Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 059

Thursday, August 28 2003

• Re: Ilan/Etz
• Re: Ilan/Etz
• Root of chinam/ ahavas chinam
• Re: Root of chinam/ ahavas chinam
• RE: Freedom of choice vis-a-vis other people
• RE: minyan in women's section
• RE: Freedom of choice vis-a-vis other people
• Everett and bechira
• Re: Ilan/Etz
• Re: ilan and etz
• Yahrtzeit for a grandparent
• FW: Halachic issue re Chazaras HaShatz
• Kaddish
• Re: Shehasimchah Bim'ono
• Re: Shehasimchah Bim'ono
• Re: Shehasimchah Bim'ono
• Re: Shehasimchah Bim'ono
• Shehasimchah Bim'ono
• Re: Shehasimchah Bim'ono
• Taf
• taf
• Re: taf
• Re: taf
• Re: taf
• Re: taf
• Re: taf
• Re: taf
• Re: taf
• RE: Everett and bechira
• Re: taf
• Re: Ilan/Etz
• Re: Yahrtzeit for a grandparent
• Mussar, haskalah, philosophy, kabbalah, and the standard curriculum

In a message dated 8/27/03 12:32:04 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In Berakhos 6:1, we're told that the berakhah on peiros ha'ilan is
> "borei peri ha'eitz" -- possibly giving credance to the Ashkenazi norm
> of using biblical Hebrew in tefillah rather than mishnaic???

Berochos are generaly based on Loshon Hakosuv, however in Birchas ha*Ilan*
we say *Ilonos* Tovos.

In general I think we once dicussed the issue of Eitz being any form
WRT Tachas haEitz.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/27/03 12:32:04 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In Berakhos 6:1, we're told that the berakhah on peiros ha'ilan is
> "borei peri ha'eitz" -- possibly giving credance to the Ashkenazi norm
> of using biblical Hebrew in tefillah rather than mishnaic???

Berochos are generaly based on Loshon Hakosuv, however in Birchas ha*Ilan*
we say *Ilonos* Tovos.

In general I think we once dicussed the issue of Eitz being any form
WRT Tachas haEitz.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

The root of chinam is CH'N'N. See Ibn Ezra Shemos 3, 21 and Radak,
Sefer Hashroshim cf reikam. The last nun is transformed into the dagesh.

M. Levin 

RMLevin:
> The root of chinam is CH'N'N. See Ibn Ezra  Shemos 3, 21 and Radak, Sefer
> Hashroshim cf reikam. The last nun is transformed into the dagesh.

As in the name "Channah" as well. (As opposed to "Chananyah" or "Chananel".)

But did RAYKook intend to make "ahavas chinam" based on chein, or based on the
normal usage for chinam? That's the basic question. Since it's opposing
"sin'as chinam", it's hard to argue a direct connection to "chein", no matter
how tempting that would be.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

> life. Many times in criminal cases the testimony verifies that a robber
> decided in a split second to kill or not kill his victim. What [or Who]
> do you think gives the criminal the idea as to what to do in that split
> second?

IOW, the criminal had no bechira?

> We can certainly cite numerous cases in which a kassam rocket
> was shot into populated Israeli areas and either did not do damage or
> killed someone.

Well, given the small area of damage a kassam does, i'd be more suprised
if it DID do damage...

Akiva

R Chaim Brown wrote:
> Sotah 22 has the story of an almanah went out of her way to daven at r'
> yochanan's bais midrash...

In the Ashkenaz of the rishonim, shuls typically didn't have mechitzos. Women
simply didn't attend. That's what I had pictured was the mishnaic norm too,
until now.

This either kills my belief about when the mechitzah was invented or of when
the taqanah was made WRT mixed tefilah. Since R' Moshe holds it's de'Oraisa,
although certainly a chiddush, it would be hard to believe that even according
to the other dei'ah the taqanah was made later than R' Yochanan's days.

However, I never heard of a mishnaic era mechitzah, in all the shuls dug up.
Dr Robert Goldenberg (who personally is C), cited once by RGStudent (joys of
Google!), attributes it to the paucity of shuls from that period that were
studied. Although I would think that it does argue that mechitzos were not
made of sturdy stuff.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

>> life. Many times in criminal cases the testimony verifies that a 
>> robber decided in a split second to kill or not kill his victim. What 
>> [or Who] do you think gives the criminal the idea as to what to do in 
>> that split second?

>IOW, the criminal had no bechira?

Sometimes one's bechira is compromised. In the chumash it says that Hashem
hardened Paro's heart. The classic and obvious question on that pasuk is
"well, so if Hashem hardened his heart, then why did Hashem punish him? He
was only doing what Hashem forced him to do, so to speak." The answer,
as you have surely heard, is that at first Paro did have free will and
could have chosen to be a nice guy. When he continued to choose to be a
rasha, then Hashem hardened his heart and did not allow him to choose
any more. Paro was still punished, though, because it was the choices
he made earlier that caused his heart to be hardened.

The same could be said of our hypothetical criminal. He chose with his
own bechira hofshi to be a criminal. He chose to begin the robbery and it
is only in the context of his free choice to be a rasha that Hashem then
"uses" him as the tool to do His [Hashem's] will.

>> We can certainly cite numerous cases in which a kassam rocket was shot 
>> into populated Israeli areas and either did not do damage or killed 
>> someone.

> Well, given the small area of damage a kassam does, i'd be 
> more suprised if it DID do damage...

But sometimes they DO hurt someone. Who decides? Hashem. 

---Rena 

>> Maybe Everett's many-worlds interpretation of QM? :) Though that
>> introduces more problems with the concept of free will than it
>> solves. [Since essentially there is no free will in a multi-verse... Every
>> possible choice is executed, every possible path taken.]

>No, since Everett does not assume one world per person, but one world per
>choice.

Precisely, and this means that every time a given person makes a choice
the world is 'split' into n worlds - one for every of the n possible
outcomes of the choice.

>What does RJL do with bechirah? The person, as he is here and now, is the
>product of a particular set of choices. The fact that there is another version
>who made different choices only effects that version. Each version gets the
>sechar va'onesh of the choices that produced that version. Thus, there is din.

No, it doesn't work that way. There are NO choices made, at all. All
possible outcomes take place. Thus, for example, if someone has in
front of him treif food, two universes will be created - one in which
he ate it and one in which he didn't. This will happen 100% of the time,
automatically. If you say choice was exercised, then by whom? Certainly
not by the 'version' in the parent universe - since both sides of the
decision materialized from him to create the child universi. And if you
say by the child 'versions' - this too doesn't make sense, since they
weren't even in existance at the time of the choice. They are created
only as part of a universe which already includes the outcome.

Furthermore, the whole concept of choice is fundamentally linked to
one's neshama/soul. It is this metaphysical entity that is responsible
for making decisions and for getting sechar v'onesh, not the physical
body (or brain/mind). If you have a world for each possible outcome of a
decision, then what exactly does the soul decide? Which world to travel
to? Then all the people in other worlds are just zombies with a neshama
(and how is this manifested)? Absurd. Perhaps an infinite number of souls
are created for every possible outcome of every choice a person makes
in his life? Absurd. No matter, how you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, the Torah as a historical account of creation and subsequent
events, must be viewed under Everett's interpretation as a history of
just that universe which we happen to be in currently. For other worlds,
there are other Torahs, substantially different than ours. Yet we know
that the Torah is one and immutable!

And as far as the example with Moshe is concerned - he could have just
been looking at what his descendants would become IF the mitzri will
not die. What is the point of looking into a parallel universe where
the mitzri won't die, if no communication between universi is allowed
anyhow and both choices will be made anyway, according to multi-world
interpretation?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:39:40 EDT Yzkd@aol.com writes:
<<Berochos are generaly based on Loshon Hakosuv, however in Birchas
ha*Ilan* we say *Ilonos* Tovos.
In general I think we once dicussed the issue of Eitz being any form WRT
Tachas haEitz.>>

Why takeh? My interest was in "ki ha'adam etz hasadeh" vs. ilan ilan
bameh avorechecha-two comparisons of man to trees.

Targum (this week's parasha) of ashera kol etz-ilan, but lichros
etzim-o'oh. So as (Micha?) posted, etz is tree/wood; ilan is only tree.

Correct?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Received from a lurker (whose lurk-keit I am protecting by bcc):
<<I am an occasional lurker on Avodah, and saw your question about
distinctions between ilan and etz. I once looked into this briefly.
I do not think it is a matter of lishna d'rabbanan or leshon haTorah.
I think the ikar is that ilan is originally Aramaic and etz is Hebrew.
Note that ilan is the Targum for etz. As I write, however, I am wondering
whether the Hebrew/Tanach words alon and eilah for specific kinds of
tree are not related to ilan.>>

If so, why the beracha "uvara vo... ilanos tovim"? Or the Mishna,
"al peiros ha'ilan omer borei peri ha'etz"?

I think it's axiomatic that Targum does not appear in berachos, and
rarely in the Mishna.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Does anyone know of any sources dealing with the observance of a
yahrtzeit for a grandparent in circumstances where the niftar no longer
has children?

DJH

> Assuming that the tzibur consists of 10 men , is the Baal tefillah
> obligated to wait for all to conclude before starting Chazaras
> HaShatz?...

According to RSZA in Halichos Shlomo, the chazan should preferably wait
until the majority of the tzibbur is done before starting chazaras
hashatz, but waiting for ten (9+1) is fine (and "b'shas hadchak"
(however that is defined) one can include those still davening their
silent shemona esrei).

KT
Aryeh

I remember hearing a shiur once that discussed different conceptions of
the purpose of Kaddish with one nafka mina being whether you would say
kaddish at a minyan you weren't davening with(eg you walked into the main
minyan after davening at hashkama and they were just finishing karbanot).
Does anyone know of any sources which discuss this issue?

KT
Joel Rich

[First of two threads being bounced over from Areivim. -mi]

On 27 Aug 2003 at 14:40, MIKE38CT@aol.com wrote:
> Mixed seating weddings is just one example of
> encouraging healthy social interaction, in my opinion. 

Something on the order of 90-95% of the weddings I go to these days 
are separate seating. Last week, I had occasion to go to a mixed 
seating wedding and sheva brachos, and a question occurred to me that 
I don't recall seeing addressed in this forum. 

IIRC, while there is some dispute as to whether mixed seating is 
advisable, permitted or prohibited, it was pretty clear cut that if 
you have mixed seating, you cannot say "she'ha'simcha bi'm'ono." So 
how come everyone says it anyway? Where's the heter?

 -- 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. 

>Mixed seating weddings is just one example of encouraging healthy social
>interaction, in my opinion.

I'll just point to my recent post to Avodah where I note that R' Yehuda
Henkin, not known for his right-wing tendencies, recommends that singles
not be seated mixed at weddings for halachic reasons.

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n056.shtml#04>

Gil Student

Carl Sherer wrote:
> IIRC, while there is some dispute as to whether mixed seating is
> advisable, permitted or prohibited, it was pretty clear cut that if you
> have mixed seating, you cannot say "she'ha'simcha bi'm'ono." So how come
> everyone says it anyway?
> Where's the heter?

The Levush.

Gil Student

> IIRC, while there is some dispute as to whether mixed seating is
> advisable, permitted or prohibited, it was pretty clear cut that if 
>you have mixed seating, you cannot say "she'ha'simcha bi'm'ono." So how
> come everyone says it anyway? Where's the heter?

Although the Beis Shmuel (EH 62:11) writes, "Kasav Bach k'she'anashim
v'nashim b'cheder echad ein omrim Shehasimchah Bim'ono, d'ein simchah
ksheyetzer hara sholet," the Bach does not say it with the definiteness
attributed by the Beis Shmuel.. What the Bach does write is that in
Cracow, on the second night of Sheva B'rochos, Asher Bara was said, but
not Shehasimchah Bim'ono, "v'hu teimah," except possibly that it was a
small crowd with men and women in the same room, and in Sefer Haminhagim
it mentions not to say Shehasimchah Bim'ono where there is a chashah
hirhur aveirah. The text of the Sefer Haminhagim (of R. Isaac Tirna,
quoted in Machon Yerushalyim's EH in its footnotes), says not to say it
if men and women can see each other.

Hence, the Bach does not state it as a p'sak halachah, but as a
possibility in explaining a puzzling phenomenon. To the best of my
knowledge, R. Isaac Tirna's minhagim are not binding; and if they are,
separate seating doesn't help -- it requires separate rooms.

What neither the Bach, the Beis Shmuel nor R. Isaac Tirna make clear is
what to do about the kallah, who is definitely female, and is definitely
in the same room as the men when Sheva B'rochos are said.

> What neither the Bach, the Beis Shmuel nor R. Isaac Tirna make clear is
> what to do about the kallah, who is definitely female, and is definitely
> in the same room as the men when Sheva B'rochos are said.

I would presume that since the kallah is the subject of the Shehasimchah
Bim'ono, there is a big difference between the presence of just the Kallah
and the rest of the Nashim. She also usually sits just at the entrance
to the room and not at the table, so mixed seating also doesn't apply.

Could there be a similarity to that of making a brocha of milah, even
though the child's erva is evident since that erva is the subject of
the brocha?

Daniel

From: Elazar M Teitz <>
> Although the Beis Shmuel (EH 62:11) writes, "Kasav Bach k'she'anashim
> v'nashim b'cheder echad ein omrim Shehasimchah Bim'ono, d'ein simchah
> ksheyetzer hara sholet," the Bach does not say it with the definiteness
> attributed by the Beis Shmuel..To the best of my knowledge, R. Isaac
> Tirna's minhagim are not binding; and if they are, separate seating
> doesn't help -- it requires separate rooms.

The KSA brings it as a psak - although I haven't heard of it being enforced.

SBA

[Second thread from areivim. -mi]

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
<<Hear, hear! Vela'los itah laregel, bb"a!>>

If she chooses to come; she's patur. Question-are nashim less than bas
mitzva included in "taf" to be chayav (kelomar)in hakhel?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[RGD:]
> If she chooses to come;  she's patur.  Question-are nashim less than bas 
> mitzva included in "taf" to be chayav (kelomar)in hakhel?

Why wouldn't they be? Doesn't the word "taf" by definition mean young
children? And doesn't "taf" always mean children in general? Where do
you ever see it used to mean only male children?

Toby Katz 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:48:56 EDT T613K@aol.com writes:
<<Why wouldn't they be? Doesn't the word "taf" by definition mean young
children? And doesn't "taf" always mean children in general? Where do
you ever see it used to mean only male children?>>

In milchemes Midyan there is reference to "hataf banashim".

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:48:56 EDT T613K@aol.com writes:
<<Why wouldn't they be? Doesn't the word "taf" by definition mean young
children? And doesn't "taf" always mean children in general? Where do
you ever see it used to mean only male children?>>

In milchemes Midyan there is reference to "hataf banashim".

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 27 Aug 2003 at 19:48, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Why wouldn't they be?  Doesn't the word "taf" by definition mean young
> children?  And doesn't "taf" always mean children in general?  Where
> do you ever see it used to mean only male children?

I think the question is whether the children are being brought because
of chinuch or because of an independent obligation to bring children. If
it's a din in chinuch, then we generally only obligate one to be m'chanech
for mitzvos in which the m'chunach (the child) will eventually be chayav
him or herself. Only boys will eventually be chayav in hakhel (mitzvas
aseh she'ha'zman grama).

But if it's an independent mitzva to bring your children, then there is
a hava amina (or more) to say that you should bring the girls also.

 -- Carl

"Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
<<But if it's an independent mitzva to bring your children, then there
is a hava amina (or more) to say that you should bring the girls also.>>

Hakhel is not limited AIUI to higia lechinuch. 

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 28 Aug 2003 at 8:27, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> (But I did not know that women are exempt from hakhel--I thought no
> one was exempt.)

They're exempt from aliya la'regel too ("yeiraeh kol ZCHURCHA"). Why
should hakhel be different?

 -- Carl

In a message dated 8/27/03, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> In milchemes Midyan there is reference to "hataf banashim".

Which goes to prove that unless otherwise specified, "taf" means male
AND female children.

Toby Katz 

On 28 Aug 2003 at 13:08, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Hakhel is not limited AIUI to higia lechinuch. 

Rav Teitz has reminded me off list that it's not limited to men 
either. 

""Hakhel es ha'am, anashim, nashim vataf."  We learn women's 
exemption from mitzvos aseh she'ha'zman grama because of sh'nei 
k'suvim haba'im k'echad in which the Torah specified their 
obligation: hakhel and matzah ("Kol sheyeshno b'val tochal chametz 
yeshno b'kum echol matzah"). Thus, even as chinuch, bringing girls 
should be obligatory."

 -- Carl

> No, since Everett does not assume one world per person, but one world per
> choice.

Doesn't Everett assume one world per *quantum* event/choice?

Akiva

In a message dated 8/28/03 12:33:16 PM EDT, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> If it's a din in chinuch, then we generally only obligate one to be
> m'chanech for mitzvos in which the m'chunach (the child) will eventually
> be chayav him or herself. Only boys will eventually be chayav in hakhel
> (mitzvas aseh she'ha'zman grama).

Hakhel is a Chiuv also on women Rambam Hil. Chagiga 3:1.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/28/03 10:49:11 AM EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Why takeh? My interest was in "ki ha'adam etz hasadeh" vs. ilan ilan
> bameh avorechecha-two comparisons of man to trees.

In the case of the Gemara the Bracha was that Peirosecha Kimoscha
which is Davka a (fruit bearing) tree. when it says Eitz *Hasodeh*
it also refers a connected tree (in addition to the Pashtus Haksuvim).
Note also Bamiddbar 13:20 haYesh Bah Eitz and Rashi there Odom Kosher
*Sheyagin* also refers to a standing tree that produces a "Hagana"
(shade, as by Avrohom AA"H and the Malachim).
Note also end of this weeks Parsha Nachal Eison...Lo Yizorteia and Rashi
there "Eino Oseh Peiros".

> Targum (this week's parasha) of ashera kol etz-ilan, but lichros
> etzim-o'oh. 

WRT Asheirah the Targum is translating the Possuk that says Lo *Sita*
which refers to a tree, and explains Kol Eitz as referring to all species
of trees (see Targum Breishis 1:11), OTOH note the Gemara Tamid 28b
(and Rambam Hil. Beis Habchira 1:9) seperates Asheira from Kol Eitz.
WRT Lichros Etzim the Targum is explaining the purpose of the cutting
which is for the wood (Bayar) and that the Eitzim (plural) is Lav Davka
different speceis (see Targum Breishis 6:14)

> So as (Micha?) posted, etz is tree/wood; ilan is only tree.
> Correct?

Ein Mashgichin biKllolim :-)

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 08/28/2003 10:50:58 AM EDT, [RDJH
<djhavin@alphalink.com.au>] writes:
> Does anyone know of any sources dealing with the observance of a
> yahrtzeit for a grandparent in circumstances where the niftar no longer
> has children?
 
See mateh ephraim 3:1(he has no kadimah over other aveilim)

KT
Joel Rich

From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
> I'm reading RM bar Ilan's book Mivolozhin L'Yerushalayim. He makes all sorts
> of provocative comments about all sorts of things. One that interested me
> was his comparison of the yeshivos of Slabodka and Odessa. Odessa (for those
> who, like me, had never heard of it before) was
> a haskalah yeshiva. RMBI comments that, even though one might think they
> were opposites, in one sense they were similar to each other and different
> from the "old style" yeshivos (read Volozhin: his dad was the Rosh Yeshiva
> and he grew up there). In old style yeshivos Torah was viewed as sufficient,
> whereas in these modern yeshivos it was felt that Torah needed to be
> supplemented by something else.

I'm not sure that the characterization in RMBI's time of post-R'
Chaim Brisker's Vilozhin as "'old style' yeshivos" is necessarily
appropriate. The Vilozhin of the author of Nefesh Hachaim could
not have been as narrow in curriculum.

> <slight digression> The Gaon's brother, in his peirush on Avos, deduces that
> mussar is not Torah from the verb "Tz'u" in Avos 2:13. <end
> digression>

Why such a derivation? Mishlei is explicit in listing Torah and mussar
separately numerous times.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

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


[ 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         ]