Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 013

Tuesday, April 3 2001

• Re: meaning of zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat (was IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro)
• RE: Burial in Chevron
• Rambam on Tevilas Ezra and Guf Noki of a Baal Keri
• Re Al Horishonim/Tzedoko - VD
• The Woman as Kohein Godol....
• Re: classical authorities who opposed belief in 'gilgul ne
• Vos iz
• Whither VIDC
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #6: MC vol. 1 p. 60 - An Oldie but Goodie
• Voss Iz Der Chilluk #6: MC vol. 1 p. 60 - An Oldie but Goodie: Summary
• Roedelheim Haggadah
• RE: Hah Lachma and Resort Hotels
• kol dichphin
• what constitutes "roasting"
• Chatzos at the Seder
• RE: Chatzos at the Seder
• [none]
• rice on erev pesach this year
• Re: Dor Revi'i on zot torah ha-olah
• Re: classical authorities who opposed belief in 'gilgul ne
• Re: Vos iz
• Re: The Woman as Kohein Godol....
• Re: Burial in Chevron

In a message dated Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:29:29am EST, "David Glasner"
<DGLASNER@ftc.gov> writes:
>       Shabbat shel b'reishit was not experienced by the Jewish people,
> so how could they be commanded to remember it?
>                                 See the "p'tiha to Ikvei ha-Tzon). Thus,
> Shabbat ma-amad har Sinai was the culmination of ma'asseh b'reishit....

Nice, but then why is there a separate zchirah for maamad har sinai?
I always understood zachor et yom hashabbat al pi R'YBS general approach
to zchirah meaning that it has to be more than thought - that zchirah
of shabbat reminds us of our connectionto HKBH on a ruchani level & thus
must change our daily activities (which works better I suppose according
to the Rambam who says that zchirah-even amalkek- is a daily requirement)

KT
Joel

From: Menachem Burack [mailto:Mburack@emiltd.com]
> One of the rabbonim who paskened to delay the burial of the baby in
> Chevron presented two precedents.

> The first from tanach he compared it to the case of Pilegesh B'givah.
> The second is a teshuva of RMF zt"l about delaying the burial of an
> aborted fetus for the purpose of bringing it to an antiabortion rally.

I find these parallels unconvincing. In the case of Pilegesh b'givah,
the dead woman was the subject of the entire war, while here the main
issue is not the particular dead child, but the security of the Chevron
settlers. I.e., the connection is more attenuated.

WRT to abortion: In the case of the fetus, is halanas ha'meis for a fetus
considered as chamur as for someone who was yotzei l'avir haolam? Also,
seeing a dead fetus has a much more powerful impact than merely delaying
burial. I'm sure that the Chevron toshavim could have garnered almost
as much media attention by having the parents go on a hunger strike or
refusing to officially sit shiva (at least any d'rabbanan aspects during
yom rishon) until the government recaptures the hill.

Kol  tuv,
Moshe

I wrote:
>There are those who hold (the Rambam and perhaps most Chasidim?) that
> tevilas Ezra is docheh tefila b'tsibur, if only one or the other is
> possible.

I was remiss in not making it clear that I was I not stating as fact
that the Rambam held this way but rather recalling what I had heard from
one person. The fact is that I do not even recall with certainity that
it was the Rambam that the person cited, it may have been someone else,
I just recall it as being the Rambam.

One of my main reasons for mentioning it, as is the case in many of my
posts, is that I was hoping others would verify or elaborate on it.

R' Seth Mandel wrote:
> As far as the Rambam, goes, he addresses the issue of t'vilas Ezro in two
> places, Hil. Qrias Shma 4:8 and Hil. T'fillo 4:4-6.  In both places he
> clearly and unambiguously states that t'vilas Ezra was botel and that people
> may daven l'hatt'hila without goint to the miqva....

Okay, I will take your word for it until I see it proven otherwise but
since you bring up the inyan of washing...

R' Yitzchok Zirkind mentioned a while back that the halocho is that a
baal keri may wear tefillin but not "b'od she hakeri olov". It would
seem that rechitsa b'mayim is necessary in order to fully accomplish that.

- Noach

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> 1. Is it common for siddurim to have the chazzan stopping at Al Harishonim
> after kriat shma rather than at laad kayamet?

AFAIK it's sometimes done - but not common.

> 2.The practice of giving tzedakah in the middle of vayivarech david is
> brought down in at least one contemporary siddur as the seeming common
> practice. 

Most places AFAIK,the plate is taken around during 'hoich shmoneh esreh'.

I have seen those people who want to follow the Arizal, take out and
prepare their coin during Vayvorech Dovid and place it in the plate
later during HSE.

SBA

R' Avigdor Miller, shlita, said that if a woman has the k'vono to enable her
children and husband to be oveid Hashem when she is cooking for them, she is
like the Kohein Godol offering korbonos in the Beis H"M and the stove becomes
like the mizbeach. Furthermore, he said, that everything she does in the house
w/ this kovono is sanctified like this.

[See also <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n284.shtml#11>, where R'in
Gila Atwood describes the same idea quite poetically. Worth a review. -mi]

- Noach

Mordechai wrote:
> Here are some mareh miqomos for those who opposed belief in gilgul -
> 3) Rash"i (?) - A while ago, while learning Devorim, the following caught my 
> attention. In Devorim 24:16 Rashi says that it's possible (chas vesholom) for 
> children to die due to sins of (their) fathers - one should note that Rashi 
> makes no mention of (what many folks nowadays might bring up re such a case) 
> the theory those who promote the idea of gilgulim/reincarnation would be wont 
> to mention in such a case (that the child who dies was a reincarnated
> soul,etc.). Perhaps some would say that that may indicate that Rash"i 
> followed in the footsteps of Rav Saadia and didn't believe in gilgul.

I'm not so sure that this is a good diyuk. Rashi is just quoting the
language of the Sifrei. I don't think he added a word (but I don't have
either in front of me).

It is also interesting to note the philosophically oriented rishonim
who believed in gilgul. For example, R. Chasdai Crescas (towards the end
of Or Hashem, in a chapter whose title mentions gilgul) and R. Yitzchak
Abarbanel (in his peirush al haTorah on the parshah of yibum).

Gil Student

[I'm allowing this meta-conversation go on Avodah because I know a number
of VIDC addicts do not read Areivim. -mi]

I agree with the plaintant that "vos iz" does not present Torah in a clear
fashion. Yet see RCPS in his intro to the sefer Mishmeres Chaim that a
once-a-week emphasis on sevara promotes Torah study. As is written there
RCPS practices this technique in his yeshiva and with his grandchildren.
As a witness I may add, as expected, with his great-grandchildren too.

I feel that a vos-iz format is more appropriate for avodah than one person
submitting an entire shtikel-Torah. Perhaps an alternative format with
moderator could be developed for those who want an entire sugya presented.
Whenever one person submits a whoe sugya, there are 1001 side-comments
spinning for some time, boring the majority of the readership. Focus is
gained by having a smaller, halacha-oriented subject.

Shlomo Goldstein

These are some of the responses I received:

#1:

>I never got into it.
>the idea propounded of learning through a sugya with shitos rishonim is 
>much much more attractive to me as a starting point and continued discussion

#2:

>I very much like the thought of learning the various shitos. The reason I 
>only posted once or twice at the beginning is that on further reflection 
>it seemed that everyone else's teyrutsim were a lot better.

>I vote for the chaburah idea -- or perhaps you could assign various 
>derachim to various people on a weekly basis, so that each of us gets some 
>practice in "thinking Ungarish [etc.]" each week, and the sevaros are more 
>carefully worked out?

#3:

>There is truth to the tayno, since just to throw sevoros around w/o 
>yesodos & raayos is somewhat silly (esp. the discussion on bittul & dvorim 
>shebelev).But it's your call as I'm a lurker (but there is entertainment 
>value ...).

#4:

>I would be more than happy to continue either as it is now or with the 
>other alternative you propose in this e-mail (each person prepares a Sicum 
>Hashitos).  I enjoy it and it gives me something to think about.

#5:

>I like what I've seen of VIDC thus far, and I wish I could make the time 
>to do more than lurk.  Keep up the good work.


#6:

>I would hate to see it go.

So, it seems the consensus is that there is to'eles to continuing, but that 
there is an Oilem that wants something more. I have bcc'd the individual 
who raised the original critique in the hope that "Karynah d'Igarta eehu 
lehevei parvanka." I think the idea of chaburos is great, but someone else 
(he or another subscriber) will have to undertake the project. We will IY"H 
continue with VIDC.

BTW, my wife tells me that we are actually trailblazers, as Internet based 
Jewish learning is a hot topic in Education circles and we have come up 
with a pretty good system that others might want to analyze and replicate. 
Micha, can we copyright and sell the idea? :-)

#7:

>I like reading VIDC when I have the opportunity, although I find that I
>don't have the time to actually participate, and I often don't even have the
>time to read each and every VIDC submission.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Suprised no one has suggested some simple chilukim yet:

1) The chiyuv of sefira is based on zecher l'mikdash. Even though the
kiyum is related to a specific zman, the mechayev of making a zecher
l'mikdash is non-zman related.
2) sefira is derabbanan. Mach. Rashi and Tos. whether there is a ptur
of zman gerama by derabbanans.

I presume the split between days and weeks as a function of korban is
based on R"H 5, and you would come up with a chiddush that woman have
to count the weeks and not days?

This week, zachah, melachto na'aseis al yedei acherim!

We asked:

>OK, Rabbosai, this is, as noted, an Oldie but Goodie. Let's get the
>creative juices flowing and come up with some new and innovative
>approaches!
>
>Inyana d'yoma (almost):
>
>The Divrei Yechezkel 45:4 asks why the Ramban categorizes Sefiras ha'Omer
>as a Mtizvas Aseh *she'ein* ha'zman grama - how is different than any
>Mitzvas Aseh she'ha'zman grama - it is, after all, linked to a time.
>
>Voss Iz Der Chilluk?

From RGS, and then from a Ba'al Ma'aseh, REMT, the Brisker answer: Two 
types of Mitzvah that are time contingent:

RGS:
> I think the Seridei Eish answers the exact opposite. Sefirah is
>not a mitzvah that is DEPENDENT on time but rather the mitzvah IS time
>(i.e. to count time).

REMT:
>Your most recent "voss is der chiluk" about the Ramban on s'firas ha'omer,
>brought back memories. As a teen-ager on the way to Yeshiva in Eretz
>Yisroel, I had the z'chus to meet, and be given a brief three-question
>b'china on Kidduhin, by Harav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg z"l.

>That was one of the questions asked. My answer, which he was m'kabel,
>was that mitzvas aseh shehaz'man grama means an act of mitzvah, to be
>performed at a specific time. In s'firas haomer, on th other hand,
>the z'man is part of the ma'aseh hamitzvah: it's not, e.g., "eat in
>the succah," but do it on 15 Tishtei; rather, it's "count 16 Nissan."
>Of course, assuming that it's not a ta'us had'fus, this would imply that
>the Ramban holds that the day, too, is z'man s'firah.

That can be coaxed into a R' Chaim Telzer chakira (Is the zman a chelek of 
the mitzva or the mitzva a chelek of the zman?) And, from RGS and RMD an 
earlier Acharonishe answer that can be coaxed into a R' Chaim Telzer 
chakira (What is the sibba ha'machayeves?):

>I think it was the Sha'agas Aryeh who answered that it is the korban
>ha'omer that starts the sefirah so it is not dependent on TIME but on
>the ACTION of hakravas hakorban.

>The first "Derech" is the famous explanation that "Nashim" are only
>"Patur" when the only "Machriah" is the zman however by "Omer" the
>"machriah" is also the "omer".  The interesting point in this "Biur"
>(which incidently is based on the Turei Haeven by Bikurim (Daf 20:)) is
>that there is no discussion as to whether women should be "Chayav" or
>"Patur"  based on the reasoning of Korban but rather, that the only
>"Petur" of "Mitzvas Aseh Shezam Grama" is when the only "Machriah" is
>"Zman"  and here there is another "Machriah" (This can be found in the
>Chazon Yechezkel and Mikrai Kodesh (Frank))

But an ultimate Brisker (cheftza/gavra!) resolution was offered by RMD (I 
leave his other derachim here intact):

>I want to propose three other Derarchim.  Firstly, that the Mitzvas
>Sefiras Haomer is dependant on the Korban Omer (at least the counting of
>the weeks, while the days are dependant on Shevuos) and since women have a
>Chelek in the Korban Tzibur they are obligated to count the Omer.  And
>even though you might say that the Korbon itself is a Mitzvas Eseh
>Shehazman Grama, (since you can't bring it in the day) we could explain
>that this is not so, since it is not the day that is Gorem the obligation
>to bring a Korban but rather it is a Din in the Korban that it must be
>brought in the day.  In other words according to the Ramban the only Petur
>of Mitzvah Eseh Shehazman Grama  is when the Chiyuv Zman is on the Gavra
>however in the halacha of Sefiras Haomer which is dependant on Korban Omer
>the Chiyuv of Zman is on the Chefza.  Secondly, there are Issurim attached
>to the Korban Omer,  namely the Issur to be Kozer prior etc. Perhaps this
>would remove the Petur of Mitzvas Aseh Shezman Grama like we find by other
>Dinim.  Thirdly, we could explain Al pi the derech of the Avnei Nezer by
>simply saying that "Mimocharas Hashabas" is not considered "Shehazman
>Grama", because the classic terminology "Shehazman Grama" is when the
>Torah lists a calendar day, without having to attach it to the "Chag
>Hapesach".

I would put it: Here the mitzva is on the cheftza of the time, not on the 
gavra to do in time.

A Poilisher Derech from a Ba'al Davar alein, the Avnei Nezer, again from 
RMD (also from RCGS):

>The second Derech is based on the Avnei Nezer ( Chelek Bes No. 384)
>that since it says by Omer not the date 16th of Nissan but rather
>"Memocharas Hashabbas" then it is dependant on Pesach.  And even though
>Pesach is   "Zman" orientated, women are obligated in the Mitzvas of
>Pesach and hence are obligated in the Mitzvah of Omer.   Here he is
>concerned with what the other Machriah is.

I wanted initially to present a variation on the theme, that in order to 
keep Shavu'os you need to count Sefirah, so there is a geder of kol 
shs'yeshno b'lav yeshno b'aseh here, like Kiddush on Shabbos. RCGS was 
me'orer that this may be linked (although lav davka) to the Lubavitcher 
Rebbe's proposal that when crossing the dateline one keeps one's own 
Sefirah to determine a personal Shavu'os.

A Rogatchover mahalach, from RCGS:

>I remember hearing from R' Ezra Schochet that there is a metzius of
>"yemay hoimer" that has to be counted, and that cheftza only exists
>between pesach & shvous. (similar to the idea of kiddush levana & Turei
>Even about bicurim, just that the zman itself is the cheftza d'mitzva,
>not just korbon oimer).Maybe this could be used as a Rogatchover derech
>(gedarim in zman)?

This could also serve, slightly modified, as a Telzer derech. I would like 
to note that there is, in this vein, a diyuk to be made inthe word "Grama", 
v'duk. Also, that one can employ the zman as a nekudah or a shetach issue 
here, perhaps, to some advantage.

Finally, there is left to me the Hungarian derech (the Sefardi derech here 
is the typo possibility). I would say that might be a hekesh to "V'safra 
lah" by Niddah".

Yasher Ko'ach!

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

I was looking through the Roedelheim Haggadah on the train this morning
(it is called the Wolf Heidenheim Haggadah). I noticed a few interesting
changes he made to the nusach.

In the kol hamira he changed "biarteih" to "ba'ariteih". In ha lahma he
changed "veyeikhol" to "veyeikhul". Regarding the she'eino yodea lishol,
he has "atah pesah lo" instead of "at pesah lo". Also, in the first
paragaph of bentching he has "ki hu zon" instead of "ki hu kel zon".

In his German tranlsation of "mah nishtanah" he has a question mark
after the "mikol haleilos" (unlike RYH Henkin's recent suggestion).

Gil Student

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> I once heard a pshat that Ha Lachma Anya is supposed to be understood as a 
> lament: In the times of the Bais HaMikdash, the korban pesach was ne'echal 
> limnuyav so one couldn't just invite someone on the spur of the moment. After 
> the destruction, this is no longer the case....

I think the Netziv says something like that in his haggadah Imrei Shefer.

Gil Student

I once heard an explanation that when we say 'kol dicphin, etc..' we
are addressing ourselves to the guests who we have already invited and
are at the table. We are teling them that they should feel welcome.

What constitutes "roasting" for purposes of the issur on eating roasted
meat at the sedar?

If meat is placed into a pan and placed inside an oven, with nothing
more, is that roasting? or, must the meat be directly exposed to flame?
(does it make a difference if the oven is electric, where the element
is *inside* the oven, vs a gas stove, where the flame is in the broiler
beneath the oven compartment?

Must the heat be totally dry? For example, if, in the above example, water
and wine is placed in the pan with the meat, does that bring the meat
outside the "roasting" category? If not, would basting the meat do so?

If a liquid must be used, must it be sufficiently thick such that it
covers most of the meat at all times, even if only a thin layer, or is
it sufficient to occasionally cover the meat, as in basting?

Please, if you can, cite sources. Thanks.

//Avi
Avram Sacks
sacksa@cch.com
achdut@enteract.com

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> IIRC I think that the Haggaddah published by R. Yitzchok Lichtenstein with
> Torah from his grandfather, RYBS, (maybe this is somewhere else?) says that
> there is a simple eitzah, based on the proposition that those who believe
> that one must eat afikoman by chatzos also believe that there is no issur
> achilah after chatzos (because it's no longer b'sha'as chiyuv).  [Does
> anyone know a source for this?]

I have heard this referred to as the aitza of the Avnei Nezer (source
anybody?) and also that it doesn't work according to some Shitos (IIRC
the Rosh near the end of Pesachim) that R. Akiva agrees that there's an
issur midRabbonon to eat korban Pesach after midnight like other kodoshim
(see Zevochim 57b).

KT and Chag kosher v'someach
Avrohom Weidberg

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> IIRC I think that the Haggaddah published by R. Yitzchok Lichtenstein with 
> Torah from his grandfather, RYBS, (maybe this is somewhere else?)...

I don't think this is in Siach HaGrid. It is in the first volume of the
Brisker Haggadah in the halachos of tzafun. It is based on an eitzah of
the Avnei Nezer that included eating before chatzos al tenai. The Brisker
Rav said there was no need for a tenai. I believe the Avnei Nezer quotes
the relevant sources.

Gil Student

IIRC, this is the Avnei Nezer's eitzah (also printed in the Brisker
Haggadah).

"Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer" <frimea@mail.biu.ac.il> writes:
>Pri Migadim (Eshel Avraham, OH 444, no.2) permits eating kitniyot on Erev
>Pesach...             Hok Yaakov (OH 471 no. 2) forbids eating kitniyot on
>Erev Pesach (from 9:12 A.M.), and this seems to be the general custom...
>             Kitniyot may be eaten Friday night. Kitniyot are not hametz, and
>may be stored in the house.

I was wondering, however, what the practicalities are.  E.g., on Friday
afternoon, can I cook rice in a pesadicke pot?  If so, would all I need to
do is wash it well afterwards?  What about getting rice on my pesadicke
table?  Is there any halachic problem here?

-- Eric

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website

www.dorrevii.org or
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

Tzav et aharon v'et banav leimor zot torat ha-olah:   Rashi comments:

The word "tzav" is nothing other than an expression of exhortation.
R. Shimon said an exhortation is especially necessary when there is the
potential for an economic loss

See the Ramban who wrote that R. Shimon did not make his comment in
reference to this verse, because under the law of the burnt-offering
(olah), the priest incurs no economic loss in bringing the sacrifice to
the altar. On the contrary, the priest derives an economic gain from
bringing the sacrifice to the altar because the animal's hide becomes
the possession of the priest.

However, our master says that the words of R. Shimon were indeed based
on this verse and were built on a foundation of reason. For it is written
in the Midrash (Leviticus Rabbah )

This refers to what is written (Proverbs 10:12): "Hatred stirreth up
strifes" (sinah t'oreir madanim).

And the Midrash explains at length that the hatred that Aharon aroused
(see Deuteronomy 9:21) by making the Golden Calf provoked many adverse
judgments, and Aharon's name was therefore not mentioned from the
beginning of the book of Vayikra until this verse, except for verses
such as "and Aharon's sons, the priests, will lay the pieces." Only the
prayer of Moshe succeeded in again drawing Aharon close to the Eternal.
If so, it is appropriate that in the first commandment given to Aharon
after he was brought close there should be a warning about the sin that
he committed.

Our master has already explained at length that the sin of the Calf
occurred because the Israelites refused to listen to the voice of the
Living G-d and they despised the study of the Torah, and preferred
performing commandments at the instruction of mortals to learning the
commandments through the study of Torah. And Aharon, too, was of that
opinion. Thus, after Moshe prayed to the Eternal in behalf of Aharon,
and G-d drew Aharon close to perform the priestly service before Him, G-d
taught Aharon that although He henceforward would desire burnt-offerings
and sacrifices, and those sacrifices would ascend in favor before Him,
nevertheless the lips of the priest should guard wisdom (siftei kohein
yishm'ru da'at). It would be Aharon's responsibility to teach the people
that obeying is better than any sacrifice and acts of justice and charity
are preferred by the Eternal to oxen and bullocks. The people would then
learn to seek the Torah from his mouth and consequently would not bring
numerous sacrifices in order to eat meat, for study, which leads one to
perform good deeds, is greater than anything.

This is what was told to Aharon. "This is the law of the burnt-offering"
(zot torat ha-olah), "it is that [i.e., the law of the burnt-offering]
which goes up" (hi ha-olah). For the essence of the olah is the torat
ha-olah, as our Sages say, whoever studies the law of the burnt-offering,
is considered by the Scripture to have sacrificed the burnt-offering.
And the law of the burnt-offering is more sublime than the burnt-offering
itself as we have written at length in poroshat Vayikra.

This warning therefore required an extra exhortation because it implied an
economic loss to the Priests. For if they teach the people to understand
what the Eternal is asking, then the people, having understood that the
essence of the olah is the torah ha-olah, will stop bringing sacrifices,
and then the Priests will lack the breast of waving (hazeih ha-t'nufah)
and the thigh of heaving (shok ha-t'rumah).

****

The three divrei torah on the Haggadah that I previously posted to 
Avodah are now available on the Dor Revi'i website along with another
d'var torah on v'aphilu kulanu hakhamim kulanu n'vonim.  See
www.dorrevii.org or 
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/Chagim/pesach.html

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> It is also interesting to note the philosophically oriented rishonim
> who believed in gilgul. For example, R. Chasdai Crescas (towards the end
> of Or Hashem, in a chapter whose title mentions gilgul) and R. Yitzchak
> Abarbanel (in his peirush al haTorah on the parshah of yibum).

I still haven't looked up the page, but I lent the sefer to someone
yesterday so I'll post anyway. R. Margalioth, in his introduction to
R. Avraham ben HaRambam's Milhamoth HaShem, cites R. Avraham as opposing
belief in gilgul.

Incidentally, R. Menashe ben Yisrael used Pythagoras's belief in
metampsychosis (have I spelled that right?) as proof that he was Jewish.

David Riceman

> I have bcc'd the individual who raised the original critique in
> the hope that "Karynah d'Igarta eehu lehevei parvanka." I think the
> idea of chaburos is great, but someone else will have to undertake the
> project.

Well, since I am the critiquer, I guess the ball is in my court, or
really in the court of the olam of avodah at this point. Since out
of 7 responses, 4 were positive for a chaburah (not counting YGB and
myself) I assume there is enough interest to get this off the ground.
The problem is there is no way I can pull this off singlehandedly -
a chaburah format needs writers as well as readers (lurkers, this is
your chance!), and I can't write weekly.

I guess we can do a test run (with micha's reshus), and if I start
getting hate mail, call it off.

One criticism raised - "Whenever one person submits a whoe sugya, there
are 1001 side-comments spinning for some time, boring the majority of
the readership. Focus is gained by having a smaller, halacha-oriented
subject." I think that can be addressed by honing the chaburah to a
specific area - for example, a chaburah on rov in dinei mamonos would
be far too broad, but a chaburah on a specific sugya would work.

Since I opened my big mouth, I will tackle topic #1. I guess if you
want to write up a topic, you can e-mail me privately and I will keep a
schedule. My last fear is the topics will be either too arcane for some
or too simple for others - hopefully we can strike a middle ground in
there. The chaburah should also not be a read-only format - hopefully
having a 'sikum hashitos' as one person put it will lead to a better
discussion of those shitos and a clearer picture of how the lomdus in
the VIDC format comes together.

Feedback?

-Chaim B.

In a message dated Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:56:16am EST, "Noah S. Rothstein"
<noahrothstein@mindspring.com> writes:
> R' Avigdor Miller, shlita, said that if a woman has the k'vono to enable her
> children and husband to be oveid Hashem when she is cooking for them, she is
> like the Kohein Godol offering korbonos in the Beis H"M and the stove becomes
> like the mizbeach. Furthermore, he said, that everything she does in the house
> w/ this kovono is sanctified like this.

And a wife who pays someone else to perform these functions?
And a husband who works for a living with the same kavanot?

KT,
Joel

From: "Menachem Burack" <Mburack@emiltd.com>
> One of the rabbonim who paskened to delay the burial of the baby in
> Chevron presented two precedents.
...
> The second is a teshuva of RMF zt"l about delaying the burial of an
> aborted fetus for the purpose of bringing it to an antiabortion rally.

Bringing limbs from an autopsy to a demonstration YD II #150 page 258

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]