Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 5

Mon, 08 Jan 2018

• 1. Re: Should One Go To Shul Today? (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Problematic customs (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: Merchavyah (Akiva Miller)
• 4. HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. Re: Problematic customs (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Modern knives, and tevilas keilim (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Fwd: VA?EIRA ?Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust? (Richard Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Problematic customs (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Problematic customs (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh (Professor L. Levine)
• 12. Re: Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" (Simon Montagu)

Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because
of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about
this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work
this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of
missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested.

On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to
relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A
major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry,
I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or
a month before Superstorm Sandy.)

Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was
planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be
closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay
inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety
of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the
government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.)

Maybe that's not exactly what happened,  but that's the way I remember the
announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on
Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was
canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for
maariv; we were all on our own.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180105/8a3ca5b8/attachment-0001.html>

Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic 
or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher.

Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is 
problematic, you should drop the custom.

(Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up).

Ben

.

R' Micha Berger asked:
> How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of
> Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are
> unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually
> says, but is it a halachic question at all?

One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say
whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I
don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim.

On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the
meaning and the pronunciation.

Meaning:

Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem.

In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of
the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that
"merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other
examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis.

Pronunciation:

I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then
the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that.
Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them,
and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach,
no?

But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is
printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is
a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the
Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas
Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to
affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the
pronunciation. :-)

Akiva Miller

unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked
with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and
is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel.

The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for
EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs
EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R
Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is
really just an extended Issur Achilah

here are a few other observations
= is Shellil the same as Nefel,
- in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah,  RaMBaM uses the word Nefel
- in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil
= Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live
or dead non-fully-gestated foetus

- in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who
eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he
omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating
flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah,
it must be from a dead beast.
- according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a
Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is
in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be
SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6]

- why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the
prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys
ears or tail of a Beheimah?
This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev
if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not
have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements.
Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the
Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that
it may be cooked with milk and eaten.
Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is
no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh.



Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180107/03ebdbe7/attachment-0001.html>

Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher.
-/-//----
I think it's more that ancient cUstoms	are given the benefit of the doubt
because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would
not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source
available on request
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180107/c88a8ba8/attachment-0001.html>

.
It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these
days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They
sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade.
Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that
didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR
code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The
code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that
the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from?

Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus
exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if
we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job
title?)

To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the
following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly
exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed*
earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect
that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons.
These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not
a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is
coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would
think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting
edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect
the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade.

PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure.

Akiva Miller

  Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? 
> He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? 
> Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. 
> Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. 
> The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way.
> 
>  Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God).
> 
>  (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180107/a5266b34/attachment-0001.html>

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an
adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that
assumes:
> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh."
> He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained
> in the name "Pharaoh."
> Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of
> existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist.

The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the
Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with
their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife.

Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their
notion of afterlife is physical.

I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's
history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And
what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called
back to some spiritual force.

I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made
it through to the Torah Tidbit.

Anyone know the maqor?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW:
:> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic
:> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes
:> kosher.

: I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of
: the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater
: Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz
: laaretz. Source available on request

Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's
wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the
source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat
seder.

Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote:
> (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up).

One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first
in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year,
or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag.

However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit,
and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny
of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more
sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems.

The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS --
he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some
accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come
from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known
conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.)

OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source 
justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept 
"questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean 
"questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't.

Ben

On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag.

The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein.


Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh?
The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts
the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the
Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the
builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon
HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to
complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy
language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's
spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon
HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the
depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from
finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget
Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support.


Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel
Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander,
blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than
such a sin committed in any another language.

Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end
of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe
(Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180108/e62b379a/attachment-0001.html>

I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB
isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief
in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the
original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden,
or transcended in any way."

Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with
Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master.

Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was
historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash
routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries,
either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to
use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit
Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180108/b92b6321/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)