word [totafos].
Onkelos translates it as [tefillin].
Any idea why we use the term [tefillin] as opposed to [totafos]?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170222/817c298c/attachment-0001.htm>

See

http://www.thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/2017/2/21/on-
the-lomdus-of-the-ou-responsum


This article about the Orthodox Union's recent statement regarding
professional roles for women in Orthodox synagogues is written by Rabbi
Chaim Twerski whose father Motel,  z"l, was a good friend of mine.


One paragraph jumped out at me.


"But there might be another rationale, as well. Since time immemorial it
has been the man/husband's duty to be responsible for the family's
financial security and the woman's role to manage the home. The job that
requires more fortitude and indeed aggressiveness fell to the man. For that
reason, women have been more submissive to men in the course of history. As
a result, we might find that if a woman were to be put into a position of
power, men would be reluctant to accept the authority-which would be
self-defeating. It could be well argued that this is true even in the
present time when women are sometimes appointed or even elected to high
political positions and lead powerful corporate careers. It still does not
go over well with many men."


Truth be told,	in many Chareidi circles the duty to be responsible for the
family's financial security is now borne by women!   Dare one suggest that
in these circles women supporting the family is not in consonance with past
tradition?


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170222/a6ef2566/attachment-0001.htm>

Truth be told,	in many Chareidi circles the duty to be responsible for the
family's financial security is now borne by women!   Dare one suggest that
in these circles women supporting the family is not in consonance with past
tradition?

______________________________________________
Of course.  The elephant in the room is how do we (whichever branch of
orthodoxy is under discussion) allocate our time (our most valuable
resource) It seems that we have (consciously or unconsciously) undertaken a
mass experiment in reassigning much of the time "traditionally" spent by
parents in child raising. There are so many factors that have changed
internally and externally that I doubt we will ever be able to prove the
impact to anyone's satisfaction, given all the vested interests.

kol tuv
Joel RIch
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170223/42e2780f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 10:45:27PM -0500, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote:
: In the parasha 2 weeks ago, Shmos 13:16 uses the word [totafos].
: Onkelos translates it as [tefillin].
: Any idea why we use the term [tefillin] as opposed to [totafos]?

Tefillin refers to the set, thus the lashon rabim. The Torah only
uses totafos to refer to the shel rosh (le'os al yadekha ultotafos
bein einekha).

As to why... I don't know why. But I noticed the switch was early enough
that by Rabbi Aqiva's day (Sanhedrin 4b) the etymolology was forgotten.

I took R Aqiva as referring to two other semitic languages. (Afriqi
might be the language of Carthage = Carta Chadsha, which would be in
the right family.) And it's a common linguistic trick to try to guess
the meaning of a word from cognates in related language.

R' Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) suggested that maybe totafos is called
2+2 rather than 4 particularly because the Dor haMidbar. Since
2 of the parshios are in Devarim, for nearly 40 years tefillin only
had the two parshios from Shemos. Then they got another two.

(Of course, this assumes R' Yochanan's position, that the Torah was
given piecewise.)

Maybe this would imply that the term "totafos" phased out not long
after?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

there are several mitzvot where HKB?H seems to give us different types of
choice (marriage/divorce, Yibum/Chalitzah, Pidyon Haben/Give to Cohen,
Pidyon Bcher Chamer/arifa) and also some prohibitions with a special fix
(leftovers/burn). Anyone see anything written up (or have any thoughts) on
why specifically these mitzvot?

Kol tuv 
Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Why do we no longer allow (in most cases) tfilat nedava (voluntary prayer)?
Has human nature dramatically changed over time since the Talmud so as to
make such prayer generally suspect? What are the observable indications of
this change?
Kol tuv 
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 23/02/17 07:14, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> there are several mitzvot where HKB?H seems to give us different
> types of choice (marriage/divorce, Yibum/Chalitzah, Pidyon Haben/Give
> to Cohen, Pidyon Bcher Chamer/arifa)

What do you mean by Pidyon Haben/Give to Cohen?  Giving the money to the 
cohen *is* the pidyon.  There is no other option.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

> 
> What do you mean by Pidyon Haben/Give to Cohen?  Giving the money to the cohen *is* the pidyon.  There is no other 
-----/--
Perhaps not the best example of the lot but we do have the practice of the Cohen asking mai bait tfei which the commentaries struggle to explain.  
Kol tuv
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 23/02/17 07:16, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> Why do we no longer allow (in most cases) tfilat nedava (voluntary
> prayer)? Has human nature dramatically changed over time since the
> Talmud so as to make such prayer generally suspect? What are the
> observable indications of this change?

Who says we don't allow it?

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

Why do we no longer allow (in most cases) tfilat nedava (voluntary
prayer)? Has human nature dramatically changed over time since the
Talmud so as to make such prayer generally suspect? What are the
observable indications of this change?

Who says we don't allow

See discussion here
http://etzion.org.il/en/tefillat-nedava-voluntary-prayer

Whenever I've heard it discussed The general responses has been not to so except in very specific circumstances.
Kol tuv
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170223/6ed0d96a/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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)