Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 66

Sun, 29 Sep 2024

• 1. Challah (Was re: Bikurim -- halakhah lemaaseh) (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Bikurim -- halakhah lemaaseh (Danny Schoemann)
• 3. 1. Singular and Plural; 2. Torath Xayyim; 3. Eikha Rabba (Jay F. Shachter)
• 4. Women kaddish (Meir Shinnar)

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:23:27AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote:
> <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.

As AhSY continues down YD 322, I encountered something else that
differentiates challah.

Wheat that grows in chu"l but is kneaded in Israel is chayav in challah
mideOraisa. And v.v. wheat from EY kneaded in chu"l only required is
miderabbanan. Because the chiyuv is on dough, not the grain itself,
the chiyuv follows where it became dough.

nd as the AhSY says in se'if 10, Chazal were therefore more strict by
challah than terumos umaaseros, because mecehezei kechovas haguf velo
kechovas qarqa.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Man is capable of changing the world for the
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   better if possible, and of changing himself for
Author: Widen Your Tent      the better if necessary.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF          - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

Reb' Ilana Elzufon  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.

You may be saying this, but to clarify:

Produce from which Bikurim was not separated is not Tevel.

So there's no reason to create Bikurim and then have to deal with the
consequences. (And the waste.)

It's a Mishna somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.

Kol Tuv

- Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240926/4354a504/attachment-0001.htm>

> 
> 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 [has] 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.
> 

I don't know why I'm even responding to someone who says "Bartenura",
but I am.

Another kavvanah one can have from the odd (more precisely, it would
strike us as odd, if we weren't accustomed to it) appearance of
singular language in a benediction within a section where singular
language is otherwise not used, is: I must not believe that my
neighbor's (or my wife's, or my husband's, et cetera) needs have been
met.  If I believe that, then I will not help him or her.  In
contrast, I must believe, and be grateful, that my own needs have been
fully met.  `Aseh shabbathkha xol, v'al titztarekh libriyyoth, is the
halakha.  It is not a fashionable sentiment among today's yeshiva
communities, who believe that being a shnorrer is a respectable
occupation, but it is nonetheless the halakha.  Also, grateful people,
c?teris paribus, are happier than ungrateful people.

Except for the embellishments in the last three sentences of the
previous paragraph, I did not originate this kavvanah; I overheard it
from my esteemed neighbor, Aryeh Merzel (who does not read this
mailing list, but I think his brother does, or maybe I am thinking of
the mail.jewish mailing list).

But the kavvanah of the original poster is certainly a worthy and true
one, and there is no reason not to derive two different kavvanoth from
the same passage in the prayer book.

You can also derive it from other sources.  Ibn Ezra derived it from
v'ahavta lre`akha kamokha, which would also sound weird, if we weren't
so accustomed to hearing it -- the lamed is wrong, it ought to be the
word 'eth.  That lamed is the source of ibn Ezra's pshat.



> 
> 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...
> 

Your question assumes that "Torath Xayyim", with "Torath" in the
smikhuth form, is correct.  Sfaradim and members of `Edoth Hammizrax
disagree with you about that.



> 
> (I think historians agree that Eikhah Rabba 4 is about the same age
> as Talmud Bavli.
>

I always thought it was about a century older.  But even if it is no
closer in time than the Bavli to the events that it describes, it is
certainly closer to them in space, as it was composed in Eretz Yisrael.
For that reason alone, it should be considered more authoritative.


               Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
               6424 North Whipple Street
               Chicago IL  60645-4111
                       +1 773 7613784   landline
                       +1 410 9964737   GoogleVoice
                       j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                       http://m5.chicago.il.us

               When Martin Buber was a schoolboy, it must have been
               no fun at all playing tag with him during recess.

RMB
> 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.)

When I was at Princeton in the mid 70s, Rav Pinchas Teitz z"l was the
posek. Issue came up in the Yavneh minyan -- he said a woman could say
kaddish as long as a man also said it( which was also rad Henkin z'"l '
shita). As we had at the time no yetomim, he said that someone could say
kaddish so the woman could also say kaddish IF they would get permission
from their parents -- but that he would recommend against giving that
permission.

Nothing was said that this would be in the men's section

My understanding is that RYBS allowed women to say kaddish even if they
were the only one -- and (IIRC), in Maimonides they said it from the
women's section

RYH Henkin (the BB) IIRC has a related argument related to mechitza
and kaddish -- he argues that in communities where the mechitza is
floor to ceiling(like many Hungarian ones), the women's section is a
separate reshut -- which is part of their opposition to mechitza. Men
who sit in the women's section would also be excluded. However, in the
communities where the mechitza is not quite so complete a separation,
the women's section is not a completely separate reshut -- and women
may say kaddish....

The question to my mind is whether the minhag of Vilna of women coming to
the men's section is due to that they shouldn't say it in the women's
section -- or that if they did it in the women's section in Vilna,
no one would know and answer amen.....

Meir Shinnar


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



_______________________________________________
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.)