Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 370

Fri, 31 Oct 2008

• 1. Re: Kiddush in Shul - Friday night (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Kiddush in Shul - Friday night (Michael Kopinsky)
• 3. Re: Shofar Pitch (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Righteous Gentile is Equal to the Kohein Godol (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: You can't make this stuff up! (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. PR (Eli Turkel)
• 11. cherem of Rabbenu Gershom (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Michael Makovi)
• 13. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Michael Makovi)

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> The trouble is that it's also non-trivial to know how one
> is allowed to say this kiddush, since nobody is yotze with
> it. ... Also see SA Harav 343:6 who explains how we can give
> the wine to ketanim, before they have been yotze kiddush.

A LOT more info on all this is in the Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa, vol 2,
all of Chapter 49. Note that in par. 8, he mentions the rejected suggestion
that the katan should drink a rivi'is, so as to be yotzay Kiddush B'Makom
Seudah.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Security Camera for your small business. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3mYHpnJJq8ZdOrJBcueys0uwZOsivRYfVCT8v5DqnxUrucXI/?c
ount=1234567890

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:51 PM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:

> New BTs or becoming-BTs might need to hear kiddush in shul because they
> don't know how to make kiddush themselves.


That this is a reason or justification for that kiddush, or that anyone
simply listening to the kiddush can even be yotzei, is a huge chiddush that
is not (AFAIK) borne out by halacha.  Do you have any support for that
assertion?

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081030/4003eed9/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:

> Then we could be talking about different things. The Brisker thing is
> one kol that goes up at the end, followed with almost no break by a
> single beat of a kol at the original pitch. So it can sound like
> down-up-down.

The LR blew the same way.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

R' Meir Kahan asked:
<How does this position of RSRH comport with "Rotzah HKBH Lzakos es yisroel
Lfichach hirbah l'hem Torah Umitzvos"?
If a non Jew can get the same Schar for performing 7 mitzvos as a Jew can
<for 613, what is the zchus?

RSRH is really quoting the Gemara in Bava Kama 38a which makes this
statement. Take a look at the Rashba there who asks a very similar
question, how can he be like a Kohen Gadol, after all the gemara says
that he only gets rewarded as an ayno metzubeh v'oseh? He doesn't give
an answer. The Rashba there also writes that the Torah that the gemara
is talking about is only the seven mitvos of Bnei Noach as a goy is
prohibited from learning torah.

The Shita quotes a Raah who says that the gemara is using a "lashon
guzma", the gemara is exaggerating when saying that a goy can become
like a kohen gadol.

A number of acharonim point out that a talmid chacham has priority
over a kohen gadol am haaretz and therefore we can answer that a goy
can only reach the level of a kohen gadol but a Jew who learns Torah
can reach even higher then the Kohen Gadol.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:56:26 GMT
"kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:

> (BTW: What does KYRH stand for? My guess is that the K is Kaiser, but I'm clueless on the rest.)

I believe "Yarum Hodo".
 
> Akiva Millrt

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Rich, Joel wrote:

> Question: What was the driving force behind the takkana of rabbeinu
> gershom on monogamy?

Wasn't it his own experience of the consequence of lack of sholom bayis?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> "Hanosen teshua lamlachim" was printed in the siddur, and
>> it was said in the big city shuls where the KYRH's spies
>> might be listening, but in the small shuls and shtiblach
>> it was omitted.

> Is this your guess, or someone else's guess, or were you told this by
> people who were actually there?

This is what I heard from my father who was there under Stalin, and
from my grandfather who was about 12 when the revolution came, and who
undoubtedly heard it from his father and grandfather, who were there
under the KYRH.

> This is a good example of something which is probably impossible to
> prove or disprove, as no one would have written such things down. But
> if it is indeed true, it would explain why some communities don't say
> it. It always seemed to me a natural and important thing to say.
> (Didn't we have a thread on this a few months ago?) But if it is true
> that no one ever said it until the gov't wanted it, then I would
> understand why some communities have chosen to drop it.

I think it also depends which empire people lived in.  AIUI, the
Emperor Franz-Josef's Jewish subjects genuinely loved him, and did say
the prayer for him even when his spies weren't watching, whereas the
same can't be said for Czar Nikolai and his predecessors.

 
> (BTW: What does KYRH stand for? My guess is that the K is Kaiser, but
> I'm clueless on the rest.)

Keisar Yarum Hodo.  It was the standard Hebrew appellation for the Czar.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

 


Rich, Joel wrote:

> Question: What was the driving force behind the takkana of rabbeinu 
> gershom on monogamy?

Wasn't it his own experience of the consequence of lack of sholom bayis?

-- 
Zev Sero               
================================
I don't know, but that sounds like something for a tzavah for his family
rather than uprooting an eon's old practice for all klal yisrael.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' Micha Berger quoted
> a group of notzrim looking to pray for financial success
> went to the famous statue at Bowling Green ...
> To quote, "We are going to intercede at the site of the
> statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a
> shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will
> be the 'Lion's Market,' or God's control over the
> economic systems."

There may have been more that was said there, but from just this quote, it
is clear to me that their prayer was directed specifically to G-d, and not
to the statue. They ascribe no power to the statue itself, and are only
making a reference to what the statue represents.

To me, this sounds comparable to occasions when Jewish groups pray at the
UN's Isaiah Wall, specifically because of the message that it bears. OTOH,
granting importance to a statue may in itself be a violation of something;
I'm not really up on my Hilchos Avodah Zara. (But if that is indeed a
problem, we'd better stay away from the statue of Liberty.)

Akiva Miller


_____________________________________________________________________
A New Way to Get Free & Discounted Offers -- FreeInternet.com!
Visit http://offers.juno.com/TGL112
1/?u=http://www.freeinternet.com

On lying for the sake of PR see the rashi on Avraham and Terach
In translation
"Why then does Scripture mention the death of Terah before the
departure of Abram? In order that this matter (his leaving home during
his father's lifetime) might not become known to all, lest people say
that Abram did not show a son's respect to his father, for he left him
in his old age and went his way.  (In other words, the Torah
purposefully mentioned Terah's death before the actual time of its
occurrence.)"

ie the Torah purposely lied so that people wouldn't accuse Avraham .of
mistreating his father

BTW when referring to Avraham before his name is changed should we use
Abram or Abraham? Since once his name
is changed we no longer use Abram but OTOH that was his name at the time



-- 
Eli Turkel

<<Question: What was the driving force behind the takkana of rabbeinu
gershom on monogamy?>>

According to historians it was because the surrounding Xtian society
was monogamous as distinct from the Moslem community. I doubt you
would find any posek saying this but rather stressing family stability
(what not the sefardim?)
I have seen articles claiming that ashkenazi rishonim were more
pro-women in general than sefardi rishonim because of the mores of the
surrounding societies.

Just read an article about the yeshivot of Baalei haTosafot and
remarking that they appeared at the same time as the beginnings of the
university in Europe. The author stresses that it does not mean that
one group copied from the other but rather the ideas were in the air
and developed independently. The same notion can apply to other areas.

As an aside historians discuss whether Rabbenu Gershom ever issued an
edict against bigamy. The  references are many years later and the
recodrs of the time indicate numerous takkanot of Rabbenu Gershom
(actually his bet din) but not including bigamy or opening of letters
-- 
Eli Turkel

First, I thank R' Zev Sero's response. It certainly troubles me, but I
cannot say it disagrees with what I already knew; he reaffirms what I
had already seen myself. Obviously, one cannot create a solution to a
problem if said solution is not authentic.

> You're again teetering very close to Historical School.
> R' Micha

Very possibly. I remember when I was reading Rav Hirsch on Frankel,
and a lot of what Frankel said, I found objectionable only if his
unspoken intention was of a certain variety. I.e., many of his
statements I found could be read more than one way, and only one of
the two sounded heretical.

For example, Frankel says the laws in Seder Zeraim are likely very
ancient. Now, Rav Hirsch reads this as meaning there is no Sinaitic
Oral Law, and that the Rabbis **made up**, **invented** the laws of
Zeraim, albeit a long time ago - this I would very much agree is
heretical!

But you could just as well read Frankel as saying that the laws of
Zeraim, as an application of Sinaitic (yes, Sinaitic mamash)
principles to new and everchanging conditions, were formulated a long
time ago, and haven't changed since agriculture doesn't change (until
recent technology). I.e., since agriculture is stable, the practical
application of Sinaitic agricultural principles is also stable. On the
other hand, the Biblical and Talmudic economies were VERY different,
so Sinaitic economic principles would have to be adapted and
interpreted according to whatever method they were.

Indeed, the Soncino Zeraim says that the halakhot of Zeraim are
largely anonymous because they were formulated a long time ago and had
their machlokets solved long before the Mishnah, and Soncino is
certainly Orthodox (left-wing, it is true).

So I think a huge factor in the validity of the Historical school is
intention. Is it because one finds halakhah burdensome and wants to
get rid of as much as one can, or is it an honest intention to
discover the truth of Hashem's Sinaitic Oral Law? In other words, it
is a disingenuous attempt to get rid of halakhah by ascribing it to
humans, or is it an honest attempt to discover what "lo bashamayim hi"
in truly Sinaitic law means? David Glasner, regarding the Dor Revi'i,
writes that even though the Dor Revi'i was accused of Wissenschaft
tendencies, the difference is that the Dor Revi'i was committed to
halakhah. This, I think, makes ALL the difference.

For the record, Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein's Preface to the Soncino
Midrash Rabbah reads very much like Dor Revi'i and Rabbi Berkovits. I
know Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz refers to Jews' College as the sister of
JTS, but remember that this was during the Orthodox days of JTS when
there was thought of fusing JTS and YU.

It is also interesting that when I emailed Kahal Adath Yeshurun about
my views on the Oral Law, the talmid hakham whom they had answer me,
told me that my views are certainly reconcilable with Rav
Hirsch's....!!!!! I only expected an answer on why Rav Hirsch would
disagree with me (I wondered how Rav Hirsch would rebut my support of
Frankel-ish views), but instead, he told me that very likely, Rav
Hirsch would not...!!!!! So maybe it is only the one reading of
Frankel that Rav Hirsch would object to, and not my own reading of
Frankel.

This talmid hakham (who was appointed by KAJ itself to answer me) also
had a refreshing take on TIDE versus TuM: he told me that there are
TuMists who view secular studies as a means to understand the Torah
and to better fulfill "pru u'rvu u'milu et ha'aretz u'cavshah", and
others who see TuM as giving limudei hol their own independent value
as their own end in and of themselves. He said the former type of TuM
would be the same as TIDE, no difference, and that only the latter
type of TuM is objectionable.

Obviously, I hope I have not misunderstood this talmid hakham's responses to me!

Mikha'el Makovi

I should note that my question of hypocrisy applies only for those who
reject the Meiri's thesis. According to Rabbi Dr. David Berger, Meiri
is accepted as halakhah l'maaseh by Rabbis Hirsch, Herzog, Ahron
Soloveichik, Y. Y. Weinberg, and Kook. If so, my question of hypocrisy
does not arise; only for those who reject Meiri does it arise.

In other words, my question should really be phrased as follows: For
those who do not follow Meiri, how does one answer the apparent
hypocrisy? I thank R' Zev Sero for his candid answer.

I believe that viewing the following two URLs would prove my point
that a Meiri-ish shita obviates the charge of hypocrisy (assuming it
is not apologetics):
1) R' Ahron - http://uriltzedek.webnode.com/news/rav-ahron-solo
veichik-civil-rights-and-the-dignity-of-man/
2) R' Mendel Hirsch (R' Hirsch's son) -
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/judaism_and_XXentiles.html
(replace the XX with a "g" - I want to prevent antisemitic Google
searches)

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 370
***************************************

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..."