Avodah Mailing List

Volume 41: Number 27

Fri, 31 Mar 2023

• 1. Re: Why remove drops from Cup; Ought the cup be topped up? (Zvi Lampel)
• 2. Re: Why remove drops from Cup; Ought the cup be topped up? (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. kaddish (Joel Rich)
• 4. Re: rules of psak (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 6. "Reward" For Learning (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: kaddish (Joel Rich)
• 8. Re: rules of psak (Joel Rich)
• 9. Re: kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 10. The "New" Egg Finding (Micha Berger)

>
>   R. David Feinstein, The Kol Dodi Haggadah (Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah
>     Publications in conjunction with Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem, 1990),
>     p. 106. There it is stated that the wine is removed "in consideration
>     for the losses caused by the plagues." This appears in the Hebrew
>     original (New York: Tiferet, 1970), p. 21, as the somewhat more
>     ambiguous "nohagim sheshofekhim le'ibud hamakkos."
>
> In the past, we asked RZL, the translator, who is a member. But when he
> checked with RDF, RDF himself couldn't recall which was intended. (The
> footnote's "the somewhat more ambiguous" is well-founded.)
>

Not quite ''couldn't recall which was intended.'' Here's what I wrote in
2018:
From: *H Lampel* <zvilam...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Translation of Makkos / Binfol oyivcha al tismach

...I did have occasion to directly ask Rav Dovid Feinstein what he meant in
the Kol Dodi Hagadah by ''shofchim l'eebud ha-makos and we don't drink
them.'' Did he mean we pour out the wine out of sympathy for the Egyptians'
suffering the makkos (as I had translated it), or did he mean that after
taking the drops of wine out of the cups, we throw them (the drops of wine
representing the makkos) out as waste, rather than drinking them (as R. Zev
Sero insisted). And how that relates to the issue of ''al tismach.''

Sorry, but he did not commit to either way, comfortable with both
approaches towards rejoicing over the downfall of Israel's enemies.

Nevertheless, by my request, the next printing of the Kol Dodi Haggadah
should have the translation changed to R. Zev's.


Zvi Lampel
To be a bit clearer, after considering the arguments, and then consulting a
talmid of Rav Feinstein,  I am convinced Reb Dovid, ztvk''l, meant that
after taking the drops of wine out of the cups, we throw them (the drops of
wine representing the makkos) out as waste, rather than drinking them (as
R. Zev Sero insisted). And I am also convinced that nevertheless, l'fi
darko hakadosh, to keep me from feeling bad, and being aware that there are
authorities on both sides of the ''binfol oyivcha'' issue, he did not want
to tell me my original translation was erroneous, nor take sides on the
hashkafa issue.

Zvi Lampel


>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230329/b4b2a91e/attachment-0001.htm>

>
>
> ... I'm convinced that he intended the one and not the other.
>>
>
If you do a search on Sefaria of shofchim l'ibud both with and without a
yud, you'll find the phrase is used exclusively for spilling yayin to
waste.

Zvi Lampel

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230329/6c320192/attachment-0001.htm>

I'm told that R' Ovadya Yosef has a tshuva specifically dealing with the
text of kaddish that a sfardi who is davening in an ashkenazi miyan should
say. Anybody have a citation? KT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230330/6c862423/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 06:34:42AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> I wanted to ask about yaal kgam and general rules, such as the halacha is
> we hold rav yochanan over rav.

I think it's because R Yochanan had more talmidim, and halakhah follows
rov.

Just as a beis din hagadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan may mean one that
has more talmidim. Or Beis Hillel outnumbering Beis Shammai even thought
Beis Shamai were the more intellectually charif.

RMF's explanation to the NY Times about how he became such a noted
poseiq was that simply someone asked him a question, and liked it
enough to recommend to someone else... The result is that for much of
the 20th century amongst Anglo O Jewry, he was the last word in pesaq.
Just because what he said worked for us. (And it was a valid pesaq
consistent with how halakhah works. If the masses follow shetuyos,
it doesn't suddenly become din.)

Many of the kalalei pesaq only make sense if you assume that eilu va'eilu
Divrei Elokim Chaim is literally true. And it's not a matter of which
pesaq is more likely what HQBH (if the din is deOraisa) or the beis din
that legislated a derabbanon actually meant.

My thought is that the rebbe with more students is the one whose derekh
fits the way more of the qehilah is living and their perspective on
Torah. And (RJR: to answer a question you asked on FB), that doesn't mean
that the rebbe ought to be actively seeking talmidim. Or maybe, if he
succeeds, it would only be because he changes the demographics of darkhei
hachaim a pesaq has to fit.

Which my above explanation fits.

But you could argue that R Yochanan was simply right significantly more
often than Rav, when they reached different conclusions. So, always
assume his position.

> In the other general rules is it that each case was looked at or it was
> decided as a normative approach always to follow that particular rabbi
> without working at each specific case? (hangaga vs birrur?)

Not sure why "hanhagah" vs. "birur". Could you explain?

Especially if you focus on a literal eilu va'eilu and halakhah as a legal
interpretation system rather than a search for an emes. The "birur" isn't
finding which shitah is True, but the decision of whom to follow.

Whereas the nearest parallel I would have to your "hanhagah" is the poseiq
who can't find a kelal pesaq and relies on rules designed for safeiq or
decides to be chosheish for both shitos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 There's only one corner of the universe
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you can be certain of improving,
Author: Widen Your Tent      and that's your own self.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             - Aldous Huxley

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 08:34:59AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> I'm told that R' Ovadya Yosef has a tshuva specifically dealing with the
> text of kaddish that a sfardi who is davening in an ashkenazi miyan should
> say. Anybody have a citation?

I don't, sorry.

But I am wondering how he argues not saying the minhag hamaqom's version
of Qaddish.

Was this pesaq specific to EY, where he holds that the minhag hamaqom is
supposed to be that set by Maran Bet Yosef in the SA?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 A person lives with himself for seventy years,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and after it is all over, he still does not
Author: Widen Your Tent      know himself.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                          - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RJR wrote:

<<To a maggid shiur:
Your recent class was on the topic of ?reward? for sponsoring a shiur is on
a topic that I find fascinating. In particular, it has always seemed to me
that the dedication of already scheduled learning is certainly a charitable
act to be encouraged. Of course, I am not God?s accountant, but it doesn?t
seem that the reward for learning Torah in that case would be transferable,
except perhaps to the extent that more people attend due to the dedication.
I have to wonder though do any local Rabbis point that out to sponsors?
Your thoughts?>>

Are you not in this piece directly contradicting the Gemara in Sotah 21a-b
and Brachot 17a in relation to women, not to mention thousands of
apologetics? The Gemara would seem to clearly contemplate that the reward
for learning Torah specifically is transferable to/shared with the wives and
mothers of those doing the learning (even ones that commit adultery).  That
is, with regard to Torah learning specifically, the enabling of learning and
the idea of consequent reward has a very long history (see also the
Yissachar/Zevulin sources)

>Joel Rich

Regards

Chana

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:40PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> But I am wondering how he argues not saying the minhag hamaqom's version
> of Qaddish.

In Yabia Omer 6:10 he argues that there's no lo titgodedu in nusach since
everyone knows there are differences so won't cause machloket.  In yalkut
yosef psukei dzimra 56:25, kaddish is specifically discussed.

kt
joel rich

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:38PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 06:34:42AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
...
>> In the other general rules is it that each case was looked at or it was
>> decided as a normative approach always to follow that particular rabbi
>> without working at each specific case? (hangaga vs birrur?)

> Not sure why "hanhagah" vs. "birur". Could you explain?

I meant by birur that one is literally always existentially right vs
hanhaga that for sake of streamlining the process we act as if one was
always right.

kt
joel rich

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 09:35:52AM +0300, Joel Rich wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:40PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> But I am wondering how he argues not saying the minhag hamaqom's version
>> of Qaddish.

> In Yabia Omer 6:10 he argues that there's no lo titgodedu in nusach since
> everyone knows there are differences so won't cause machloket.  In yalkut
> yosef psukei dzimra 56:25, kaddish is specifically discussed.

That would explain a pickup minyan, or a shul in Israel where the norm is
to daven the chazan's choice.

The case I was picturing was closer to your wording, "a sfardi who
is davening in an ashkenazi miyan". It sounds like a case where there
is a minhag hamaqom being violated, aside from lo sisgodedu among the
attendees.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 People were created to be loved.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Things were created to be used.
Author: Widen Your Tent      The reason why the world is in chaos is that
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    things are being loved, people are being used.

I asked the parallel question about R Natan Slifkin's post abut the
kezayis, but now frum media is all abuzz about Prof. Zohar Amar's paper
in JSIJ, bringing yet another proof to what bioligists always said:
today's eggs are bigger than those in use when the unit of measure
was named a kebeitzah.
https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/jerusalem/israeli-scientist-reveals-first-temple-period-eggs-differ-little-than-todays-fare-on-the-passover-plates-of-jerusalem-residents/2019/04/14/

Just as our olives are bigger than those of the original kezayis.

First, there is always R Chaim Volozhiner, and (I believe) the Aruch
HaShulchan: a kezayis is measured by the median olive in your time and
place, and a kebeitzah by contemporary eggs. So, the shiurim were never
the huge ones many follow, but do grow as the eggs and olives are bred
to larger sizes.

The Noda biYhudah's problem is the source of most followed rulings. He
saw that the comparing of units of kezayis, kebeitzah and volume measured
in etzbaos don't work. And the NbY's solution was to assume that eggs
had shrunk over time, thus enlarging the kebei'ah.

Scientifically speaking, this assumption was proven wrong. What does
that say about all of our pesaqim that take his position into account?

Briskers would say that only halakhah defines halakhah, and new evidence
shouldn't change the ruling. For example, this is one version of Rav
Chaim Brisker's reason for not donning the Radziner Rebbe's candidate
for tekheiles. A scientific identification of the chilazon doesn't even
qualify as a safeiq. Only mesorah matters in determining halakhah.

But again, what about the rest of us? Should the kezayis and revi'is
similarly shrink in light of the evidence? Can we simply overturn years
of accepted practice, or does acceptance itself mean that we simply have
a different shiur nowadays than Chazal did? Does the fact that part of
the reasoning was proven wrong matter? And if any of these questions
are answered "yes", does it also change lequlah? It's one thing to say
we were wrong to have been lenient all these years, for example, telling
people how much they can eat on Yom Kippur, or eat without making a final
berakhah. But what about stringencies? Did they become binding as Minhag
Yisrael even though they were based on an incorrect historical assumption?

I think this idea that the halakhah must change as we know more about
the facts assumes that halakhah is a fact finding mission. But it isn't,
it's a task of legal interpretation. And so we need to look at how
binding law relates to facts. Making these questions much more subtle
and answers less obvious.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Man is capable of changing the world for the
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   better if possible, and of changing himself for
Author: Widen Your Tent      the better if necessary.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF          - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning


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



_______________________________________________
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.)