Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 147

Mon, 23 Nov 2015

• 1. YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai ()
• 3. Re: changing nusach hatefile (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: Changing Nusach HaTefila ()
• 5. Re: truth ()
• 6. Re: changing nusach hatefile (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: changing nusach hatefile (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: truth (Zev Sero)
• 9. basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age (Isaac Balbin)
• 10. Re: What do we believe about the Kesuvim? (Marty Bluke)
• 11. punishing children for the sins of fathers (Eli Turkel)
• 12. conversion monitoring (saul newman)

YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - 
The Role of Kabalah in Halacha
https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151122/7103ed93/attachment-0001.htm>

 
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500
From: Sholom Simon via  Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

Much ado is made of the world  "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used 
(at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the  woman" will not want to come back 
-- as though he wished that possibility  would happen.  As opposed to 
if he had used the word "pen".

But  in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same 
thing:  "Ulai" my father 
will discover me.  I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and  didn't really 
see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent).   Surely 
somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no?

(My  own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so 
uncomfortable that he  had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get 
caught).

Thoughts  anyone?

-- Sholom

 
 
>>>>
 
The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is  
telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said,  
"Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai."  The word "ulai" here is written without  
the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me."  Maybe if the woman  
doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to 
send  her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), 
then  Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter 
for his  son.
 
In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father  
will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the  vov. And 
therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word.
 
PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a  
drasha on that word.  It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an  
unconscious desire to get caught.  It sounds far-fetched to me but if  true, 
is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject  
line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes  
le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area.  IOW  
he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short 
 time!  His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz,  
that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151122/efab8c01/attachment-0001.htm>

I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown
me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted
previously.

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically
> return to nusach ashkenaz.

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> This is just not true.  Whoever told you such a thing must not
> have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it.

A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but
interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it.

The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd
like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe
writes:

"You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have
started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two
or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the
contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the
Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz."

On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did
not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz.
That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view
as well.

But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing
something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay
for yet another generation to continue on that same path.

And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from
repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151122/6653e985/attachment-0001.htm>

 

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 

>>I believe Rav Moshe held that  while one could switch from Sefard to 
>>Nusach Ashkenaz,  one  could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard.

YL

 
 
>>>>
 
This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim  say 
you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around,  
while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to  Sfard 
but not the other way.  
 
The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach,  that's 
why you can switch back to what your forebears did.  The latter say  Nusach 
Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch  
from what your forebears did to the new improved model.
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151122/cdf8c73b/attachment-0001.htm>

 

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015
From: Eli Turkel via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen  emet le-yaakov)
Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from  Yaakov's
strength

[1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he  is starving and not 
just try
and make a deal under normal  circumstances

[2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting  Yaakov's words 
seems
to make matters worse then better)

[3] Yaakov's  dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share
[4] Running away from  Lavan without telling him

Note that any one instance can be always  explained however there appears a
pattern.

[5] One answer I saw was  that Yaakov improved over time.

[6] However, I find trouble with that  also when Yaakov finally meets Esav 
he
indicates that he will come to Edom  which Rashi explains as meaning in the
days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to  be the plain meaning of the words.
Again we have a case later where need to  explain away Yaakov's words

Looking for help


-- 
Eli  Turkel

 
 
>>>>
 
[1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah.   The 
Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah"  -- he readily gave the  bechorah 
away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt.   Later when he 
cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is  voicing an 
additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation  -- that he 
had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great  relief, 
informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right.   It also 
speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of  the 
birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes.
 
(BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark"  about!  He 
doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the  twins, he 
doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is  
really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he  
doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only 
 tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov 
away  to get a better wife."  She never says, "He has to leave town because 
your  beloved son Esav plans to kill him.")
 
[2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a  
tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual  
falsehood escape his lips.  And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka)  
carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose  
was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled!  Rivka had always  
warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.  When he  
realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the  
deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly  
reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh."  He could have  
withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do  that.  
(See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.)
 
[3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov!  You've got it  
backwards!  Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their  
intended result!  Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy  man, 
and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was  
rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over.
 
[4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and  
property -- very eloquently.  He was dealing with a trickster who  would have 
stolen his wives and children from him!
 
[5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"!  But I  
will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100%  
justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is 
why  He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him,  
changing the younger sister for the older one.
 
[6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, 
 it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history!
 
One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish  tam, 
a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves,  
tricksters and murderers his whole life.  For a tzaddik to be put in such a  
position is a terrible hardship.  That is why he later tells Paroh that his  
life has been one trouble after another.  But it's also another  foreshadowing 
of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews,  who are 
the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the  mercy 
of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with  
Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies.
 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151122/8caa9caa/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
> A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but
> interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it.

It is impossible to interpret it differently.   If someone is reading it
as you suggest then they have misread it.


> But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of
> doing something wrong,

No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite.


> and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think
> it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path.

It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes.


> And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from
> repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong.

He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the
very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd
> like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe
> writes:
>
>
(For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&;pgnum=196)


> "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have
> started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two
> or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the
> contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the
> Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz."
>
> On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did
> not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz.
> That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view
> as well.
>
> But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of
> doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's
> okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path.
>

This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that
RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He
certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the
penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object
to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the
change".

OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which
for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a
change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out
loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in
silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151123/98a10d53/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always
> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.

He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like.  He warned
Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed
him politely he grew suspicious.  So he knew exactly what sort of son
he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring
Esav back.  Rivka knew otherwise.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

> Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 
> 20 years and 7 years).  But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax 
> is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 
> years).  I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at 
> all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah.
> 
> Thoughts anyone?
> 
> ? Sholom


Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi

RHS wrote the following (
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html):

"...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions
when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the
*chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a)
comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the
three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and

*kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the
following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim*
and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim*
were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and
therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim*
were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and
only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim*
based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the
lips", i.e. the spoken word."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151123/ce466924/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-
nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&;utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-
Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e3
11bfd0f-267646509



If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah

observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since

the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the

sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an

extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance.



That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how

Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they

weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were

forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the

children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no

sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or

punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an

important point.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151123/609a0802/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.vosi
zneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-ann
uls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/

question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of
the convert to the beis din  in order to decide if their current level of
practice  is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20151123/3be90706/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/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://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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)