Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 124

Thu, 06 Oct 2016

• 1. Re: Individual vs. Society (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rav Melamed on Metal Pots (Micha Berger)
• 3. Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: Tzom Kal (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Re: Rav Melamed on Metal Pots (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: N'kom L'aynaynu (Ezra Chwat)
• 7. Re: N'kom L'aynaynu (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Tzom Kal (Micha Berger)
• 9. shofar (Eli Turkel)
• 10. conservatism in davening (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: N'kom L'aynaynu (Lisa Liel)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption
: that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could
: consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently
: than an individual citizen's "rights")

: Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source
: which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment
: in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life
: to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe
: that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent
: even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a
: total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be
: any different from any other transgression....

Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That
there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of
individuals? If so, I agree.

Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual
significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance
is a rational consequence of the sociological significance.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
:> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah.

:> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments.

:> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which
:> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap.

: If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a
: keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are
: relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance
: that we have shishim against it.

I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote.

In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure
not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah,
we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels,
even in lekhat-chilah cases.

(Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in
as a tangent.)

As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one
can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with
beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed,
or anything else we raised.

Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from
those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not
the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote:

> While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The
> MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.)

This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I
would like to direct y'all's attention to
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf

I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to
Areivim in June 2002:

> ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with
> some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf>
> Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos,
> not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into
> to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC
> published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to
> hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out
> as soon as posible.
>
> ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he
> believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of
> L.A.

My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was
written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that
the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos.

But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein
either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov
was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not
have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly
that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely
would have mentioned it here and there.

["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections
that aren't on that list.]

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161005/e53d2527/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg posted:

: An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age...
: ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily
: replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for
: Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur,
: not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger
: to your health."

I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating.
Thank you.

R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels:

> An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his
> doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast
> anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it
> led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the
> deceased, stating that he had committed suicide.

Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov
Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R'
Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112):

> An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he
> assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will
> reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an
> analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur
> as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the
> daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a
> certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was
> necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city
> which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually
> completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father,
> however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained
> that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there
> was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether.
> It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn
> to personally that he would endanger his life during the few
> extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would
> delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep
> that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by
> letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He
> gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat
> unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation
> the entire minyan is allowed to eat.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161005/4a1cb103/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a
communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for
fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like
to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can
show me my error.

Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean":

1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it
interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't
any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if
there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with
"ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter.

2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering
it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get
rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue
before the hag'alah begins.

My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any
tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of
residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap
is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been
available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun).
Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so
the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to
kasher.

But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once
the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either:
1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or
2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal).

The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot.
No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards
removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The
ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into
the very material that the pot is made of.

Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that
a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is
not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual,
tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these
halalchos?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161005/be3b4c84/attachment-0001.htm>

"It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and
I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more
significant than I realize?"

This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the
persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in
Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I
will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such
vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20).

Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of
vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF
recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying
of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were
losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu
(Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian.

The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this
appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples
from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice:

Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/
Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v,
and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu
Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323
fol. 17r
L'eyneinu:
http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=
IE26730681
leaf 10a

Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely
conforming to the censored version.

This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a
nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one
see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can
see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value
in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we
are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder
(Num. 35).

Dr. Ezra Chwat

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote:
: This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the
: persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in
: Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I
: will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such
: vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20).
...
: This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a
: nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one
: see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can
: see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value
: in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we
: are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder
: (Num. 35).

You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do.

C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo".

Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting
someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more
than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication
to those who are already convinced.

Which is how I understood "le'eineinu".

Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian
from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes
beyond neqamah.

So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked
in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get
an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.)

I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to
the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir
al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai
and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking
neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has
"hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad
miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak?

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

RAM, quoting MOAG:
> An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he
> assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will
> reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an
> analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur
> as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the
> daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a
> certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was
> necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city
> which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually
> completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father,
> however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained
> that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there
> was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether.
> It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn
> to personally that he would endanger his life during the few
> extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would
> delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep
> that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by
> letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He
> gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat
> unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation
> the entire minyan is allowed to eat.

Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If
there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah
considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there
is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case.

But on a less prevocative note...

According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even
adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking
even 25 min after sheqi'ah.

Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like
R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and
yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim.

Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus?

GCT!
-Micha

An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the
blowing or the listening (or both)

In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts
which is only bi-dieved.
I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous
complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded
himself before RH  and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves.

Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the
shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average
person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession?
(again bi-deved one is certainly OK)
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161006/514c46a0/attachment-0001.htm>

In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are
clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed
Some examples

In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the
end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have
looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon"
starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch"
Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon"

There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our
version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which
actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon
Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza
has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes
from a different version

Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part .
This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first
and second part of the phrase.
Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech"

Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu"  we say - dagul me-revava  - hu
sach vayehi", and also
"Vezivah ve-nivrau  - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The
original was
"hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and  "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim"

The introduction to the machzor I use  claims that the original minhag was
 that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would
complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said
everything which led to all sorts of errors.

Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them!


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161006/07371c26/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish
> din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get
> theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care?

I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God 
take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort.  I know that 
we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is 
pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be 
condemned.  When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* 
against fellow Jews (bnei amecha).

It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who 
oppressed you brought low.  Even ignoring the perennial argument I have 
with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think 
*anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* 
wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood.

We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance.  But given 
the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely 
on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time.

Lisa


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



_______________________________________________
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.)