Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 39

Mon, 05 Mar 2007

• 1. yefas toar (SBA)
• 2. Re: end of fast (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] VASHTI'S TAIL ETC (SBA)
• 4. taanit esther (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Vashti's tail (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: taanit esther (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 7. A Letter Observation (Yisrael Medad)
• 8. Re: Bal Tashchis (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Ikkarim redux (Meir Shinnar)
• 10. Re: taanit esther (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Torah and slavery (saul mashbaum)
• 12. Bizmaneihem (Jonathan Baker)
• 13. origin of taanit esther (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: the 5th purim mitzva (Michael Kopinsky)
• 15. Re: Vashti's tail etc... (Michael Kopinsky)

From: "Marty Bluke" <>
R ' Akiva Miller wrote:
According to this logic, rape is not inherently immoral, because if
it was, then we would not find a case (yefas toar) where it is mutar.
---
By yefas toar Chazal say explicitly that lo dibra torah ela k'neged
yetzer hara which implies that it is not a moral action.
>>

I am not so sure about this being a true 'hetter' of 'rape'.

See Kiddushin 22a, Rashi dh: Shelo Yilchotzeno Bamilchomo:
"Lavoy oleho." Which may mean no rape, or to wait until
he takes her home. (Admittedly Tosfos has a lot kashes on this.)

Also see Rambam Hilchos Mishpotim 8:2-7 all the halachos concerning
 a 'yefas toar'. Definitely not the usual rape situation.

In fact it's not hard to imagine that all the halachas involved were created
'avektsunemen di apetit'..

SBA

>> On the other hand, all fasts - both winter and summer - end at 42
>> minutes, except for Yom Kippur which ends at 54 minutes.

>Isn't it confusing that you're allowed to do m'lacha after Yom 
>Kippur before being allowed to eat?

     No, because m'lacha is also not done before -- the shofar is 
sounded at the 54-minute mark.  It wasn't my doing; my father z"l 
instituted it, making it later than tzeis for tosefes Yom Kippur. 

EMT
 

From: "Mike Miller" <>
 Moshe Yehuda Gluck <> wrote:
> If we believe in Kriyas Yam Suf, Matan Torah and Nevuah, why do we have a
> problem believing in Vashti's tail?

Perhaps because those are written in Tanach, and the tail is only
found in Medrashim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(Megila 12b): "Omar R' Yosi bar Chanina melamed sheporcho bo tzoraas.
Bemisnita tono: Bo Gavriel ve'oso lo zonov..."

The Maharsho quotes the baal ha'Aruch: "Kol dovor shehu yeser,
sheinu kemidas chavero...koruy zonov..."

And then comments: "Velo yodano mi hichricho lefaresh kach,
ve'eime dezonov mamesh oso lo kebeheimeh..."

>>>>

If it's good enough for the Maharsho, it's good enough for me
- and my kids...

>I know of no klal that "ein medrash yotzei miydei peshuto."

There also is no chiyuv lehotzi'o miydei peshuto.

And how do you explain 'sheporcho bo tzoraas'?
Is that k'peshutoy? If not, does anyone offer a REAL pshat?

OTOH, if it is, how often do we find a maamar Chazal
that is half kepshutoy and the other half not?

(This question is not only to listmembers)

>Additionally, such an explicity supernatural occurance seems out of
place in the (superficially) natural story of the megilah.

Out of place?  I think it can somehow be included in the
"Al Hanissim".

From: "Simi Peters" <>
There really is no problem with teaching these midrashim literally to second
graders.  The problem  is that they are never then taught these midrashim
differently when they are capable of more abstract thinking (fifth or sixth
grade, let's say.)
>>

Nisht gezorgt. They'll get plenty of chances as they learn gemoro

> visualizes Vashti as having horns
Where is that Midrash?

> If we believe in Kriyas Yam Suf, Matan Torah and Nevuah, why do we have a
> problem believing in Vashti's tail?    >  MYG

RSM: Because we're not *supposed* to "believe" in Vashti's tail, at least
according to the overwhelming majority of Rishonim (starting with the
Rambam).
>>>>>>>>>.

Not supposed to believe !!??

Sounds like a 'chumra of the year"...

SBA

> My LOR (listmember Rabbi Elazar Teitz of Elizabeth NJ) follows an
> interesting mix of keeping things simple so as not to confuse people,
> and also allowing some variations: For most of the year, the official
> Motzaei Shabbos is at 45 minutes after shkiah. But for all of May,
> June and July, we end at 50 minutes. We sacrifice a little bit of
> accuracy for the sake of simplicity. (Or maybe we sacrifice a little
> simplicity to end Shabbos five minutes earlier for nine months of the
> year?)
>
> On the other hand, all fasts - both winter and summer - end at 42
> minutes, except for Yom Kippur which ends at 54 minutes.>>

After the various answers I am still confused. According to this
Taanit Esther ends some 3 minutes before the time for Motzei Shabbat.
This corresponds to my memories of the US. However, as Michael
Kopinsky also confirms in EY the fast ends 10-20 minutes before the
time for motzei shabbat


-- 
Eli Turkel

In line with medrashim on Megillat Esther I assume someone explains how
Esther could have been married to Mordecai when only virgins were "invited"
to Achashverosh. Also at the end when Esther tells the king of her
relationship to
Mordecai I assume she didn't mention her "real" relationship.

With those who accept every medrash literally do we really have to
believe that Haman was Mordecai's barber etc. ?

-- 
Eli Turkel

RAkiva Miller wrote:
 
<<My LOR (listmember Rabbi Elazar Teitz of Elizabeth NJ) follows an
interesting mix of keeping things simple so as not to confuse people,
and also allowing some variations: For most of the year, the official
Motzaei Shabbos is at 45 minutes after shkiah. But for all of May,
June and July, we end at 50 minutes. We sacrifice a little bit of
accuracy for the sake of simplicity. (Or maybe we sacrifice a little
simplicity to end Shabbos five minutes earlier for nine months of the
year?)

On the other hand, all fasts - both winter and summer - end at 42
minutes, except for Yom Kippur which ends at 54 minutes.>>
 
To which REli Turkel responded:

<After the various answers I am still confused. According to this
Taanit Esther ends some 3 minutes before the time for Motzei Shabbat.
This corresponds to my memories of the US. However, as Michael
Kopinsky also confirms in EY the fast ends 10-20 minutes before the
time for motzei shabbat>

     In Yerushalayim, there are apparently three times for tzeis
hakochavim: 17 minutes, which is the time after sunset that the
earliest ma'ariv is begun; approximately 25 minutes, which is the time
for ending ta'anios d'rabanan; and approximately 38 minutes (which may
vary slightly by season), the time generally posted for Motza'ei
Shabbos, and used by those who do not wait 72 minutes.  The 25-minute
z'man is listed in the Tikotzinsky luach (which is the wall luach for
the shuls) for one motza'ei Shabbos as well: Chanukah, since the minhag
in Yerushalyim, in accordance with shittas haGra, is to light at sunset
during the week, and as soon after Shabbos as possible. Apparently, the
25-minute period is considered to be true tzeis, and though in other
weeks there is an addition, either as a chumra or as tosefes, it is not
done when it would interfere with proper kiyum of ner Chanukah. (More
accurately, that was the situation 50 years ago.  I don't know whether
it is still the listing for motza'ei Shabbos Chanukah.)

EMT



-- 
Eli Turkel

Yaakov Yosef of Paloney in his Tzafnat Fane'ach notes that when reading Ish
Yehudi Haya, one should imagine dropping the Yud of Yehudi back into the
Dalet and you get Yud-Key-Vav-Keh!

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070304/9abf6428/attachment-0001.html 

R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked:
> Isn't that a problem, re: Lifnei Iver because of their
> not making Berachos?

R' Joel Rich responded:
> I don't have the cite but I'm pretty sure R' SZA paskened
> this was not a problem in a kiruv situation.

Rabbi Doniel Neustadt's article at 
http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5761/reeh.html is 
entirely on this topic. One part of it is:

> The poskim suggest several leniencies that alleviate the
> severity of the prohibition of serving food to a person
> who will not recite a blessing over it. In the following
> cases it would be permissible: 
> ...
> 7. If, by offering him food, there is a better chance of
> bringing a non-observant Jew closer to religous
> observance(10). 
> ...
> (10) Harav S.Z. Auerbach (quoted in V'zos ha-Berachah,
> 4th edition, pg. 154).

Akiva Miller

>
>
> To possibly add a different perspective, it seems to me that  
> perhaps the
> issue of minhag can be added to the mix. In other words, what is  
> the minhag
> of the majority of Klal Yisrael when it comes to Ikkarei HaDas?  
> Well, just
> about every siddur for hundreds of years included Yigdal and the 13  
> Ani
> Maamins. If so, as far as the psak of minhag is concerned, the 13  
> ikkarim
> are accepted as psak. (Risking R' SM's wrath :-) I'll share  
> something a
> posek told me. He asked a major contemporary posek (MCP) what the  
> minhag by
> a certain aspect of Hilchos vestos was, and the MCP answered that  
> it was
> whatever was printed in the Yiddish pages of the (IIRC) Korban  
> Mincha Siddur
> that discussed Hilchos Niddah. As all Jewish women used to use that  
> as their
> Hilchos Niddah primer, that was the minhag.)
minhag and sociology are closely related.  I don't think that there  
is much doubt that the average person thinks that the 13 ikkarim  
constitute some type of catechism - which is exactly RM Schapiro's  
point - that when one examines the facts, it is difficult to maintain  
that there actually exists a uniform version of the ikkarim which is  
globally accepted.

The debate here is whether halachic criteria factor at all  into the  
ikkarim - but the suggestion that what ikkare emunah are is decided  
by the minhag amcha - rather than by rational analysis and the  
leaders,   would have made the author of the ikkarim cringe...Yes,  
there are halachic issues where the which shita is used depends on  
the minhag - and, as in this post, the question was specifically  
which minhag was the accepted one - and, in general, unless one  
believes it is a minhag taut one does go with what people do.
However, the very idea that ikkare emunah are decided by the amcha  
reflects a fundamental cheapening of the very idea....
(WRT Artscroll - their acceptance is IMHO a case of minhag taut, and  
I will leave it at that..)
Meir Shinnar

Rabbi Teitz writes:


>      In Yerushalayim, there are apparently three times for tzeis
> hakochavim: 17 minutes, which is the time after sunset that the
> earliest ma'ariv is begun; approximately 25 minutes, which is the time
> for ending ta'anios d'rabanan; and approximately 38 minutes (which may
> vary slightly by season), the time generally posted for Motza'ei
> Shabbos, and used by those who do not wait 72 minutes.  The 25-minute
> z'man is listed in the Tikotzinsky luach (which is the wall luach for
> the shuls) for one motza'ei Shabbos as well: Chanukah, since the minhag
> in Yerushalyim, in accordance with shittas haGra, is to light at sunset
> during the week, and as soon after Shabbos as possible. Apparently, the
> 25-minute period is considered to be true tzeis, and though in other
> weeks there is an addition, either as a chumra or as tosefes, it is not
> done when it would interfere with proper kiyum of ner Chanukah. (More
> accurately, that was the situation 50 years ago.  I don't know whether
> it is still the listing for motza'ei Shabbos Chanukah.)
>
> EMT
>

I thank REMT for his answer. Indeed as he says even outside of Yeushalayim
the fast ends 25 minutes after tseis while motzei shabbat ends some 38 minutes
after tzeitz (for those following the Gra/Geonim etc.).

I still was not clear why this is not followed in the US. Since a fast
day is only
derabbanan and motzei shabbat is from the Torah it would seem that a fast day
should be over earlier especially since one is fasting (obviously)
In fact in most shuls in EY one blows Shofar at the end of Yom Kippur
quite early
and immediately davens maariv, when the time for eatimg is approximately
the end of Maariv so that the rabbi warns those not staying for maariv
that it is still
too early to eat. This is done in spite of the fact that it too is
from the Torah in order to
be lenient with everyone who has been fasting for some 25 hours.

kol tuv
-- 
Eli Turkel

R' SM
*Although it seems obvious to us that being a salaried employee is a
*straightforward and sensible way to make a living, it is regarded with some
*suspicion in classical Jewish sources. This is because of the shibud the
*worker has to his employer, which borders on slavery (no jokes please). The
*longer the worker contracted for, the more the practice was frowned upon.

R'MYG:

>Yaakov Avinu?

Could you clarify this question? If anything, the miserable experience of YA illustrates the negative aspects of long-term salaried employment; it hardly serves as a model of an ideal way to make a living. It is clear from the Torah that Yaakov was forced into this financial arrangement basically against his will. 
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070305/eed1de86/attachment-0001.htm 

RZS:
> Micha Berger wrote:
 
>>Grammatically, isn't "bizmaneihem" correct for two different groups of people
>>who have different days? So this would seem to me to be derashah, not peshat.
>>Except that derashah is only for chumash, not kesuvim.
 
> ?  Who says we don't darshen kesuvim?

And it's the Gemara that darshens bizmaneihim.  Zman-zmanam-zmaneihem is 
explicitly the drash for saying we can lein Megillah on several different
days.  It's on the first page of the Gemara, attributed to Rabbi Akiva.
You can say it's just an asmachta, since the whole of Purim is Rabbinic,
still, it's treated as a drasha in the Gemara.

It turns out not to be necessary, but it's a legitimate drasha.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

From the Mishnah and Tosefta, one gets the impression that the mitzvah of
mikra Megillah is by daytime only, and that like most mitzvos `aseih
shehazeman gerama, women are exempt.  Perhaps this was the original takanah
in the days of Mordekhai and Esteir.
R' Yehoshua` ben Levi tells us that one is obligated to read at night (since
the Jews cried out at night also -- "velailah lo dumyah li"), and that women
are obligated (since they, too, were included in the miracle).  Perhaps this
reflects a different, later takanah of Chazal, which gave the observance of
Purim the additional aspect of attempting to relive the experience that the
Jews went through.  Once Chazal decided to remodel Purim by adding this
layer to its observance, it became relevant to expand the chiyuv of mikra
Megillah based on when the Jews cried out (both day and night) and who was
involved (both men and women).
If this correct, perhaps one could suggest that Ta`anis Esteir was not part
of the original observance of Purim, but came as part of the "reliving the
experience" framework of this later takanah.  In order to relive the
experience, we can't just have a day of rejoicing in a vacuum, but need for
it to come on the heels of tze`akah and teshuvah.>>

The Turei Even indeed introduces the notion that the evening layning
of the megillah
was introduced in the days of R. Yehoshua Ben Levi (early Amoraic
days). However, Taanit Esther still does not appear in the Talmud. It
does appear in Rishonim and so I guess that it was introduced in the
days of the Geonim but that is pure speculation.
Does anyone have more information of when Taanit Esther first appeared?

-- 
Eli Turkel

On 3/2/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, March 1, 2007 10:55 am, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> : i wonder was it always a general every-tzedaka-under-the-sun day, or did
> : this just become something for shtik-oriented teenagers to do to while
> away
> : the time. maybe it just took longer for the practice to get to the west.
> 
> Perhaps it uses the same reasoning as ma'aser kesafim.
> 
> Many justify using ma'aser kesafim for yeshivos because scholarships cover
> the
> costs for people who can't afford it. Some extend this to whatever
> percentage
> of tuition is inflated to cover others' scholarships.
> 
> Thus, if supporting yeshivos is helping aniyim WRT ma'aser kesafim, why not
> WRT matanos le'evyonim?

Matanos l'evyonim has to give the aniyim some kind of benefit bo bayom.  
A donation to a school which will help them get a tuition discount months
from now hardly helps them today.

On 3/2/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 02:37:09AM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck quotes
> > RMMiller and responds:
> > :> Additionally, such an explicity supernatural occurance seems out of
> > :> place in the (superficially) natural story of the megilah.
> >
> > : That seems to me to be an emotional reason for rejecting the plain
> meaning
> > : of Chazal....
> >
> > Actually, it defies every maqor that speaks of hesteir panim.
> >
> > The whole mehalekh we consistently take to understanding Purim *requires*
> > a lack of any supernatural events.
>
> Not really.  Eliyahu informing Mordechai about Haman's decree.  Esther's
> appearing beautiful to everyone, especially Achashverosh, despite her
> age and unattractiveness, Achashverosh's hand extending the sceptre to
> Esther when he intended not to; these are all miracles, just not public
> spectacular ones.  And they're not mentioned in the text of the megillah,
> but the gemara makes sure that we know about them. Because the story
> *was* miraculous, but the miracles were known only to the people to
> whom they happened, not to thousands of bystanders.

I understand the difference between nes nigleh and nes nistar as being
more an issue of whether what happened was recognizably the hand of G-d
vs. explainable in natural terms, rather than public vs. private.  The
examples you mentioned are all explainable in natural terms - a bearded
Jew with good hearing who happened to walk past the palace at the right
moment, people having a particular taste in women (including age and skin
hue), or the King making a particular political decision.  We, as
ma'aminim can see these things as miracles, but historians could see them
otherwise.  Vashti's tail, even if seen only by herself, would have been
seen as a nes nigleh (or at least a bizzare deviation from normal life).
Thus it's difficult to understand Vashti's tail as being literal among the
other events of the megilla.


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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 39
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."