Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 65

Wed, 25 Sep 2024

• 1. Re: Davening without a minyan (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. She'asah Li Kol Tzorkhi (Micha Berger)
• 3. Toras Chayim veAhavas Chessed (Micha Berger)
• 4. Bikurim -- halakhah lemaaseh (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Bikurim -- halakhah lemaaseh (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Bikurim -- halakhah lemaaseh (Ilana Elzufon)
• 7. Re: Bikurim -- halakhah lemaaseh (Micha Berger)
• 8. women kaddish (Joel Rich)
• 9. Re: women kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Bakoshas Mechila and Being Mefayess (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Kamtza /Bar Kamtza (Micha Berger)

R' Akiva Miller:

> I was listening to a shiur from Rav Shmuel Fuerst of Chicago.
> You can get the shiur at https://torahanytime.com/lectures/307384

> At approximately 42:51 in the audio version, or 42:43 in the video,
> he says (referring to the 3rd bracha after Krias Shema in Maariv in
> Chu"l), "If you daven b'yechidus you never say Baruch Hashem L'Olam."

> Has anyone else ever heard that? Is it written anywhere? It certainly
> makes sense if the *only* reason for that bracha is to delay the davening
> for the latecomers. But I recall other reasons for that bracha, according to
> which it should be said even b'yechidus. If anyone knows of published
> sources, please share.

In the "Behr Siddur" - the Yekkish Avodath Yisroel with the commentary
of Yitzchok ben Aryeh Yosef Dov, printed originally by Rodelheim in
5628 - you will find various versions as to the history behind Baruch
Hashem L'Olam in Maariv.

1. Rosh, Mordechaim Tur, Tosfos Brochos 4b: From the Gaonim period, to
delay the Tzibur so that latecomers wouldn't be left behind in the
outlying shuls. That's why there are 18 Shemos Havaya.

2. R' Yona Tuva in his student's peirush to the Rif, Brochos 3b: When
Maariv was still a Reshus they said this instead of the Amida, and
never abolished it.

Similarly in the Tanya Siman 9, quoting Rashi. (Probably Tanya
Rabbati, not the Chabad one.)

Also Ibn Yarchi in the beginning of his Sefer Hamanhig, though he says
there are 19 Shemos, since he includes Adnus.

3. Semag (Positive 19) converges these 2 opinions and writes that his
Mori, Rabeinu Yehuda ben Yitzchok explains that these were instituted
post Talmudic times, when Maariv was a Reshus, when people davened in
the fields, etc.

4. Rosh Ba'al HaMinhogos and Rashba in Responsa 14: dates back to a
Shmad period when Amida was forbidden.

5. Rashi Brochos 31: so that one starts Amida from a Simcha shel Mitzva.

6. Avudraham (Gate 2) quoting R' Avraham ben Shushan: To compensate
for not having Chazoras Hashatz during Maariv.

I have not cross-checked any of these references, some of which I have
never heard of before.

But now we have 6 reasons why Baruch Hashem L'Olam was instituted.

Kol Tuv - Ksiva VaChasima Tova

- Danny
Download a free copy of my book at https://doniels.gumroad.com/l/book1

There is a Gra I have raised her a number of times in the past that
distinguishes between two modes of prayer:

tefillah / tzelosah: fixed liturgy used to *impress* into our minds what
    Chazal expect a healthy relationship with the Borei would focus on

tachaninim / uva'iseha: *expressing* to Hashem for what's actually on
    our minds

Although I would add that it seems we should not make either mode pure --
"kol ha'oseh tefilaso keva, lo asah tefilaso tachanunim". And Elokai
Netzor started out being Mar bar Ravina's techanunim "basar tzelosa",
and the section we actually call Tachanun both became codified in the
siddur. I would guess they are intended to be trellises, and not just
to be recited as is with no embellishment.

(Think of when we say "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon dekhol Beis
Yisrael...")

So much the background, now for something new:

According to the aforementioned Gra, tefillah is always in the plural. If I
ask for something for myself (e.g. Elokai Netzor instead of Elokeinu
leshoneinu meira...) it must be tachanunim.

Then I noticed She'asah li kol tzorkhi (Who does for me everything I
need)... And then I noticed that as a whole Birkhos haShachar flips back
and forth. The shelo asani-s are in singular, but then "ozeir Yisrael",
"oteir Yisrael" "hameikhin / asheir heikhin mitz'adei gever" are all
about the Jewish people or all of humanity in general.

I don't have a general answer, but the train of thought led to a
kavvanah....

One can say about She'asah liv kol tzorkhi, the berakhah I originally
noticed being in the singular, that part of the point is to realize
that each of us have different needs. Hashem gives me exactly what I
need. Even if that's not the level of parnasah my neighbor has, what I
have is custom-set to exactly what I need.

(When I wrote the point of that last paragraph to a small WhatsApp group,
somoene said R Chaim Kanievsky says as much in Orechos Yosher baTefillah.)


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 We are great, and our foibles are great,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and therefore our troubles are great --
Author: Widen Your Tent      but our consolations will also be great.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Rabbi AY Kook

I want to ask a subtle question about the meaning of one part of Sim Shalom.

Are we saying that Hashem gave us (1) Toras Chayim, (2) veAhavas Chessed,
(3) uTzedaqah, (4) uVerakhah, (5) veRachamim, (6) veChayim, (7) veShalom

or that Hashem gave us a Torah of (1) Chayim, (2) veAhavas Chessed,
(3) uTzedaqah...

Is (eg) Ahavas Chessed something Hashem gave us as a separate gift, or
a second property of a list of adjectives for the Torah He gave us?

And if the former, why does this list differ from the opening one -- they
both have Shalom, Berakhah, Chessed, although in a different sequence,
but why does one have Tovah and Chein, while the other has Tzedaqah,
Rachamim and Chayim? And why Chessed vs Ahavas Chessed?

It would seem the first list are berakhos in how Hashem treats us, and
the latter are things He taught us to do for others. And that would explain
why the first list is six items -- we get peace in this world in 6 -- but
the second list has seven -- since it is about living peacefully, not getting
peace.

Although that could be true whether these are descriptions of the Torah
or descriptions of 7 distinct berakhos.

What do you think?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but by rubbing one stone against another,
Author: Widen Your Tent      sparks of fire emerge. 
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

BH the bank, my wife, and I now own a home in Israel that has fruit trees
in the yard -- apple, madnarin, and pomelo. We hope to add pomegranates
and mangos. (And someday maybe the Jewish Agency will approve our aliyah
and we can reach this home. Our planned aliyah date was over a month ago.)

Nechemiah 10:36 talks about "uvikurei kol peri kol eitz". On which Rashi
says something that was a chiddush to me: Bikurim of all fruit of the
tree is midivrei chakhamim.

While bikurim of the 7 minim is deOraisa, this idea that there is bikurim
derbaanan on all fruit was a chiddush to me.

Do "we hold like" this Rashi?

Then I had the second question... When does bikurim begin, if we do get
to plant that pomegranate tree? Is there bikurim on orlah? Neta revai?

Does anyone know of a sefer halakhah lemaaseh that I can refer to? (It's
not like my LOR in NJ felt prepared to field questions of bikurim.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Here is the test to find whether your mission
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   on Earth is finished:
Author: Widen Your Tent      if you're alive, it isn't.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Richard Bach

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:09:23AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Do "we hold like" this Rashi?
...

Okay, ignore the previous post. Bikurim is only bizman habayis.

Rambam Bikkurim 1:2
Tosafos Makkos 19a "mah"

Bartenura Sheqalim 8:8 says this is shitas R Yehudah, and the Y-mi
says we hold like RY over the Chakhamim.

Etc... (Electronic search, not insstant beqi'us.)

So, new question... Why not? Yes, therew is no BHMQ to being it to.
But why aren't we obligated to be mafrish bikkurim and then let them
rot, hafrashas challah style?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but by rubbing one stone against another,
Author: Widen Your Tent      sparks of fire emerge. 
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 5:59PM Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:09:23AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>> Do "we hold like" this Rashi?

> Okay, ignore the previous post. Bikurim is only bizman habayis.
...
> So, new question... Why not? Yes, therew is no BHMQ to being it to.
> But why aren't we obligated to be mafrish bikkurim and then let them
> rot, hafrashas challah style?

On one foot (and I could be wrong), but just looking at the mishna it seems
that bikkurim have no minimum shiur (as we say every morning) and that
there is no problem similar to tevel if a tiny amount of bikkurim is mixed
in with regular produce, so there are no tangible consequences to not
designating bikkurim. Conversely, there's no way to do the mitzva without
Beit Hamikdash and tumah v'tahara.

Hafrashat challa seems to me somewhat unique, in that it was deliberately
extended to chu"l, despite the lack of tumah v'tahara, in order that "it
not be forgotten from Israel." I have wondered whether the dedication to
preserving specifically hafrashat challa (currently derabbanan even in EY)
has anything to do with women's strong connection to that particular mitzva.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:23:27AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote:
> On one foot (and I could be wrong), but just looking at the mishna it seems
> that bikkurim have no minimum shiur (as we say every morning) and that
> there is no problem similar to tevel if a tiny amount of bikkurim is mixed
> in with regular produce, so there are no tangible consequences to not
> designating bikkurim. Conversely, there's no way to do the mitzva without
> Beit Hamikdash and tumah v'tahara.

Challah's shiur deOraisa is a perutah. Because there is no "nesinah" of
less than a perutah.

The AhS estimates that the homeowner's 1/24 or the baker's 1/48 is actually
worth a peturah. His logic is quite clever, but also quite involved. See
YD 322:3 (which happens to start today's AhSY)
<http://www.sefaria.org/Arukh_HaShulchan%2C_Yoreh_De'ah.322.3>

> Hafrashat challa seems to me somewhat unique, in that it was deliberately
> extended to chu"l, despite the lack of tumah v'tahara, in order that "it
> not be forgotten from Israel." I have wondered whether the dedication to
> preserving specifically hafrashat challa (currently derabbanan even in EY)
> has anything to do with women's strong connection to that particular mitzva.

Or perhaps the reverse causality -- the Mishnah (Shabbos 2:6) identifies
nidah, challah and hadlaqas haneir as women's mitzvos. It could be that
the typical woman was zehirah in challah even before the churban, which
is why the Sanhedrin found it important to keep alive.

Perhaps more telling, but further from the churban... Mes Geirim 1:4
<https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Gerim.1.4> says that we require a
giyores accept these three mitzvos.

Looking that up, I found something interesting yet further from the
subject line:
Whereas a man (1:3) has to accept leqet, shikhechah, pei'ah. So a male
geir has to accept mitzvos of chessed singled out from the big picture,
whereas a giyores has to accept ritual mitzvos. Given today's chinukh
priorities, we would have assumed the reverse, if anything.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
Author: Widen Your Tent                    -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

I?ve heard R H Schachter say that women saying kaddish can?t be on the
other side of a permanent mechitza but must come on the side with 10 men
when saying kaddish. I believe he also said that there should be 10 (or 9?)
men answering for each person saying kaddish. Has anyone seen these
positions actually practiced?
KVCT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240925/dac1f514/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 09:06:27AM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> I've heard R H Schachter say that women saying kaddish can't be on the
> other side of a permanent mechitza but must come on the side with 10 men
> when saying kaddish...

This was how Beis Brisk reports the Minhag in Vilna.

If a niftar only left daughters, a daughter would say Qaddish for him
at the entrance to the men's section.

See also IM OC 5:12, who also says it's an old minhag. Makes it sound
more universal than Vilna specific.

And R Yosef Henkin (and yes, I mean R Yosef, not our late member, the
BB, who often addressed this kind of topic) says that now that we have
multiple mourners saying Qaddish, there is more reason for a woman to
say it too.

In contrast, REMT wrote on these "pages" that the only heter for
having multiple aveilim saying Qaddish is that saying Qaddish pushed
the avel to show up for minyan. Many men who were lacksidasical minyan
attendees started attending 3 times a day during aveilus, and keep on
going afterward.

Which means that since women aren't obligated to attend minyan, would
REMT allow a woman to be another Qaddish zogger if there are others?
(I'm BCC-ing, and we will see if he replies.)


>                      I believe he also said that there should be 10 (or 9?)
> men answering for each person saying kaddish. Has anyone seen these
> positions actually practiced?

Here's my difficulty with this idea...

Qaddish doesn't actually require a minyan present. You can say Qaddish
after a section of tefillah or a shiur if there was a minyan for the
event itself, even if they left before Qaddish! All you really need for
Qaddish is 6 people who were part of a minyan for the event itself.

(I am struggling to know what that says about the definiition of a
davar shebiqdushah.)

Yeah, surprised me too. I commented on it on-list when this cycle of
AhSY got to that din (OC 55:7).

So how could you need a minyan for each person saying it (whether or not
you count that person) if you don't need a minyan of people answering
to begin with!


The Kaf haChaim (55:31) requires 2 people who aren't saying Qaddish,
so that "Ve'Imru Amein" has some meaning -- ve'imru being a plural of
people being addressed. So in a minimal minyan of 10 people, he allows
up to 8 people to say Qaddish.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The thought of happiness that comes from outside
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
Author: Widen Your Tent      the value of one's will and the freedom brought
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:41:35PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> The RaMBaMs ruling that one must confess their interpersonal sins in public?

2:5 opens "Veshshevach gadol lashav sheyisvadeh berabbim", which to me
would imply it's not an obligation.

> Has anyone heard of the following being practiced or advocated in recent
> times?
> The sinner approaching 3 friends of the victim and persuading them to
> approach the victim, together with the sinner,
> that they appeal to their friend, the victim, to forgive the sinner?

In 2:9, this is something to do if you cannot get the offended party to
forgive you any other way. So, you ask friends for help. Not sure why
it wouldn't be practiced. Seems like solid common-sense advice.

Unless telling those friends what you did would further embarass or
offend the other party.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 You will never "find" time for anything.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   If you want time, you must make it.
Author: Widen Your Tent                        - Charles Buxton
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 8:36pm EDT, R Joel Rich wrote:
> Response to a piece on Kamtza /Bar Kamtza:
> The interesting question to me is whether there is self-awareness...
> s                            and, if so, wonder how you convince anybody to
> step outside themselves and realize that they are rationalization a deeper
> personality issue....

This is why a Cheshbon haNefesh is so critical.

Aside from the things the ChN itself turns up, doing one regularly means
practicing reassessing your reactions and responses on a regular basis.
Developing a habit of taking time to look at your thoughts as though from
the outside.


On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 1:43am GMT, R Joseph Kaplan replied to RJR:
>>                    This is especially true for leaders who are put on a
>> pedestal IMHO.

> I think Joel hits the nail in his penultimate sentence...

Like the gemara (Horiyos 10b) on "Asher nasi yechta" (Vayiqra 4:22):
    Ashrei is the generation whose nasi pays attention to bring a
    kaparah on his shegogis, and qal vachomer on his zedonos.
(And to make sure you don't miss it, Rashi on the pasuq says "Asher
- lashon ashrei". The gemara is working of the unique word choice
for "when" or "if". Contrast to ve'im in pesuqim 1:13.)

> I used to blame RZVA for the churban, but in this regard he's behind two
> groups of chachamim: those who attended the party and were silent when
> Bar Kamtza was insulted and those who were silent when RZBA made his
> decision and didn't take whatever actions were necessary to ensure that
> such detrimental decisions were not permitted to stand.

According to the version in Eikhah Rabba 4:3 RZbA's involvement in the
story starts when he was one of the rabbanim, perhaps the leading figure,
at the party and because of the same anvanus, didn't speak up.

(I think historians agree that Eikhah Rabba 4 is about the same age as
Talmud Bavli. Zunz [whoever he was] points out that there must have been a
couple of later insertions, but I don't think this story is on the list.)

Tangent: I think there is a point here being made by the use of the word
"anvanus", literally "humble person-ness" rather than "anavah" = humility.
Moshe was anav me'od mikol adam, and I know that because he didn't balk
when Hashem had him record that fact for me. Being an anav, if one is
doing it right, doesn't cause inaction.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 When faced with a decision ask yourself,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
Author: Widen Your Tent      at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                          - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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



_______________________________________________
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.)