Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 079

Friday, October 29 1999

• What Else [Tzni'us in Material Acquisutions]
• Extremes
• Re: Anonymity of RW - Humor Alert - Wet Blanket Alert
• Re: Re[2]: Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• interesting item re: Chelbena sheraichah rah
• b'rich sh'meh
• kidra chaysa
• Re: b'rich sh'meh
• Re: Brich Shmei
• Derech Chiba
• Re: Brich Shmei
• Re: b'rich sh'meh
• Re: your mail
• Re: kidra chaysa
• Re[2]: Brich Shmei
• Re: ... the Torah its light
• Brich Shmei -- Some Facts
• kidra chaysa

In V4#75, Jordan (TROMBAEDU@aol.com) quotes the penetrating observation
of Eli Clarke's earlier post that:

<< But for all our advances in tzeni'ut in dress, I find that our standards
of tzeni'ut have declined far more in other areas.  As the community as
a whole has become more affluent economically, especially in the US,
many of us have lost the sense of proportion and modesty that our
grandparents had about material possessions. . . .The sportscars,
fancy vacations, mansion-like homes -- all of these signify to me a
lack of tzeni'ut that concerns more than hemlines.  And, as I say,
I find these problems to affect the entire spectrum of
American Orthodoxy. >>

To this, Jordan adds his own observation that "certain of these practices are
now considered de rigeur," citing specifically the phenomenon of adding rooms
for live-in help, and concluding:

<< The assumptions Frum Jews make, and this certainly crosses
ideological lines, about the minimum necessary requirements for comfortable
living have gone totally off the scale. And I most definitely agree that this
constitutes a different but just as insidious violation of Tznius.>>

To this I would add only that the phenomena in question involve more than
just breaches of tzni'us. The materialistic values and acquisitiveness in
question
violate the isur of bal tashchis (Peleh Yo'etz, erech Mosaros and erech Sipuk),
are inconsistent with what HKB"H requires of Jews living in galus (Kli Yakar,
end
of parshas Vayigash) and constitute a hesech hada'as in the anticipation of the
g'ula (Shal"a, end of M'seches Suka).

Shabat Shalom,
David 

In digest 4:74, R. Harry Maryles wrote:

<<< I think you are right. It's sort of a Torah homeostasis or Torah
ecological balance.  All one has to do is look to one of the greatest
Yeshivos of the last two hundred years, the Yeshiva of Voloshin.  It
produced More Gedolim then any other but also, produced more maskilim. 
Perhaps it's in the nature of Good and Evil to work off of eachother, a
sort of reactionary force, a tug of war where the opposing forces are
pulling very hard in opposite directions to win. Perhaps Chilonim are
(over)reacting to Charedim who are (over)reacting to Chilonim, who are...
ad infinitum. >>>

I have long felt this way. I see it as one of HaShem's ways of balancing
things out, making sure that we have true bechira chofshis, and that the
social forces pulling us in each direction are sort of balanced.

I think the example of Volozhin expressed above can be enhanced by
contrasting it with the flip side of the coin: If Volozhin had an
abundance of both gedolim and masklimim, then the Sepharadim had a *lack*
of both, with an abundance of middle-of-the-roaders. Simple, G-d-fearing,
Torah-observant Jews who succeeded in avoiding much of the divisiveness
that has been so devastating to the Ashkenazim.

Someone once pointed out to me that this difference can be seen as far
back as the Mechaber and Rama: The Mechaber cites the halacha as it is,
with its various and occasional exceptions. And then the Rama -- living
in and paskening for a culture full of people who fancy themselves to be
more learned than they really are, looking for whatever kuntzim and
loopholes they can find -- says right and left, no, we don't allow this
exception, no, we don't allow that exception.

I welcome all comments.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> > Subject: Anonymity of RW - Humor Alert
> 
> > This whole RW being anonymous is really annoying!
> > I've been RW all my life, and I do not consider myself anonymous!
> > (By RW of course I refer to my initials - Rich Wolpoe <smile>)

> 	but you were not RRW until you joined here!

No?  His congregants might be surprised to find that he got an email
smicha.  AFAIK, RRW, has been RRW since the late '70s.  Probably has
been R longer than RYGB, going on RYGB's statement that he graduated
from elementary school in 1975, although RYGB appears to be more of 
a toraso umnaso person.

In a message dated 10/28/99 5:53:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> I am surprised thatno one has yet ciited the famous Ritva Eruvin 13b, that
>  the Torah was given to Moshe Rabbeinu with 49 panim tameh and 49 panim
>  tahor!
>  
Just to add, that is an explanation of "Eilu Veilu Divrei E-lokim Chayim" but 
the Halacha is only one way, (according to the Hachro'oh of the Chachomim), 
and see Sugia in Sanhedrin 87b M'tchila Lo Hoyu Marbin Machlokes, and the 
famous Hakdamas Horambam to Pirush Hamishna, Tos. Chagiga 16a D"H Yoisee Ben 
Yoezer, and the Margoliyas Hayam on Sanhedrin, (Veod).

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The following is from the current issue of Chemical and Engineering News,
 a weekly publication of the American Chemical Society,  as part of an
article on fragrances:

.......And sometimes,  in the right concentrations,  a malodor may
actually create a new olfactory note.  A good example is indole,  a
compound produced by many flowers,  including jasmine.  By itself, 
indole smells like a wet fur coat,  writes Susan A. Levine in "Perfume: 
The Creation and Allure of Classic Fragrances".  However,  in minute
dosage, like many perfume constituents,  it takes on a different
character,  which marries with human body scent.

The same is true for some compounds with sulfur.  For example, 
4-mercapto-4-methyl-2-butanone is quite repulsive,  Kaiser says,  but at
1 part per million,  it gives a very natural, refreshing, green, fruity
note reminiscent of cassis,  a liqueur made from black currants.

	A different perspective on including chelbena with the ketores and, 
therefore,  posh'ei Yisrael in our tefilos vetaanios.

Gershon

Re b'rcih sh'meh a poster said
>Why is there any question? Even if the minhag somewhere is not to say it,
>what reason could there be for saying davka "We don't say that"? Fine, so
>maybe it's not in your siddur. Was it taken out, or never put in?

I remember hearing 30 years ago from a Brisker that we shouldn't say b'rich
sh'meh as it's a bracha that is not brought down in the gemara.

This also seems relevant for a past thread about the halachic (as distinct from
historic and hashkafic) status of the zohar.

Meir Shinnar

I am pleased to share with the list two letters clarifying this issue
leshitas Rav Henkin z"l:

*************************************************************************
*********************
From: "Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@surfree.net.il>
To: <gershon.dubin@juno.com>

                                            b"h, 17 Marcheshvan 5760

Shalom,

My grandfather's main reasons were:

1) the pots nowadays sit on the blech on top of the stove, and the danger
is that they might be moved about after shekiya: if moved to a hotter
spot and if not mevushal kal tzarcho this constitutes bishul de'oraita.

2) The heat of the blech over a gas burner etc. is hotter that in the
time of chazal and things get cooked too quickly to be kedeira chayta.

See Teshuvot Ivra (Kitvei haGriya Henkin vol. 2) no. 15.

With Torah blessings,

Rabbi Yehuda-Herzl Henkin
*************************************************************************
*********************
To which I wrote:

Dear Rav Henkin,

	Thank you for your response.  Do I have your permission to quote it to
the Avodah list?  Also,  I have two questions (see below):

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:46:44 +0200 "Rabbi Y. H. Henkin"
<henkin@surfree.net.il> writes:
>                                             b"h, 17 Marcheshvan 5760
> 
> 1) the pots nowadays sit on the blech on top of the stove, and the 
> danger is that they might be moved about after shekiya: if moved to 
> a hotter spot and if not mevushal kal tzarcho this constitutes 
> bishul de’oraita.
	This appears to say that there is a chashash of shemah yechateh even
with a blech on.  In other words,  the blech does not appear to
accomplish kitum.  If this is true,  did this have any other
ramifications lehalacha?  If not,  why only for kidra chaysa?

	Also,  you mentioned his main reasons.  Were there others (I don't
believe I have the teshuva sefer) and if so did the time of kenisas
Shabbos enter into the reasoning?

Thank you
Gershon
*************************************************************************
*********************
To which he answered:

                                    b"v, erev Shabbat 19 Marcheshvan 5760
 
Shalom,
 
My grandfather is R. Y. *E.* Henkin, of course, and not as I
inadvertantly copied my own intials  Certainly you can quote him or me.
Also, He did mention the factor of not knowing when shekiya is because of
the various shitot.
 
Katum is keday shelo yecheteh b'gechalim which would be hav'arah, while
my grandfather discussed kedira chayta from the standpoint of chashash
bishul. He specifically objected to a kedeira chayta on a blech on top of
a stove, which is usually heated by a very hot burner at one spot in the
middle, and the pots might be moved around. 
 
 An electric hot plate which is uniformly heated would would seem to
obviate the chashash of moving from a cooler to a hotter spot (but not
the possibility of momentarily lifting and putting down a pot which is
not yet mevushal kal tzarcho, which my grandfather also mentioned.) It
might also not have the chashash of an overly hot blech cooking too
rapidly. A separate electric "crock" chulent pot would be preferable and
appears to me to meet all objections other than the question of zeman
shekiya.
 
With Torah blessings,
 
Rabbbi Yehuda-Herzl Henkin 
*************************************************************************
*********************
and a good Shabbos to all
Gershon

Cool Brisker Chumra.

Praytell (this is a rhetorical question, you are not expected to answer it)
where is the "Shem"  (as in "Shem u"Malchus"). The Aramaic Nusach Ha'Bracha
for Makom Safek, which I know that some are machmir not to say because of a
me'ma nafshach, if it is not a brocho, what good does it do, and, if it is,
why is it any better than the Hebrew (we discussed this eons ago when we
discussed saying the Sheva Berachos in English under the Chuppa) has
"Rachmana" for a shem. But Brich Shmei? Saying "name" is not the same as *a*
name.


Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 8:44 AM
Subject: b'rich sh'meh


> Re b'rcih sh'meh a poster said
> >Why is there any question? Even if the minhag somewhere is not to say it,
> >what reason could there be for saying davka "We don't say that"? Fine, so
> >maybe it's not in your siddur. Was it taken out, or never put in?
>
> I remember hearing 30 years ago from a Brisker that we shouldn't say
b'rich
> sh'meh as it's a bracha that is not brought down in the gemara.
>
> This also seems relevant for a past thread about the halachic (as distinct
from
> historic and hashkafic) status of the zohar.
>
> Meir Shinnar
>
>

Alan Davidson wrote:


> 
> As a tefilla, Brich Shmei is a very old tefilla-- even Chabad which, with 
> the exception of kabbalos shabbos and Vidui tends not to add to tefilla 
> (don't say Akdamus, Yotzros except for Yomim Noraim) say Brich Shmei 
> whenever the Torah is read.
> 


Even weekdays? 

From a few minutes of research this morning, I got this:

My mother's siddur (Italiani) does not have it, nor make mention of it.

The siddur of the Hida says to say it, but that the Ari did not. It
mentions there that it would appear from the Zohar that we should say it
every day, but that we only say it on Shabbat (Zohar, Vayakhel, Daf
Resh-Vav).

The Ben Ish Hai says that we say it on Shabbat, and that the Kisei Eliyahu
writes that we should also say it Rosh Hodesh since we say "Keter" in
Musaf, but we don't.

Unfortunately, I don't have that volume of the siddur of the Rashash
handy.


---sam
(textualist)

Look in Even Ha'Ezer 21"5 in the Rema and also what the Pitchei Tshuva
(s"k gimmel) quotes from the Ritva in Kiddushin. ("ha'kol lefi daat
v'yirat shamayim, ve'cheyn hilcheta d'hakol kefy ma she'adam makir
b'atzmo she'yitzro nichna v'kafuf lo..").

Josh

In Avodah 4#78, SKatz replied:
> It is my recollection that in Germany we said Brich Shemei (except for
Yiskor) only on the Shabbos before Sh'vuos and on the Shabbos before Tisha
B'Av. <
(Out of curiosity: you lived in Germany?  Tell me more [offline]...thanks.)
Is it possible you're thinking of Av HoRachamim rather than B'rich Sh'mai?

In the same digest, GDubin replied:
> Why is there any question? Even if the minhag somewhere is not to say it,
what reason could there be for saying davka "We don't say that"? <
The minhog of Frankfurt was not to [communally] say anything from the Zohar
(see HMaryles' reply) -- accordingly, B'rich Sh'mai is not said in
"Breuer's" on *any* day of the year.

All the best (including a great Shabbos!) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 10/29/99 9:43:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu writes:

>  b'rich
>  sh'meh as it's a bracha that is not brought down in the gemara.

It doesn't have Shem Umalchus, it is no different then any Techina.

Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Gershon Dubin wrote:


(Re: Berich Shemei)
> 	I know that some yeshivos don't say it.  The reason, I believe,  is that
> it is a tefila beloshon Arami which is a no-no.


Why is that a no-no? We have other tefillot in Aramaic, most notably
Selihot. We say Petihat Eliyahu several times a day. We say Kaddish
numerous times a day, even outside the regular tefillot. Are they no-nos?



> you can't say it belachash,  since even tefila beloshon Arami is
> permitted belachash,  a` la the Targum of Kedusha Desidra.


What is Kedusha Desidra, and why is it said silently?



---sam

Scenario:  We have a crockpot hooked up to a Shabbos clock.  We set this up to 
turn the pot off at about noon, thereby taking it off the fire in time for the 
luncheon Se'udo.

Question re; Midnight raids:
Can I set up this same crockpot to go off at 10:00 PM and to go on again at 
midnight, thereby allowing myself to raid the pot while it's off,and then let it
go on again to continue being warm for the lunch?

FWIW, one LOR I know said no, but did not elaborate.

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: kidra chaysa 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    10/29/1999 9:43 AM


I am pleased to share with the list two letters clarifying this issue 
leshitas Rav Henkin z"l:

<snip>
************************************************************************* 
*********************
To which he answered:
<snip>
 An electric hot plate which is uniformly heated would would seem to
obviate the chashash of moving from a cooler to a hotter spot (but not 
the possibility of momentarily lifting and putting down a pot which is 
not yet mevushal kal tzarcho, which my grandfather also mentioned.) It 
might also not have the chashash of an overly hot blech cooking too 
rapidly. A separate electric "crock" chulent pot would be preferable and 
appears to me to meet all objections other than the question of zeman 
shekiya.

With Torah blessings,

Rabbbi Yehuda-Herzl Henkin 
************************************************************************* 
*********************
and a good Shabbos to all
Gershon

And my guess is that the source of this minhog stems from the Shabtai Zvi 
Maaseh.
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
> Why is there any question? Even if the minhag somewhere is not to say it, 
what reason could there be for saying davka "We don't say that"? <
The minhog of Frankfurt was not to [communally] say anything from the Zohar 
(see HMaryles' reply) -- accordingly, B'rich Sh'mai is not said in 
"Breuer's" on *any* day of the year.

All the best (including a great Shabbos!) from 
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Joel Rich <Joelirich@aol.com> quotes the bottom line of my signature file
and asks:
: << For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. >>

: I don't know why I just noticed this, but where do you get "its" from in ki 
: ner mitzvah vtora or?

My own imagination. Which is why there are no quote marks around it or
citation after it.

Despite the fact that it says "viTorah or" and not "vitorah oraH" (with a final
mapik hei), I do think this meaning is p'shat in the pasuk. The connection
between candle and light is one of physical cause and spiritual affect.

I could therefore see a number of ways of interpreting the mashal.

a- As a contrast between the physicality of mitzvos and the intangibility of
   Torah.

b- A statement that mitzvos are a preparation for light, whereas Torah is
   light itself.

c- My interpretation that the Torah of the pasuk is that which we learn from
   what we do. This is actually a variant of #2, but implies that the Torah
   we are speaking of is the lesson the mitzvah is preparing us for -- not the
   Torah as a whole. "Na'aseh vinishmah" can be similarly understood as "we
   will do, and we will listen to what we do".

d- All of the above.

Mishalim are generally used (in poetry as well) because of (d) -- it allows
you two draw the image from numerous angles in one stroke.

I put this paraphrase in my signature because I want to remind people of the
centrality of the art of "listening to mitzvos" in yahadus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Oct-99: Shishi, Vayera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 60b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

We have heard a range of views on the origins of the recitation of
Berikh Shemeih, some of which, I am sorry to say, are not entirely
accurate:

Alan Davidson wrote:

> As a tefilla, Brich Shmei is a very old tefilla-- even Chabad which, with
> the exception of kabbalos shabbos and Vidui tends not to add to tefilla
> (don't say Akdamus, Yotzros except for Yomim Noraim) say Brich Shmei
> whenever the Torah is read.

Joel Margolies <margol@ms.com> wrote:

> There is a sefer I once saw in the Young Israel of
> Century City in LA which I
> believe was entitled Minhagei Ashkenaz.  One of the
> articles was on this topic and
> if I remeber correctly, the author said that brich
> shmeh was only added to siddurim
> in the last 100 years.

R. Harry Maryles wrote:

>The Sefer is called Shroshei Minhag Ashkenaz, and I
>believe you are correct in all of the above. The
>source for the Tfila of Brich Shmey is the Zohar and
>was not mesakain by the Anshe Kenneses Ha Gedolah but
>by the Geonim Reshonim.  But the Tefila was never
>accepted by Chachme Israel and did not establish it as
>part of Tefila. It is not mentioned at all in the
>words of the Rishonim.  It was apparently only the
>Arizal's custum to say it.

If no one minds, I would like to set a few things straight.  First, as
RHM correctly notes, the tefillah comes the Zohar.  Without rehashing an
old debate on the historicity of the Zohar (check the archives if you
missed it), no written version of that work predates the 13th century.
Therefore, no fixed text of Berikh Shemeih existed before that time.  So
it is not very old relative to tefillot that date from the time of
Hazal. (Indeed, the whole ceremony associated with hotza'at sefer Torah
is relatively late; the first reference to recitation of Va-yehi
Bi-neso'a appeared in Sefer ha-Makneh, if memory serves, then in Kol Bo
and other works of Rishonei Ashkenaz.)

The earliest reliable statement on Berikh Shemeih comes from Avraham
Berliner, the great Orthodox German scholar who, among other things,
produced the most reliable text of Perush Rashi al ha-Torah.  In his
classic study on tefillah, he writes that Berikh Shemeih first appears
in conjunction with petihat ha-aron in 1540, and that it began to spread
in 1599, a consequence of the influence of "Seder ha-Yom".

While some rabbanim had qualms anout the phrase "bar Elakin," the most
common remedy was to emend the phrase (e.g. to bar malkhaya), rather
than eliminate the tefillah altogether.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom

Eli Clark

Hoping to correct a mistake, I coontributed to this subject and have been
inserted willy-nilly into a discussion I had intended not to enter.
RRWolpoe snipped a discussion as shown below which makes it appear--very
incorrectly--that I began the +ACI-midnight-cholent raid+ACI- discussion.  See for
yourself and then continue w/ my comments after RW's signature:

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:16:57 -0400
From: richard+AF8-wolpoe+AEA-ibi.com
Subject: kidra chaysa-Tangential point

From: TROMBAEDU+AEA-aol.com

+AD4- nwitty+AEA-ix.netcom.com writes:


+ADw-snip+AD4-
+AD4-   +AD4APg-
+AD4-
+AD4- It is my understanding that in this case, the traditional
+AD4- midnight raid on
+AD4- the cholent pot is assur. I am not entirely clear on the
+AD4- reason. Any ideas?
+AD4-

Question: Isn't every case of a ocholent pot raided at midnight +ACI-ossur
bechazora+ACI-?

Don't you have to remove it from the flame in order to ladel it out?
Wouldn't
ladelling it out and returning it to th fire consitute chazoro regardless of
kidra chyaso, maachol drusoi, etc.?  I guess there MIGHT be an exemption if
the
cholent was 100+ACU- mevushal kol tzorko before Shabbos, but I'm not clear on
this
either...

Rich Wolpoe

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

It's Noach again.  Look, snip all you want but please don't misrepresent me
(or others, for that matter).

The reason I appear to be over-reactiing is not the misrep per se, but the
subject.  I have for many years thought of this +ACI-raid+ACI- as lacking in
manners, courtesy and consideration for others and their oneg shabbos
expectations the next morning after davening.  (This should not matter
whether I am a guest or the ba'al habayis+ADs- moreover, to my mind, it is
especially reprehensible in a yeshiva dorm setting.)  Thus, there are
potentially aspects of gezel here. (hermits excepted)

Additionally, (and this would tend to include hermits) considering the high
quality of American living, it's not usually the case that people go to bed
hungry after a Friday night meal.  Tea or juice and a slice of cake/danish
might suffice to tide your +ACI-overwhelming+ACI- hunger.  Is this time well spent?
Did everyone already finish shnayim mikra and is up to date with the daf?
And did you finish carefully reading every word of the JP +ACo-and+ACo- the Yated?
(Does no one admit to subscribing to Commentary?)  I'm not sure the Ari
z+ACI-l's note that eating on Shabbos will not be megashaym (apologies for
yeshivishe reyd) applies when one goes out of his/her way le-hitgashaym+ACE-

(What if one grew up poor and this is his way of demonsrtating 'ashirus and
therefore independence of the constraints of poverty?  Could well be . . . )

Third, it occurs to me that calling it a +ACI-raid+ACI- may be an attempt to shield
in the nomenclature used to describe sophomoric summer camp-type activities
that which one knows is improper and thereby obviate some of the dishonor
alleged above.

I anticipate strong reactions from regular raiders.  I know raiders.  Some
of my best friends are raiders.  As a stereotype they are stubborn (Bertrand
Russell conjugates: I am adamant+ADs- you are stubborn+ADs- s/he is pigheaded+ACE-) and
very strongly tied/addicted to raiding.

Finally, a valid point was raised: w/i the parameters of hilchos shabbos
alone, what precisely is the heter, if any, to move the cholent off of the
oven, out of the stove out of the insert (crockpot) and what precisely is
the heter to return it?

Noach Witty

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]