Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 075

Saturday, December 22 2001

• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: Rav Berkowitz
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkowitz and the Abrogation of the Shulchan Aruch
• shehakol NIHIYOH bidvoro
• HaMaqom Yenacheim
• Re: Hashem 'Imakhem
• Re: Rights and Entitlements
• Re: Sarah w/o womb
• Re: HaMaqom Yenacheim
• Re: HaMaqom Yenacheim
• ikkarim
• Torah Temimah
• R Berkovitz
• (im)mutability of siddur
• R SZ Leiman
• Re: R Berkovitz
• Re: halacha methodology - Sources Survey and Corection
• Re: halacha methodology
• No More Pain / Know More Pain

Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< And of course we have the old circular
reasoning argument: If Rosh and Rema say nothing after Ravina and Rav
Ashi are binding then of course THEIR statments gufa are not binding -
nor is the Gra for that matter >>>

I'm missing something here. What is the hava amina that the statement
of someone who does not have real semicha WOULD be binding?

As I understand it, nothing said in the past 1600 years or so has been
binding (except for certain cases of shavya alav chaticha d'isura).
Everyone -- from the Geonim through Rishonim and Poskim -- has been
issuing their opinions on what the Gemara meant, or what the Gemara
*would* have said in these new situations.

As I understand it, their words are not binding, but anyone opposing
them had better be very sure that he is right. When one gets to the Beis
Din Shel Maalah, if he relied on the consensus of the chachamim, he can
plead shogeg if he is wrong. But if he was a maverick, he had better be
able to convince the BDSM of his sevara, or he'll be in big trouble.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 12/20/01 9:14:08pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> And we also have acharonim who call the S"A the sof hora'ah. (See RYGB's
> post on the role of S"A with nosei keilim in pesaq.)

See the Pischei Tshuva on ChM 25.

Quick overview
SMA - Rif is ALWAYS right except when Tosafos says otherwise!
Bedek Habayyis of R Y Caro on his own Beis Yosef - 
In our "town" gliloseinu we follow the Rambam ALWAYS except when there
are kushiyos and we have not plumbe the depths of the Rambam's reasoning
Aruch Hashulchan Baalei SA (as Micha posts)

Also see the Rava'd and Ba'al Hamore as qutoed by BY, The Rosh as quoted
by Tur, The Gra

Bu in all cases, this is re: To'eh Bidvar Mishna it is lav davka a
lechatchila positoin


In a message dated 12/20/01 4:34:22pm EST, Shlomo Goldstein
<goldstin@netvision.net.il> writes:
> A: Because minhag IS correct and that IS pshat in the Gemara. Really
> minhag is a much broader discussion. Till now we were discussing Shut
> precedent.

You are saying that Minhga is the peshat? See Tosafos re: Zimun for
women (source escapes me) where he turns the chiyyuv explcitly stated
in a mishan to a reshus. FWIW the Rosh rejects
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/21/01 1:01:33am EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> As I understand it, nothing said in the past 1600 years or so has been
> binding (except for certain cases of shavya alav chaticha d'isura).
> Everyone -- from the Geonim through Rishonim and Poskim -- has been
> issuing their opinions on what the Gemara meant, or what the Gemara
> *would* have said in these new situations.

I gotta a LONG answer. The short answer is that this is cearly not the
way most Rishonim see it, even if they say they do see it that way.

But there is another caveat. If you read ChM 25 carefull in Tur and SA
you will see this:

You MAY contradict pshat as developed by Gaonim and Rishonim by rayas
BUT
Having overloloked Gaonim and Rishonim also constitutes a To'eh bedivar
Mishna

IOW, you can ARGUE the cases of the Gaonim and Rishonim but you may NOT
go back to the Gmar aand reconstruct Pshat and Psak without dealing with
the Poskim

This is critical and seems to be conssistent with the Ri Migash's
statement as quote in a article of RDEK (E. Kanarfogel)

Illustration:
IF I pasken a shei'lah based upon a Gmara and my psaht is against SA
etc. it can be cosntrued as teoeh bidvar Mishna

OTOH:
{according to many} I CAN argue on the SA's peshat if I muster rayos
against the SA.

So when a poseik cites a Gmara and paskens w/o addressing the poskim
who differ, lich'ora they are to'e bdivar Mishna.

More Later BEH

[Later... -mi]

In a message dated 12/21/01 1:01:33am EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> As I understand it, nothing said in the past 1600 years or so has been...

Clarify how you deal with Tosafos when he openly apskens like A
Yershhulami or a Psikta knegged the Bavli.

As tp post Talmudic psak

Also how do you deal with the Rambam stating that NOWADAYS Ma'ariv/Artbit is 
not a reshus?

How do you deal with minhaggim based upon chumra - e.g Kitniyyos?

How do you deal with Cherem dr. Gershom?

How do you deal with Post Talmudic brachos? 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<<< 6- Eis la'asos. I do not believe this was ever used to change
halachah ledoros. Rather, it was only used in conjunction with #5. I
have argued here that the writing of TSBP is 'merely' "eino reshai",
not assur. Which would mean that need created a shift in lifnim mishuras
hadin priority to record it. >>>

I agree that "not recommended" is different than "forbidden". But I would
translate "eino reshai" as "not allowed", and "assur" as "forbidden";
how are they different?

(Alternatively, can you direct me to the Avodah Archives where you
previously argued this point?)

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 12/20/01 9:13:54pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I prefer RSRH's variant. It's not peshat vs derash is ideal as opposed
> to pragmatically implementable. Rather, peshat gives the ta'am hamitzvah
> rather than the dinim.

I'm not sure of R. Yercham's source but I believe that it is the Maharal

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
<< .............And then there are the Lubavitchers, who say "shehakol
nihyah bidvaro", rather than "nihyeh". Do Sefardim say nihyah or nihyeh?>>

IIRC R. Yaakov Emden prescribes nihiyoh and I say nihiyoh. It is not
necessarily a Lubavitch'er thing.

Mordechai

On 20 Dec 01, at 16:06, Micha Berger wrote:
> During shiv'ah, people said goodbye with the traditional formula: May
> the Omnipresent have mercy on you amongst all the others mourners of
> Zion and Jerusalem. Many, of not most, then added in English, Yiddish,
> or a mixture of the two: and you shall know from no more pain.

> My father was not happy with this ammendation. 

In EY, the accepted formulation adds "v'lo sosifu l'da'ava ode." In 
light of the argument that you subsequently imputed to your father, 
I honestly have to wonder why that formulation is universally used 
here, but it is universal. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

In a message dated 12/20/01 9:13:59pm EST, dbnet@barak-online.net writes:
> Again we see limitation to "our" small closed group. Many Sefaradim,
> before they make the initial b'rakha when getting an aliya, call out
> "Hashem 'Imakhem" and the kahal answers "Y'varekh'kha Hashem".

Yes this I have heard several times But it is NOT a greeting per se

> Also in Bnei Akiva circles the terms are sometimes used a a greeting.

I'm guessing this is  probably NOT as a minhag - rather a new revival of 
Tanachy style.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> No, rights are not the same as entitlements. However, a rights-based
> ethic is one that naturally creates a sense of entitlement.

> Halachah does imply some rights. Some examples:

> Waking someone up needlessly is "gezel shinah", robbery. As sleep is 
> not a commodity, apparantly people have a right to sleep that is being
> taken from them. ...

Just some random thoughts on Micha's post.

One cannot help but being touched by the very tragic and sorrowful
experience of Micha and his family. Often Hashkafos are developed by
exactly these types of Nisyonos. It always causes people to think about
the bigger picture, to reflect, to re-access, to ponder and to come
to major conclusions or even epiphanies. Perhaps this is the purpose
of Nisayon, Not just as a G-d given test to pass but to help develop a
philosophy and enhance an individual's relationship to G-d and his Torah.

The concept of Torah being a set of obligations has been discussed here
before. RYBS has been quoted as speaking to this issue within the context
of femminist rights. He stated it exactly that way: Judaism is a set of
obligations not rights. It is Man's duty... his obligation to G-d to do
that which He requires of us.

AISI, right's as a priority is a western concept developed out of man's
search for freedom. In Colonial times the founding fathers were oppressed
by unfair taxation and revolted, the results being the establishment
of the first totally free nation on the face of the earth. In order to
protect those freedoms from the tyrany of the majority, a set of rights
were established. Freedom of speech from those who disagreed with the
majority on any issues. Freedom of religion to protect the minority
of non-Christians from religious coersion... and many other rights.
Rights are not a bad thing. We Jews have particularly benefited from
the freedom of religion right.

As Micha points out The Gemmarah is replete with many such protective
rights. But he also correctly points out that rights are there only for
protective reasons.

In today's America, the concept of "rights" has taken on a life of it's
own. Rights have become entitlements. And many exploit those entitlements
militantly for their own agendas.

On the philosophical level that Micha speaks of the question does arise
about "entitlements" that all of us take for granted such as the right
to good health, or the right to be safe. He contrasts this with the view
of a Holocaust survivor who when in the "camps" did not view these as
entitlements at all. So I think it can be said that the perception of
a right is relative to one's particular situation.

However, on an objective level one has to look at it as though there are
no rights at all. It is only through G-d's good will that he grants us
any rights. In His graciousness he has granted us a Torah with certain
obligations contained therein. G-d has also given to Man, within the
parameters set forth in the Torah, the ability to determine when a right
is granted and when it is not. And our sages have determined what should
be a right and what shouldn't. For the most part it is based on a system
of fairness to all. In some cases one man's right becomes another man's
burdon... an impediment to HIS right. Chazal recognized this and did
their best to minimize this type of potential conflict between rights.

But in the final analysis Man should not concern himself with the pursuit
of rights. He should concern himself what what IS right... in the eyes
of G-d.

HM

1) The Torah itself makes no direct (peshat) mention of Sarah's cause
of infertility. The meforshim address the extraneous phrase of "ein la
velad." The simple peshat is that she was unable to conceive. There are
two (basic) causes of infertility - inability to conceive and inability
to carry a child (i.e., recurrent miscarraiges). Using the phrase "ein
la velad" indicates that Sarah was unable to conceive at all, (hence,
the miracle of Yitchak's birth was that much greater), and that is why
the meforshim postulate the etiology of her primary infertility.

2) Beis velad is assumed by all rishonim and acharonim to refer to the
uterus, although it is not a frequently used term.

3) To my mind, there is absolutely no alternative definition for this
term based on the anatomical and physiological understanding of the
female reproductive system (either now or in antiquity). They were
well aware that the fetus was housed in the uterus. No other part of
the female reproductive anatomy could fit the literal meaning of this
phrase. Furthermore, "beis velad" does not imply any pathology of
the uterus.

In sum, the phrase "beis velad," beyond any reasonable doubt, refers to
the normal female uterus.

If it is ambiguity you crave, let us dwell on the terms in the Mishna
Niddah - prozdor, aliyah, lul. Here we could generate much avodah (and
many before have "aim"ed to try).

Kol Tuv,
Eddie

> During shiv'ah, people said goodbye with the traditional formula: May
> the Omnipresent have mercy on you amongst all the others mourners of
> Zion and Jerusalem. Many, of not most, then added in English, Yiddish,
> or a mixture of the two: and you shall know from no more pain.
 
> My father was not happy with this ammendation

I asked one of my learned sources this question a few years ago.  He said to 
try and understand it as an unintended prayer for the geulah shlaima to come 
ASAP.

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

:>                     Many, of not most, then added in English, Yiddish,
:> or a mixture of the two: and you shall know from no more pain.

:> My father was not happy with this ammendation

I should be more clear. My father was not hurt by the comment, as he
understood the sentiment intended. However, the fact that this addition
which seems at first (and even 2nd) glance to look so positive /could/
pose problems shows the value of leaving matbei'os alone.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:02:23PM -0500, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: I asked one of my learned sources this question a few years ago. He
: said to try and understand it as an unintended prayer for the geulah
: shlaima to come ASAP.

That is only ifd you believe that (1) techiyas hameisim is followed by
an eternal life; and (2) ThM is soon after bi'as hamashiach.

I understood R' Yehudah's "week" of history to imply that yimos hamoshiach
will be a full 7th millenium (preceded by tosefes Shabbos bb"a) before
techiyas hameisim starts us again on the 2nd "week", the 8th note begining
the next octave.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

[One post on 5 topics split into 5 posts, so that people who are only
following some of the discussions can follow. -mi]

Back when that thread was active, somebody mentioned rav Bleich's article
where he squoted the 'Hatam Sofer that ikkarei emunah can be paskened upon
just like other areas of halakhah and some of them have been paskened
upon. I took a more relaxed position saying that they are not "very"
paskened upon, and RRW and I reached a truce when we decided that the
notion of ikkarim is halakhah, and the rough outline of the Rambam was
accepted, but there are lot's of details where people quibble about and
have not been paskened upon. I thought many details were not paskenable
upon, because they dealt with abstract truths, where the notion of psak
is hardly applicable, i.e., either it's true or not, it's not about how
do we act.

Well, I just asked rav Bleich 30 minutes ago whether he meant exactly what
he wrote and it is assur to disagree with Rambam, or whether he simply
was trying to attack the relativistic notion of ikkarim (i.e. non-ikkarim)
that our not yet fruhm brethren present. His reply was "both". He firmly
believes that they can be paskened upon, as the HS he quoted. Thus, in his
words, the Rambam was not allowed to drink Ralbag's wine, etc. However,
he added also that many ikkarim elements were not paskened upon, and
may not even be paskenable, not because of their inherent nature, but
because there is not enough material to prove things one way or another.

According to him, the notion of deot being inappropriate as psakable
material is not true, because we are paskening on the consequences,
not on the actual truths. He finds little or no reluctance to use psak
in deot matters.

However, he also told me that a psak in deot should not prevent somebody
from investigating shitot de'huyot and even finding them true. Thus,
these psakim can be reconsidered (although may be one day a shulkhan
arukh lehlikhot deot could emerge, making this more difficult but
not impossible, kah nireh li medevarav but I didn't ask this to him
explicitly) but as long as you hold against the consensus and there
is a strong consensus, you would be an apikorus from a practical
perspective. This says little about what beis din shel ma'alah thinks,
and thus about your 'helek in 'olam habah, but does suggest you should
buy yayin mevushal when you have guest. In other words, psak [in this
case?] is eminently practically oriented. He clearly does not buy the
argument of rav Parnes that once it is paskened upon you can no longer
revisit it.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

The TT is looked down upon because of some of his interpretations which
are too rationalistic for many in the RW yeshivishe world of today. Thus,
somebody showed me "apikorsus" of the TT a while back, where TT says
that makat 'hoshkh was 'av tefach as per midrash, because it was a
huge cataract that the Mitzrim grew. If you ask anybody on this list,
I thin we can agree that this doesn't qualify for apikorsut. Also,
many people didn't like him, just like they didn't like his biography
of the Netziv. Then again, some 'hassidim don't learn Rashash, because
there is a line in Bava Metzia, I believe, where he says mka'an ra'ayah
neged hamaaminim begilgulim. Many definitely don't learn Kahati, as you
descendants may 'has veshulem become positively inclined towards Mizra'hi
and even think that some of them know how to learn, etc. So I would not
take the criticism too seriously.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

I'll repeat my earlier request: can anybody summarize his ideas WRT
agunot?

Also, RRW mentioned the idea that it may be ok to say that TSBK is
very harsh because it deals with an ideal, din ready world, and 'Hazal
softened it because they were commanded to infuse ra'hamim as we are
unable to exist otherwise. This was offered as a possible limud zekhut
on reb Berkovitz's ideas of drashot.

Well, two comments:

First we can defend RB in avnother way, keeping in mind that Rambam holds
that while a later Sanhedrin cannot overturn the takkanot of an earlier
one unless gadol be'hkhmah uveminyan, nonetheless they can more easily
influence deoraytot if they understand some verses diffeently. Thus,
Rambam gives tacitly the power to Sanhedrin that RB so much emphasizes.

Second, the notion that TSBK as we know it is harsh is well rooted
in the mesorah of some mekubalim. I am refering to the idea of
shemitot. According to this idea, the world changes dramatically(from a
spiritual standpoint?) every so often (usually 7000 years, but rav Aryeh
Kaplan reprinted a manuscript that mentions several billion years per
shemittah, according to which the scientists' claim of age of the world
is quite accurate, but that is for another thread) and another one of
the 7 lower sefirot is predominant. This influences the visible shape of
the TSBK. According to many of these mekublaim, the predominant Sefirah
currently is Gevurah, which is why we perceive the Torah's character
as prohibitions left and right. This will, according to this shittah,
change in the next shemittah, which is imminent (has been for over 800
years <g>).

Thus, I find RRW's limud zekhut quite good/kosher.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

I will get back on this topic, but I remeber seeing that early Ashkenaz
rishonim were very adamant that the nussa'h is fixed, and even showed
how important the fixed nature is, by counting words in various tefillot
and showing how that count is the correct count. Thus, keriat shemah
has 280 words, including the repetition of Hashem Elokekhem, emet or
the E-l Melekh neeman, and from yehei Shemei Rabbah until the amen after
le'eilah there are 28 words. I believe that rav Elazar ba'al haRokea'h
was involved in this. Sefardy Jewry knew none of this, hence a more
flexible nussa'h. The resistance to changes thus antedates Sabatianism
by hundreds of years; it is the 'Hassidim who introduced changes because
th Ari preferred nussa'h Sefarad.

For the record, when I was ba'al tefilah yamim noraim I modified seli'hot
on the fly to apply the Maharal's suggestions on borkhuni leshalom
(-> yevorkhuni leshalom) whenever the pices seem to address angels
or independent potencies/middot/Sefirot, so that they were addressed
to Hashem in a nondescript way, asking Him to act through a specific
agency. Thus, Midat hara'hamim aleinu hitgalgely became tegalgel if I
remember right. I picked this minhag up during my brief stay at Chaim
Berlin, as they are ardent Maharalists. (will list mebers still drink
my wine now? ;-))

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

Also, the entire email was written from memory as the lecture was given
on Shabbat and I wrote it three days later (alas I did 'hazarah when I
repeated it to my wife ;-)). Thus, blame the bibliographical error that
NM was really published 1909 rather than 1903 on my memory failing a
little. Thank you for pointing that out.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

In a message dated 12/21/01 12:26:02pm EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Also, RRW mentioned the idea that it may be ok to say that TSBK is
> very harsh because it deals with an ideal, din ready world, and 'Hazal
> softened it because they were commanded to infuse ra'hamim as we are
> unable to exist otherwise. This was offered as a possible limud zekhut
> on reb Berkovitz's ideas of drashot.

Plz allow me to clarify
The TSBP and che Chazal are softer, the question is HOW it got that
way Models:
1) This is ALL MiSinai. The Original Torah was designed on 2 levels.
The Chazla made up zero, they just reported what they heard. (Extreme
Sinai)
2) This was made up by Chazal out of a sense of politcal correctness or
Rachmanus. This might be {boredrline} heresy. (Extreme Historical School)
3) The TSBK was harsh and the TSBP was designed to soften it in reality.
The general MANDATE was from Sinai but the specfics evolved when Chazal
applied this mandate in reality. (Moderate Hybrid School)

My shita is #3. The seeds of Etz Chaim hi were planted at Sinari,
it sprouted forth over time.

My GUESS is that the objections to Z Frankel or E .Berkowitz were that
they said something like #2 or it at least what was pereceifed was #2..

Let's go back to the issue of shiuirm. Chazal have always had the powere
to say how much how many how far. Are the sepcifcs MiSinai or just the
power to
 make a Shiur mISinai. I vote for #2.

A case in point - IIRC the Shagas Aryeh's Tshuva on Krias Shma - V'dibarta
Banm creates the imperative, Chazal define it in terms of the 3 parshoyos
of Shma

Tefillah aliba d'Rambam is another: Tefillah is min Hatorah but he
specifics are midreabban and therefore Nahsim are hcayavos on the
Torah level.

Back to ayin tachas ayin. TSBK is harsh for one reason. Chazal have a
mandate to enfore this on a more prgamatic and compassoinate level for
other reasons. Exactly how is within their perview.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Remember the issue here is dayan shet'aah, it is NOT necessarilythe case
of lechatchila psak or hora'ah.... Rambam Sanhedrin 6

1) {Toeh bidvar Mishneh though not by that name} im ta'ah - if he erred
with those words that are open and known as laws that are explicit in
the Mishna and or Gmara..

2) {Ta'a beshikul Hada'as} for example those that are arguments of Tanaim
or Amoraim and it was NOT decided like one of them explciitly and he
did like one of them - and he did not know that the Ma'aseh {I ugess
Halacha lemaa'seh) has already Pashat {spread} throughout the world like
the words of the other.

Bepashtus, taking an opinion rejected by the Gmarma is toe'h bidvar
mishhan taking an opinion rejected by post-talmudic hispashtus hama'seh
is to'eh beshikkul hada'as - accorign to the Rambam

I would guess that THIS is THE main source for my concept of Still In
Flux vs. No Longer In Flux.

AFAIK, the Rambam did NOT address here the case of hispashtus of
Post-Talmudic minhag. If the din was never rooted in a machlokes in the
Gmara at all but ONLY in later poskim it is conceivable - or likely -
that the Rambam would hold it is always changeable.

(BEH I will research a bit on Ma'ariv as a Reshus vs. Chovah )

=========================================================
NB:
This would explain teshuvos such as the Nodah Biyhuda Mhaddura Kamma 86
re: being a Sandek twice forthe same father - that since the matter is
NOT in Shas he does not wish to deal with it {but does anyway! <smile>}.

BEH I will post a short shiur on that Topic based upon a shiur I heard
from RDEK (E. Kanarfogel.

[2nd email. -mi]

In a message dated 12/21/01 1:01:33am EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
>> As I understand it, nothing said in the past 1600 years or so has been
>> binding (except for certain cases of shavya alav chaticha d'isura).
>> Everyone -- from the Geonim through Rishonim and Poskim -- has been
>> issuing their opinions on what the Gemara meant, or what the Gemara
>> *would* have said in these new situations.

In a message dated 12/21/01 11:56:30am EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> I gotta a LONG answer. The short answer is that this is cearly not the
> way most Rishonim see it, even if they say they do see it that way.

whoops!:
Correction I meant to say:
This is not the way most Rishonim Actually see it even though they
themselves SAID THEY see it this way...

I believe two posts have highlighted an apparent contradiction in how
the Gra outlined methoodolgy and how he actually pacticed it lem'aseh.
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RMB>The Gra actually says that the Bach and Taz were sof hora'ah.

Where's your Gra?  He so rarely quotes these acharonim. 

The CI emphatecically calls the MB posek basra and yet argues on him
100's of times. So, as for derech-eretz of psak I agree with your
drop-off periods. Yet, for the limit, when push comes to shove, Shas
seems to be an absolute cut-off.

Shavua Tov,
Shlomo Goldstein

In Avodah 8:74, R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Many, of not most, then added
in English, Yiddish, or a mixture of the two: and you shall know from no
more pain. My father was not happy with this ammendation. ... My father
hopes I feel more pain. Thank G-d, both Siggy and I have both of our
parents. Think how much greater tragedy would be implied by the idea
that we would never again sit shiv'ah. Children ought sit shiv'ah. Far
worse is when parents do. >>>

For many years, I had the same problem with that phrase. Though said
with the best of intentions, the implication is that this mourner should,
chalilah, be the next to go.

It took me a few years, but I came up with a different perush: May *you*
know no more pain, and may Moshiach and Techiyas HaMeisim come quickly,
so that *everyone* will know no more pain, b'meherah b'yamenu.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]