Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 69

Thu, 14 Jun 2018

• 1. Kashrus - Wooden Sticks and Feathers (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 2. Eretz Yisroel, Zionism, and Medinas Yisroel in the Philosophy of RSRH (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Eretz Yisroel, Zionism, and Medinas Yisroel in the Philosophy of RSRH (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Torah Im Derech Eretz: Torah Proper or Hora's Sha'ah (Professor L. Levine)
• 5. Re: sell the Beit Knesset? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The uniqueness of Moshe's nevua (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Realizing a Vision? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: The uniqueness of Moshe's nevua (Zev Sero)
• 9. THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW SHOULD COME FROM THE LETTER (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: The uniqueness of Moshe's nevua (Ben Waxman)
• 11. R Asher Weis on Torah leShmah (Micha Berger)
• 12. How to pour nesachim, major differences between the first and the second beis hamikdash (Marty Bluke)

If a wooden stick is used to stir a hot pot of non-K meat, it becomes non-K.
It will in turn, render a pot of hot Kosher food non-K, if it is used,
whilst fresh, to stir that pot.
But, wood is not a food.
May one eat the shavings of that wooden stick?
Probably yes.

Hog hair is not a food and it cannot be deemed to be non-K.
Therefore one may sprinkle hog hair on ones food, or cook it in ones soup.
Does it get worse if the hog hair is first cooked in a pot of non-K meat?
Probably yes.

This is an issue faced today by Kashrus agencies regarding food
ingredients/additives that are extracted from non-foods, like bird
feathers. In order to facilitate plucking, the dead, non-Shechted birds
have been plunged into a tank of boiling water. Thus the feathers have
absorbed the non-K taste of the birds.

Although the feathers are dissolved in acids in order to extract what will
be used as food additives, this consideration is not accepted regarding
gelatine since gelatine is a 'food' at the conclusion of its processing,
and it is similarly not accepted by the Kashrus agencies for feathers.

Some suggest that there is a difference between the two. Gelatine is worse
because it is extracted from the non-K item itself i.e. the skin and bones,
whereas the non-K absorbed in the feathers, is not the source of the
extracted food/additive which are derived exclusively from the feathers
that are a non-food. Therefore, even though skin and bones do become
inedible during their processing, this is just a temporary state, generated
by acids and alkali, which are removed from the finished product and the
finished product is essentially still the same skin and bones. Whereas the
product extracted from feathers is entirely disassociated with the absorbed
non-K flavour and is therefore K.

Nevertheless, a well known Rav argues that in any case where the chemical
is removed, the product returns to its non-K status, even in the case of
feathers. It will permitted only if the chemical remains but is camouflaged
by other additives.

Therefore, feathers and what is derived from them remain prohibited because
whatever chemicals are used to process and extract the foods/additives, are
removed.

Is it possible that the foods/additives extracted from the feathers are
permitted because all, or almost all of the absorbed non-K flavour is
removed - in other words, just as we can Kasher our wooden stick, so too we
can deem the feathers to have been Kashered?

Now if we were to actually Kasher the feathers or the wooden stick, we
require 60 times the volume of the stick. For example, a 500g stick
requires 30 litres [500gX60=30,000g] and 3 tonnes of feathers would require
[3,000litresX60=500,000 litres] which we obviously dont have in the normal
processing.

Now the only reason we cannot Kasher in less than 60 is ChaNaN [ChaTiCha
NaAsis Neveilah]
This means, Kashering is not a process of dilution of the prohibited
component that is absorbed until it is less that 1:60, in which case we
could immerse the non-K spoon or feathers in 100 small pots of boiling
water and each dip would further dilute the concentration of the absorbed
Issur
Kasheing is rather a process that MUST revoke the prohibited status. If it
is not revoked - i.e. it is immersed in a pot that does not have more than
60, then EVERYTHING becomes non-K and the spoon is just as non-K as it was
before it was immersed. In other words ChaNaN applies to Kelim.

And yet the Kosher agencies permit the additives extracted from non-K
feathers because the feathers are not food but a Keli, and are therefore
not limited by ChaNaN.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180612/ee812e81/attachment-0001.html>

At 01:19 PM 6/11/2018, Ben Waxman wrote:
>I would also add that
>if someone really believes that "We must do whatever is possible to
>further Mitzvot observance and prevent desecration of the Holy Land" -
>he should move here.

Don't realize that those who remain in Golus do a great deal for the 
frum community in EY by giving Tzadakah to the multitude of people 
who come here collecting for all sorts of things?  What would they do 
if there was not a strong, vibrant, financially successful religious 
community of Jews in the US?  Indeed, how many religious Jews living 
in EY depend on these donations for all sorts of things.  Is this not 
a huge mitzva?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180611/1812c8cb/attachment-0001.html>

1) Maybe giving them money is helping them do something which you 
regularly complain about - chareidim not being able to support themselves.
2)? There are all sorts of huge mitzvot that people in chul do. That 
isn't the point.? The point is ""We must do whatever is possible to
further Mitzvot observance and prevent desecration of the Holy Land" - 
what does that mean?

Ben

On 6/11/2018 8:09 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
> Don't realize that those who remain in Golus do a great deal for the 
> frum community in EY by giving Tzadakah to the multitude of people who 
> come here collecting for all sorts of things?? What would they do if 
> there was not a strong, vibrant, financially successful religious 
> community of Jews in the US?? (1) Indeed, how many religious Jews 
> living in EY depend on these donations for all sorts of things.? Is 
> this not a huge mitzva? (2)
>
> YL

Please see the article at


Torah Im Derech Eretz: Torah Proper or Hora's Sha'ah<https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/rsrh_elias.pdf>
  by Dr. Leo Levi


This article appeared in the December 1988 issue of the Jewish Observer which is available at https://goo.gl/9JUkt4


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180612/7318f5fa/attachment-0001.html>

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 01:27:43PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: The Rambam (matnot aniyim 8:11), based on Bava Batra 3b, states that a
: Beit Knesset(Synagogue) is not sold for pidyon shvuyim(redeeming captives)
: but rather new funds must be collected for that purpose...

However, when fundraising, pidyon shevuyim comes first, even after
the funds were raised and the building materials bought for the
not-yet-existent shul. SA YD 252:1. And the Tur says this is the only
mitzvah we may sell those building supplies for.


: 1. This seems to imply a complex interaction between tzedakah priorities
: and other halachot (perhaps respect for Beit Knesset or people's intent
: in donations) or it might be that tzedaka priorities are multivariate?

Is this distinction more than semantic? You are asking whether the
"other priorities" are outside the label "tzedaqah" and therefore "other
halakhot", or within the label, and therefore tzedaqah's priorities
would be "multivariate".

But the word "tzedaqah" has multiple usages. For example, in the sense
we have been using it, we've been including pidyon shevuyim and binyan
bhk"n. But it could be used to refer to supplying the poor with their
needs exclusively. Or to mean their needs and dei machsero. Etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 10:42:20AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: The question is how did that work. Did Aharon hear the nevua clearly like
: Moshe? If not, then what was the point and what does it mean that Hashem
: spoke to both? ...
:                          If it was 1 dibur that they all heard it would
: seem that they all heard the same thing in the same way which would imply
: they all heard it as clearly as Moshe.

Like "shamor vezakhor bedibur echad"? There is no proof they all heard the
same thing, never mind in the same way.

But that's not where I wanted to go.

If we take the Rambam's approach to the uniqueness of Moshe's nevu'ah, then
the difference isn't in the "Dibbur" (which didn't actually involve heard
words, leshitaso). It's in the shomeia'. Moshe's seikhel was able to accept
the nevu'ah unmediated. Others, the same message could only be received
via koach hadimyon so that it reaches the navi's conscious mind cloaked in
visions and metaphoric sensations. So, if Hashem did make one dibbur to
both, Moshe would still receive it Peh-el-peh and Aharon would experience
the revelation as a prophetic vision.

OTOH, who wrote the last 8 pesuqim of the Torah. If it was Yehoshua, then
we are left with two possibilities:

- The Meshekh Chokhmah opines that these 8 pesuqim are a necessary part
  of the Seifer Torah, like the atzei chaim, but the words are not Torah
  itself. Rather, it teaches the centrality of lilmod al menas lelameid,
  and passing Torah down the generations, etc...

- A potential resolution is that the 8 pesuqim are Torah, dictated by HQBH.
  Which would imply that once in his life Yehoshua recieved Moshe-style
  nevu'ah. And if there is one rare exception that did force rewording
  the kelal, there could be others.

There are other potential exceptions, most enigmatically Bil'am (Yalqut
Shim'oni 966) on the very pasuq that describes Moshe's nevu'ah as being
"Panim al panim" -- "velo qam navi od beYisrael keMoshe", but among
the other nations, there was Bil'am.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 01:02:35PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Assume community leadership believes morning prayer should last 45
: minutes, and posts appropriate starting and midpoint times. The majority
: of the community comes well after the official starting time so as to
: reach Yishtabach "on time" by praying more quickly. Does this accomplish
: the true desired result or does it establish "unofficial" norms? If not,
: how else might the desired result be accomplished?

Through unofficial norms. It wasn't all that long ago (at most a couple of
decades) when speed was left to the chazan watching the rav (or the chazan
himself, if the rav is at another minyan), and the norms of the minyan
set the chazan's pace without a watch and often without conscious thought.

But then, even in those days people were coming late. I think you're
dealing with a misdiagnosis.

To my mind, the only real way to get people to come on time and to stay
for davening and not spend the time learning with breaks for prayer is to
offer programming that helps people relate to davening. If you don't cure
the problem of boredum, people will come late regardless of the scheduling
system, and find excuses to step out, whether physically or mentally.

I would suggest the minyan in question explore in that direction, rather
than worry about how Yishtabach time is determined.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/06/18 16:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> OTOH, who wrote the last 8 pesuqim of the Torah. If it was Yehoshua, then
> we are left with two possibilities:
> 
> - The Meshekh Chokhmah opines that these 8 pesuqim are a necessary part
>    of the Seifer Torah, like the atzei chaim, but the words are not Torah
>    itself. Rather, it teaches the centrality of lilmod al menas lelameid,
>    and passing Torah down the generations, etc...
> 
> - A potential resolution is that the 8 pesuqim are Torah, dictated by HQBH.
>    Which would imply that once in his life Yehoshua recieved Moshe-style
>    nevu'ah. And if there is one rare exception that did force rewording
>    the kelal, there could be others.

Other possibilities:

* Moshe told Yehoshua what he should write the next day.

* The Rambam says that after a navi's vision a mal'ach explains it to 
him.  I see no reason why the mal'ach in Yehoshua's vision could not 
have told him exactly what he should write.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

There?s the story of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi who,
when studying Torah, heard the crying of his infant grandson.
The elder rebbe rose from his studying and soothed the baby
to sleep. Meanwhile, his son, the boy?s father, was too involved
in his study to hear the baby cry. When R. Zalman noticed his
son?s lack of involvement, he proclaimed: ?If someone is
studying Torah and fails to hear the cry of a baby, there is 
something very wrong with his learning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180613/a8bbccd9/attachment-0001.html>

Perhaps there are several aspects of nevuah. One is the hearing, which 
Moshe did better. Another is the experience itself.? Here, it doesn't 
matter if Moshe's experience was "better" than Aaron's and in fact the 
word better doesn't apply. Aaron experienced this totality called nevuah 
and he did it his way. After doing that, he isn't the same person, or 
the same cohen.

The same would apply to the hundreds of thousands of people who 
experienced nevuah but didn't have anything recorded. They became 
different people, and their avodat Hashem was completely upgraded as a 
result of the experience.

Ben

On 6/3/2018 9:42 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> Did Aharon hear the nevua clearly like Moshe? If not, then what was 
> the point and what does it mean that Hashem spoke to both? 

From your friendly neighborhood clipping service. Taken from
<https://en.tvunah.org/2018/06/12/learning-torah-lshma>, with
transliteration added for Avodah digest purposes.

R' Asher Weiss give a nice survey of opinions about what the "lishmah"
of "Torah lishmah" means.

I intend to reply, once I have time to collect a mar'eh maqom or two.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Tvunah in English
Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion
Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita

Learning Torah L'Shma

Introductory Note

Our Sages[1] have greatly commended one who learns Torah Lishmo --
literally, for its own sake.[2] Many times in the Talmud [Pesachim 50b,
Nazir 23b, Horiyos 10b, Sotah 22b, Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 105b, Erchin
16b] they have stated that one should always learn Torah, even if it
not Lishmo, for through this one will eventually reach Lishmo. The goal,
though, is total Lishmo.

Two questions have to be dealt with: Firstly, is there anything negative
or positive if one enjoys one's learning?

Secondly, what precisely is Torah Lishmoh?

Position One -- Enjoyment Is Not Ideal

The Agrah D'Kallah[3] states that the disciples of the Ba'al Shem Tov
asked their master if there is a problem if one enjoys learning Torah. He
answered that since this is the very nature of Torah, as is written in
Tehillim[4], "the statutes of Hashem are straight, [they] gladden the
heart," Hashem will not act unfairly towards a person[5] and punish
him for having had such enjoyment. This statement seems clear that the
ultimate aim would be not to derive any enjoyment from one's learning.

A similar sentiment seems to have been echoed by Rav Chaim Volozhiner.
He seems to writes[6] that one who enjoys his learning does not commit
a sin.[7]

On the other hand, the Eglei Tal[8] writes that he has heard some people
make a grave mistake, thinking that the ideal is for one to learn
without enjoyment. He argues vehemently that one must love and enjoy
one's learning.

The one whom the Eglei Tal was arguing with was the Yismach Yisrael. He
writes[9] that the true learning of Torah is only when one learns with
no intention of any enjoyment at all.

My feeling is that there is room for both the position of the Eglei
Tal and that of the Yismach Yisrael to be correct. On one hand, Hashem
wants us to enjoy His Torah, and, as we shall discuss in length soon,
it is the proper way for one to study Torah. However, there are many
instances where one does not enjoy learning, either because one has had
a bad day, or because it is a piece of material which really does not
grab his interest. In such a case, one needs to recall the words of the
Yismach Yisroel that one needs to study Torah even if one does not have
any enjoyment.

Position Two -- Enjoyment Is Ideal

In my opinion, it seems clear from many Rishonim that enjoyment and
pleasure in one's learning is an integral part of the process of Torah
study.

Firstly, the Mishnah in Avos[10] states that when one studies Torah one
needs to know in front of Whom one toils. Rabbeinu Yonah[11] explains
that just as the Torah was the plaything of Hashem[12], so to speak,
before the creation of the world, so too one's Torah should be one's
own plaything. This seems to state clearly that deriving pleasure for
Torah study is an ideal.

Secondly, the general rule regarding commandments is that they were not
given for pleasure[13], and therefore the pleasure of having fulfilled
a commandment is not Halachikally considered pleasure. For example, if
one took a vow not to derive pleasure from one's fellow, one's fellow
may still blow the Shofar on his behalf, since the mere fact that one's
fellow is enabling the fulfilment of one's commandment is not considered
pleasure.[14] However, regarding the commandment of Torah study, Rabbeinu
Avraham Min HaHar writes[15] that the essence of the commandment is to
enjoy one's learning. Therefore, says Rabbeinu Avraham, if one forbade
one's fellow from using one's Torah scroll, one's fellow may not use
it. Again, this is a clear statement that enjoying one's learning
is ideal.

[A note of explanation is in order. It is difficult to understand how
Rabbeinu Avraham can state that enjoyment is the essence of learning
Torah. It is understandable how it is an integral part -- but to be
the essence?

I think his intent is as follows. The Shulchan Oruch HaRav[16] argues that
there are two separate commandments of learning Torah. One is to study the
Torah, and the other is to know the Torah. In my opinion this particular
formulation is difficult, since we do not find that the Rishonim count the
commandment of Torah study as two separate commandments.[17] Rather, it
seems that these two categories make up the commandment. The commandment
is to learn, while the essence and purpose of this learning is in order
to know the Torah. The proof to this understanding of the commandment is
that the commandment of Torah study is the verse veshinantam levanekha --
"And you shall teach your children,"[18] and our Sages explain[19] that
the word veshinantam is to be expounded from the root shinen -- sharp. The
words of Torah should be totally clear to oneself, to the extent that
if one is asked about a given Torah matter one should be able to answer
immediately, without babbling. This teaches us that the essence of the
study is to achieve clear knowledge. Since the clarity of Torah knowledge
is the essence of the commandment of Torah study, and this clarity of
knowledge brings one great pleasure, Rabbeinu Avraham writes that the
essence of the commandment of Torah study is to have pleasure from it.]

A third proof: If deriving pleasure from the study of Torah is not
the ideal state, how could it be that our Sages instituted the words,
"veha'arev na es divrei Sorasekha befinu" in the morning blessing on
the Torah?

However, it could be that this is not a proof. The Avudraham[20]
cites two verses to explain the word ????? in this context. The first
is from Malachi[21] -- Ve'orvah Lashem minchas Yehudah viYrushalayim
kiymei olam ukhshanim qadmonios -- "And the flour-offering of Yehudah
and Yerushalayim will be pleasing to Hashem as the days of old and the
years past." However, his second verse is from Tehillim[22] -- arov
avdekha letov, which the Ibn Ezra[23] explains is the same root as an
areiv -- a guarantor -- "Guarantee Your servant for good". Accordingly,
the blessing is to be understood as a request from Hashem that He should
act as a guarantor that our children should know the Torah, and does
not refer to a request for having pleasure from the Torah.

On the other hand, Rashi[24] explains that this blessing is a request
that the study of Torah be with the tremendous pleasure of loving,
feeling loved by, and being close to, Hashem. His interpretation is also
cited by the Avudraham.[25] According to this interpretation, there is
strong proof that pleasure is an ideal part of the study of Torah.

Defining Lishmo -- Three Opinions

We find throughout the generations what seem to be three differing
opinions as to the definition of Lishmo.

    1. The opinion of the Ba'al Shem Tov, as seems clear from the opinion
    of one of his major disciples[26] and from two disciples of subsequent
    generations[27] is that Lishmo means that one has intent purely to
    fulfil the will of Hashem. Due to this, the early Chassidic practice
    was to stop in the middle of learning in order to refocus one's mind
    on this thought.

    2. Rav Chaim Volozhiner writes[28] that it is improper to be pausing
    in the middle of learning. Furthermore, we say lishmah, not lishmo
    [for "its" sake, not "for His sake"]. Rather, says Rav Chaim,
    one should have intent solely to understand the Torah which one is
    learning. This is also the understanding of the Chasam Sofer.[29]

    3. The Reishis Chochmah[30] and the Shlah[31] writes that Lishmoh
    means for the sake of the mitzvos -- commandments. One needs to
    learn in order to know what to do. Accordingly, the word lishmah
    is to be understood as the feminine singular -- for her sake --
    i.e. for the sake of the mitzvah -- commandment. This is similar
    with the requirement stated in the Yerushalmi[32] that one must
    learn Torah in order to fulfil it.

Support for these Positions

All three of these opinions seem to have a basis in the words of the
Rishonim.

    1. Rav Chaim Volozhiner quotes the Rosh[33] as his source. The Gemara
    in Nedarim states as follows: Asei dervarim lesheim pa'alan vedabeir
    bahen lishman, which the Rosh explains as follows: "Perform the
    commandments for the sake of Hashem, and learn Torah for its own sake,
    that is, to know and to understand and to increase one's knowledge."

    2. The Mefaresh[34] had a different text in this Gemara, and his text
    reads, vedaveir bahen lesheim shamayim-- learn Torah for the sake
    of Heaven. This is also seems to have been the text of the Rambam,
    for he writes[35] that Lishmo is when one learns Torah purely out
    of love for Hashem. This would seem to indicate like the opinion of
    the Ba'al Shem Tov.

    3. In support of the opinion of the Reishis Chochmah, both Rashi[36]
    and Tosfos[37] write that Lishmo means in order to act.

Uniting the Opinions

However, in my opinion, it seems that these are really three sides to one
coin. Before I demonstrate this, I would like to show some indications
in this direction:

    1. Although Rashi in Brachos[38] writes that Lishmo means in order
    to find out what to do, however in his commentary to Ta'anis he
    writes[39] that Lishmo means to fulfil Hashems will.

    2. Although the Ba'al Shem Tov seems to be of the opinion that Lishmo
    means in order to fulfil the will of Hashem, however two of his main
    disciples[40] write that one must learn in order to act.

Therefore it seems to me that all these three interpretations are really
three parts of one whole. The first step is that one has to learn in
order to fulfil the will of Hashem. However, what is His will? It is
that one should learn and know clearly His Torah. What is the purpose
of us knowing his Torah? In order that one should know what to do.

In light of this, it would seem that we can understand that which we
quoted from Rav Chaim Volozhiner in the beginning of the Shiur[41],
even though at face value his statement that "there is no sin," seems
to contradict that which we quoted later in the Shiur from him.[42]
According to my understanding of Lishmo it is not a contradiction. The
earlier quote is directed at one for whom part of his motivation to
learn is because of his enjoyment. The motivation, ideally, should be
purely because Hashem said so. But one should most definitely enjoy
one's learning when one is learning.

[1] For example, Mishnah Avos 6:1 and Sanhedrin 99b

[2] We shall later discuss another manner to translate this word.

[3] Agrah D'Kallah Parshas Chayei Sarah d"h BeMidrash BeParsha Zu Kad
Damich Rebbe Avahu

[4] Tehillim 19:9

[5] Avodah Zarah 3a

[6] Ruach Chaim to Avos 3:9, d"h Kol Shema'asav Merubin Mechachmoso

[7] We shall return to this statement in the end of the Shiur

[8] Hakdamah to Eglei Tal

[9] Yismach Yisrael Parshas Bechukosai

[10] Mishnah Avos 2:14

[11] Rabbeinu Yonah ibid d"h VeDah Lifnei Mi

[12] Mishlei 8:30

[13] Rosh HaShannah 28a

[14] Ibid, as explained by Rashi d"h Mutar Litkoah Lo

[15] Peirush Rabbeinu Avraham Min HaHar Nedarim 48a d"h Sefarim

[16] [Blank on web. -mb]

[17] See, for instance, Rambam Sefer HaMitzvos Mitzvah 11

[18] Devarim 6:7

[19] Kiddushin 30a

[20] Avudraham Seder HaShkamas HaBoker, Birkas HaTorah

[21] Malachi 3:4

[22] Tehillim 119:122

[23] Ibn Ezra ibid

[24] Rashi Brachos 11b d"h Ha'arev

[25] Avudraham Seder HaShkamas HaBoker, Birkas HaTorah

[26] Degel Machane Efraim Parshas Vayishlach d"h Ba Na El Shifchasi

[27] Yosher Divrei Emes Os 7 [disciple of the Maggid of Mezeritch, who
was a major disciple of the Ba'al Shem Tov]; Ma'or VeShemesh Parshas
Vayetzei d"h Vayomer Eilav Lavan [disciple of the Noam Elimelech, who
was a major disciple of the Maggid of Mezeritch]

[28] Nefesh HaChaim Sha'ar 4 Perek 2 and 3

[29] Chiddushei Chasam Sofer Nedarim 81a d"h Shelo Borchu

[30] Reishis Chochmah, Hakdamah

[31] Shnei Luchos HaBris, Chelek 1, Ba'asarah Ma'amaros, Ma'amar 6, Os 187

[32] Yerushalmi Brachos 1:2

[33] Peirush HaRosh Nedarim 62a d"h Vedaber Bahen

[34] Mefaresh (Rashi) Nedarim 62a d"h Vedaber Bahen. [There is doubt
whether the commentary printed as Rashi on Nedarim is actually from
Rashi, hence this commentary is commonly referred to as "the Mefaresh
(commentator)"]

[35] Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah 10:5

[36] Rashi Brachos 17a d"h Ha'Oseh Shelo

[37] Tosfos Pesachim 50b d"h Vekan

[38] Rashi Brachos 17a d"h Ha'Oseh Shelo

[39] Rashi Ta'anis 7a d"h Lishmo

[40] Likutei Amarim of the Maggid of Mezeritch (otherwise known as Maggid
Devarav LeYa'akov) Siman??, Sod Yachin U'Boaz Perek 2

[41] Ruach Chaim to Avos 3:9, d"h Kol Shema'asav Merubin Mechachmoso

[42] [Ed. Note] According to the later quote, as is clear from the end
of Nefesh HaChaim Sha'ar 4 Perek 4, learning for the love of the pure
understanding of Torah is Lishmoh.

Yesterdays daf (Zevachim 61b) says that the mizbeach in the first beis
hamikdash was 28x28 amos and in the second beis hamikdash was 32x32 amos.
Rabin explains the difference as follows:

In the first Mikdash, Nesachim would flow into Shisim (a pit south-west of
the Mizbe'ach) down the wall of the mizbeach. In the second Beis Hamikdash
they enlarged the Mizbe'ach in order that the Shisim would be within
(under) the Mizbe'ach and they made the corners of teh mizbeach hollow so
that they could pour nesachim in the mizbeach. At first (during the first
Beis Hmikdash), they learned from the words "Mizbe'ach Adamah" that the
mizbeach has to be completely solid. In the second beis Hamikdash they
thought  that drinking ('consumption' of libations) should be like eating
(Korbanos that are burned, i.e. within the boundaries of the Mizbe'ach) and
therefore made the holes to pour the Nesachim as part of the mizbeach.
Therefore, they understood that Mizbe'ach Adamah" teaches that the
Mizbe'ach cannot be built over domes or tunnels (that are not needed for
the Mizbe'ach).


According to the Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim, this is perfectly standard
practice. Any Beis Din can come and darshen the pesukim differently then a
previous beis din. However, according to others this is not so simple.


For those who hold that there is one halachic truth, this would seem to be
very difficult, in either the first or second beis hamikdash they did the
avoda of the nesachim wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180614/0bf55d64/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)