Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 057

Monday, August 2 2004

• Re: 9 Days Judaism Question
• Re: nine days question
• Re: Nacheim
• Are there any halachic issues in participating in Walk-a-thons/Running races?
• Re: 9 Days Judaism Question
• lecha dodi and Eli Tzion
• mirrors
• RE: Shiv'im pa'nim la'torah
• Nacheim
• Re: Nacheim
• Re: mention of Shem Hashem in tefilla
• Re: Wearing tefillin on chol hamoed if you have moved to Israel
• Sanhedrin
• Re: Shiv'im pa'nim la'torah
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Sanhedrin
• re: nine days question
• re: Praying for this year's tish'ah be'av on EDT afternoon
• Re: Naheim
• Re: Sanhedrin
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• Re: Sanhedrin
• Re:Tefilah for the healthy

In a message dated 7/21/2004 11:49:48 PM EDT, ykaganoff@yahoo.com writes:
> On a related question, do you feel a need to have a "message" from the
> three weeks, the nine days & tisha b'av, whether that message be about
> Teshuva or Jewish unity, or sinas chinam. Or does the act of remembering
> and mourning sufficient?

The premise of the fast as per Rambam and Mishnah Brura is as a
preapration to doing Tshuvah. It would be logical then to read sefromin on
Tshuva suc has Rabbeinu Yonah or the Rambam's Hilchos Tshuva. OTOH it
seems that one should focus on aveilus and NOT learn Torah, and Hilchos
Tshuvah etc. could be construed as learning Torah.

So the question remains, is the focus really on the loss of Yerushalayim
and BhM or on doing Tshuvah?

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

In a message dated 7/23/2004 7:42:31 AM EDT, dovb@netvision.net.il writes:
> Singing lecha dodi with a kinot tune sounds like bringing the aveilut
> of the 9 ays/shavua she'hal bo to Shabbat. Since aveilut is forbidden
> befarhesia on Shabbat, singing lecha dodi with a kinot tune should not
> be done.

If so, then What about the haftarah of Chazon sung to the Eichah tune?
Does that constitute Aveilus befarhesyah on Shabbos, too? If not,
why not?

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

In a message dated 7/28/2004 5:03:12 PM EDT, jjbaker@panix.com writes:
> ISTR hearing that R' Goren composed a new version of Nacheim that
> fits current post-1967 reality better than the traditional version.
> Does anyone say it? Where can I find it?

I think that the Rosenfeld Kinos has A new version of nacheim but I
think he {i.e. Rosenfeld composed it as oppposed to R. Avodia Yosef.

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

Hello,

A friend raised the following question:
His boss is a big exercise aficionado. He encourages his employees to
participate with the company in charity walk-a-thons and running races.
He is interested in participating, but the question comes up if it is ok.

Are there any halachic issues in participating in Walk-a-thons/Running
races?
If so, what are they? And how can they be addressed?

Thank you,
Avroham

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>So the question remains, is the focus really on the loss of Yerushalayim
>and BhM or on doing Tshuvah?

Rav Freifeld told me in the name of Rav Hutner that one is allowed to 
learn seforim on Tisha b'Av which help correct those sins which caused 
the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash.

Daniel Eidensohn

The local rabbi here said that the "tune" of eli tzion is not a mournful
tune and so is part of the nechama of the end of kinot. The words of eli
tzion are mournful but not the tune (the rabbi is also a musician). Hence,
it is indeed appropriate for singing even on shabbat.

Besides lecho dodi I have seen seen the minhag of singing shir hamaalot
before bentching on shbbat Chazon to the tune of eli tzion. In this case
it is definitely shabbat and the other answers don't apply.

Eli Turkel

I heard that Rav Soloveitchik zt'l felt that the notion of covering
mirrors during aveilus, which is not mentioned in Shas, is a modern day
substitute for the halacha of k'fiyas hamita, which is not practiced
today.

Elly Krimsky

elisha figdor <efigdor@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 59b of Bava Metzia- tanur shel achnai- conclusion of this is where g-d 
> smiles and admits defeat. shows that interpretation is in our
> hands. yet, at the same time, shows that we can interpret incorrectly.

Depends what you mean by incorrectly. In the case of tanur shel
achnai, correctly means it is in man's hands, Incorrectly means that
God's ultimate truth is not necessarily meant for man.  

> i agree with you, but no less bothered by notion of all roads
> possibly leading to "Rome."

Well Shivim Panim is no more a conundrum to Torah knowledge than is
no less than incompatible(IIUC) yet valid scientific theories of color
vision.

The classic theory of color vision is based on the premise that there
are three classes of cone receptors subserving color vision. This theory
has a very long history dating back to the 18th century.

Dr. Edwin Land maintained a color vision theory based on wavelengths.
He invented his Polaroid camera based on that theory.

Cones? Wavelengths?

You be the judge. (Both are correct.)

HM

From: "Jonathan Baker" <>
> ISTR hearing that R' Goren composed a new version of Nacheim that
> fits current post-1967 reality better than the traditional version.
> Does anyone say it? Where can I find it?

See <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/emunat/24/02402.htm>

SBA

PS, What is ISTR?

RSBA:
> See http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/emunat/24/02402.htm

Thanks. Paragraph Gimel also answers a question that occurred to me
during mincha on 9 Av: we say birchas kohanim at mincha on a taanis,
because the kohanim wouldn't have yet become shikker by mincha, so they
could still duchen. But if the taaniyos weren't observed during Bayis
Sheini, why wouldn't the kohanim have become shikker on those days?
If we follow the Rambam, they did observe the taaniyos, and thus wouldn't
have drunk wine or whatever during the day.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 06:04:23PM +0000, remt@juno.com wrote:
: I'm happy to see I'm not the only one bothered by this question. It has
: been affecting my kavanah in Shmoneh Esrei intermittently for a few years.

To ask a question that is really about your definition of kavanah....

REMT, do you consider this a negative or positive impact on your tefillah?

 -mi

"Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
>>> Can you clearly identify the difference between a din and a minhag?
>>> Isn't second day Yom Tov a din? According to that person's argument,
>>> should an oleh continue to keep two days of Yom Tov?

> Interesting example. The Gemara clearly calls it minhag avoseinu, but
> clearly bizeman hazeh it has become a din.

I don't think 'minhag' there means what we usually mean by it. The
language 'minhag avoteichem' comes from the letter sent by the Sanhedrin
to the Jews of Bavel, when the calendar was instituted. At that point,
the Jews of Bavel had been keeping yom tov sheni for something like 700
years, since kidush hachodesh was reestablished in the time of Ezra. All
that time, they'd been keeping it as a matter of safek deoraita, rather
than as a takanat rabanan; they knew that yomtov was on one particular
day decreed by the Sanhedrin, but they didn't know which of the two days
it was, so they treated each of them as safek yomtov. They had takanot
on *how* to keep these days (to say tefilat yomtov and shehecheyanu on
both days, not to wear tefillin, torah readings for the extra days, etc),
but there was no takana as such that both days are yomtov. That's what
'shtei kedushot' means - one day is kodesh and one day is chol.

When the Sanhedrin instituted the fixed calendar, the Bavlim wrote to
them, saying 'great, now we can stop this two days' yomtov business,
right?'. And the Sanhedrin responded with *a new takana*: 'hizaharu
beminhag avoteichem biydeichem'; keep the practise of your fathers in
your hands, because it might come in handy if you mess up the calendar.
The 'minhag' they were talking about was a practise that was required
by the din of safek deoraita, not one that they voluntarily chose; if
it were a mere minhag in the modern sense, how could they say brachot
that were not appropriate for a yom chol, etc?

Now, after the letter, the status of yom tov sheni changed, and it's now
really 'kedusha achat', i.e. both days are kodesh, the first mideoraita
and the second at the order of the Sanhedrin, but the letter said to
keep the 'minhag', the practise, that we kept back when it was 'shtei
kedushot', so we still behave that way, *as if* there were a safek, even
though there isn't one. *That's* the 'minhag' the letter talks about -
the way that we kept the 2nd day which we were *required* to keep.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[Usually I normalize quoting style, but on that post, I couldn't
figure it out either. I should have sent it back for clarification.
Sorry. -mi]

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com (or possibly R Zvi Lampel, it was very difficult
to tell who wrote what, *please* use clear quoting style) wrote:
> AISI only pre-churban Drashos could create Halachah. IOW you need a bona
> fide Sanhedrin to make Halacha out of drashos. OTOH to make drashos
> to back up existing halachos is a process that extends way beyond the
> Churban. Well what about halachos appraently initiated by R. Akiva and
> R. Yishmael who lived AFTER the Churban? one of 2 possiblities exist:
> 1) They were transmitting/preserving pre-churban drashos 
> 2) They somehow got grandfathered in even after the Churban - for a while.

They *had* a bona fide Sanhedrin, all the way until Hillel II.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

R Elisha Figdor <efigdor@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "all roads lead to rome"
> "shiv'im pa'nim la'torah"

> why?
> you'd think that in a MONOthiestic religion we'd have one guiding
> path.

That means there's one destination. But two points define a line:
the starting point is equally relavent. Each person and community has
his/their own best approach to the same goal.

As for what shiv'im panim laTorah means, consult the archives. The one
source we found that seems to suggest that there is only one halachic
truth, and "eilu va'eilu" is about the sechar of an honest search was the
intro Igros Moshe. But then we later found a letter in which Rav Moshe
explicitly describes halachic pluralism. So much for the implication.

The Maharal suggests that while there is in fact one Truth, that truth
cannot be captured within this world nor by people.

To use my own metaphor, it's like two dimensional beings trying to study
a three dimensional object. Each paneh is a shadow of the same object --
but with the light shining from different directions one can have very
different shadows.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

R David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>> According to the Rambam, teva causes oil to burn. HQBH is involved only
>> indirectly, as the Cause of teva. Vinegar burning would be HP, as all
>> divine intervention is HP.

> This is not correct.  For the Rambam HP is a form of prophecy; it does not
> overturn nature.  See Hakdamah to Perek Helek, ed. Kafih, p. 137, PHM Avoth
> 5:5, and, in more detail, R. Abraham Maimonides, Maamar al HaAgadoth, ed.
> Margalioth, pp. 94-96.

You're describing the Ralbag's position more than the Rambam's. The
Rambam certainly teaches that true nissim are possible -- that the Red
Sea splitting was not "just" rare expression of the usual rules that
happened on queue.

But more to the point, it sounds like you're conflating neis with
HP. Divine intervention does not mean a violation of the laws of nature.

In the physics the Rambam had to deal with, all action is caused by an
intellect imparting impetus to an object that then underwent change
(including motion) until the impetus ran out. The difference between
HP and other events is whether the Intellect imparted its own impetus
to more directly influence an event. This can happen without violating
Aristotilian physics any more than human-caused actions violate it.

> The Rambam just wouldn't take that story literally.

This doesn't change things that much, as one still has to take a lesson
from that story.

IMHO, it's a statement about HP, couched as being one about neis. It
could equally as well have been one about neis, couched as being about
a recent one. But in truth I placed the Rambam's position in terms of
the story because I wanted to express a parallel to REED's words which
were stated in those term. It's probably just a distraction to guess
at how the Rambam would understand it.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

Zev Sero wrote:
> They *had* a bona fide Sanhedrin, all the way until Hillel II.

Do you have any source to support your contention? The Ramban (Sefer 
HaMitzvos 153) clearly rejects it as does Kuzari (3:39).

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Chaim Steinmetz pointed out <<< In shuls that tend to davven later
(after tzais) as many shuls do, Tosfos Shabbos is accepted earlier by
everyone on their own, not as part of davvening. >>>

That makes a certain amount of sense. If the shul's schedule makes it
so that they get to Mizmor Shir L'Yom HaShabbos later than the deadline
for doing Tosfos Shabbos (which IIRC is shkia, not tzeis) then those
individuals who are careful to do this mitzvah properly would indeed
have to do it at the proper time, on their own.

But if this were so, those individuals would have to refain from
greeting the mourners ("HaMakom Ynachem...") because they've already
begun Shabbos. Anyone know anyone who is careful about this?

I'm a bit hesitant to continue this to its logical conclusion, but,
oh well, here goes ---

Many shuls get to Mizmor Shir long after shkia, yet they do say the Nichum
Avelim at that point. What is the justification for this? My guess is
that since this is not really a melacha, and is not even a geder of a
melacha, and involves nothing more than dibbur, it is okay. If that is
the logic which is used, would it be okay to daven a weekday mincha in
that time slot?

Akiva Miller

R' Joel Rich asked <<< If it's already Tisha Baav in aretz, can one in
the US still pray for the geula shlaima to come so that this Tisha Baav
be a true Moed? >>>

I don't understand the question:

If it is evening or morning in the US, then Tisha B'Av in Israel, thee
is still time for Moshiach to arrive before the day ends. And if it
already late afternoon in the US, what's wrong with davening that the
geulah should come on 10 Av?

Akiva Miller

At 10:06 PM 7/29/2004, "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
>ISTR hearing that R' Goren composed a new version of Nacheim that
>fits current post-1967 reality better than the traditional version.
>Does anyone say it? Where can I find it?

In the "siddur tzahal", YAvneh in US published it in a booklet of Yom
HaAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalaim things I believe edited by J Wolowolsky
some years after the 6 dy war.

I dont have a copy here on my trip to the US, but I recall that it
skips the "ha'avela mbli baneha.. ha-chareva memeonotaha .. mebli yoshev
.. rosha hafuy .. vayerashuha zarim" part, which historically is a later
addition, see Yerushalmi, Vitri, Rambam .

I heard a few times that RMF said that to say now about Yerushalayim
(after 1967 when many Jews returned to the Ir HaAtika) "mbli baneha. ,
mebli yoshev" would be "dover skarim lifnei haMakom"

Dov A Bloom
dovb@netvision.net.il

From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>
> They *had* a bona fide Sanhedrin, all the way until Hillel II.

Not sitting in Lishkas ha Gazis.

David Riceman

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> The
> Rambam certainly teaches that true nissim are possible -- that the Red
> Sea splitting was not "just" rare expression of the usual rules that
> happened on queue.

Reread the Rambam about Assarah devarim nivriu bein hashemashos. For the
Rambam nisim result from a tnai at maaseh breishis, and are restricted
to those certified by the Bible. See Ibn Ezra's comment on Yocheved's
age at childbirth for a parallel comment by someone else brought up
around the same time in a similar environment. Using vinegar as a fuel
for candles doesn't fit his paradigm.

> But more to the point, it sounds like you're conflating neis with
> HP. Divine intervention does not mean a violation of the laws of nature.

But using vinegar as a fuel for candles is "a violation of the laws
of nature".

> In the physics the Rambam had to deal with, all action is caused by an
> intellect imparting impetus to an object that then underwent change
> (including motion) until the impetus ran out.

There is a distinction between self-caused motion (essential) or
externally caused motion (accidental). The latter is impermament
(introduction to part II, propositions 6, 8, and 9). Intellects have
nothing to do with it.

> The difference between
> HP and other events is whether the Intellect imparted its own impetus
> to more directly influence an event. This can happen without violating
> Aristotilian physics any more than human-caused actions violate it.

An intellect cannot make vinegar burn.

>> The Rambam just wouldn't take that story literally.

> This doesn't change things that much, as one still has to take a lesson
> from that story.

> IMHO, it's a statement about HP, couched as being one about neis.

But the lesson which you deduce from the story contradicts the Rambam's
opinion that nature doesn't change (i.e. that vinegar is not a fuel
suitable for candles).

David Riceman

On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 10:58:11AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
:> The
:> Rambam certainly teaches that true nissim are possible -- that the Red
:> Sea splitting was not "just" rare expression of the usual rules that
:> happened on queue.

: Reread the Rambam about Assarah devarim nivriu bein hashemashos...

Your entire reply misses two significant points in the post to which you're
replying:

1- I wrote that I saw the significance of the story in its addressing HP,
even if the HP was portrayed as supernatural in order to be blatant.

2- I expressed my regret at trying to guess at the Rambam's understanding
of this ma'aseh just in order to come up with a contrast to the REED's
interpretation.

The point I was making had nothing to do with violating nature. It was
you who brought in the subject of neis. I'd be happier sticking with HP.
When I spoke about Divine intervention, I wasn't speaking about defying
nature.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

A few weeks ago, in Avodah 13:40, I wrote <<< Chazon Ish is said to have
held that when we use an electrical device on Shabbos, this causes the
melacha of boneh. This was always difficult for me to understand. I never
viewed flicking a switch as an act of building a new object. Could it
be that the Chazon Ish was working with this same concept of "mechubar
lekarka"? Could it be that his shita that "electricity is boneh" applies
to plugging in a lamp (because it is a home-improvement project), but
not to turning on a flashlight (which might be "tikun keli" but not
full-fledged binyan). >>>

Along these lines, I found an interesting note in the Shmiras Shabbos
K'Hilchasa yesterday. In 13:28, he writes "When the electric current
is interrupted, it is mutar to take the plug out of the socket (or do
a similar action with the switch) so that the light will not come back
on when the current starts flowing again...."

In footnote 13:101 (on that point), he quotes Rav SZ Auerbach as saying,
"Even though they say in the name of the Chazon Ish zt"l that the issur
of boneh and soser applies even when the electricity is not operating,
nevertheless, from a letter from the Chazon Ish which I have in my
possession, it does not seem that way [lo machma ken]."

In other words, according to the Chazon Ish, the boneh and soser issue
applies only if the current is on. I'm not sure whether this supports
my suggestion in Avodah 13:40 or not, but it does seem relevant, so I'm
sharing it with the chevra for the benefit of those who are interested
in this topic.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 08/01/2004 10:31:02 AM EDT, R David Riceman
<driceman@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> They *had* a bona fide Sanhedrin, all the way until Hillel II.

> Not sitting in Lishkas ha Gazis.

Which goes to the issue of the force of Sanhedrin not sitting in Lishkat
Hagazit.

For example, there is no case of zaken mamreh when the Sanhedrin left
lishkat hagazit for a dvar mitzvah. Did this apply once the sanhedrin
had permanently left lishkat hagazit(since there is a whole mussar about
why the "office" was by the Mikdash)?

KT
Joel Rich

"SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in  Avodah V13 #56:
>A l-o-n-g time ago here, I asked the question why we do not have a tefilah
>[in SE] asking [for those of us who are fit and healthy] to remain so -
>rather than only having 'Refo'einu' - asking to be cured from illnesses.

According to Siddur Ashira Lashem (more about this work later):
"The requests of the weekday Amidah follow a formal structure. We make
four basic requests, and each request has three components: a- providing
a state where the request can be granted in the fullest; b- curing what
is wrong with the item in question; c- satisfying the need itself."

The author proceeds to categorize and analyze the requests of the central
brachot of the Amidah according to this principle. The 4 brachot in
category b are 1)tshuva 2)refua 3)hashavat hamishpat 4)mashiah ben David.

Clearly, then, birchat refaeinu is not a general "prayer for health",
but a request to *cure* illness, in keeping with the brachot in catgory b.

It suffices to quote Ashira Lashem briefly, because everyone on avodah
has easy access to it. Siddur Ashira Lashem is "Davening For Friday
night according to the nusach of R. Y.B. Soloveitchik, zt"l. Editing and
Commentary by Micha Berger". RMB's beautiful commentary is based on RYBS,
RSRH and the Vilna Gaon.

The siddur is found on the Aishdas website
http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml (or place the cursor on the "subsites"
tab of the Aishdas homepage). The siddur has many very excellent features,
as anyone who goes to the cited url will quickly see. Several additional
list members assisted RMB in what clearly was a labor of love.

I really hope that list members unfamiliar with this work will make the
effort to check it out. I firmly believe that they will be very glad
that they did.

Saul Mashbaum

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


[ 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         ]