Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 018

Friday, May 7 2004

• RE: 24/7
• Re: Christianity
• Re: Christianity
• Re: Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Re: Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Re: keruvim
• Re: Sefiras Ho'Omer
• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: hatred vs lifne iver
• Re: When is a Mechitzah Necessary?
• Valid halachic change
• Source for Challah
• vayarak et chanichav
• Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Re: Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Re: keruvim
• Entering a C Synagogue
• Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Kivrei Tzadikim
• kivre tzaddikim
• Re: Kivrei Tzaddikim
• Re: Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• RE: mesorah conference
• Chai Rotel
• Re: Hot water on Shabbos
• Re: mesorah conference
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> Here was one local minhag, based on oral heterim, that the SE did not
> accept - but he clearly realized how widespread it was, and didn't think
> that it was obligatory to protest. (the fact that RSRH had gone to the
> opera might be news here, but was well known in Germany), and his tshuva
> documents his awareness that his approach is not the local approach.

The SE doesn't write about some "minhag" based on "oral heteirim" that
he rejects. He notes that the norm was to violate halachah.

 -mi

David Riceman wrote:
> Yes, I suspect the Rambam would have viewed the ascription of divinity
> to sefirot as heretical. How do you know he's not correct? Even RGS
> would only say "we don't pasken that way". Incidentally the mekuballim
> went out of their way to address the Rambam's concerns, they did not
> adopt your strategy of "believe but don't understand". That is one of
> the reasons kabbalah was traditionally an esoteric doctrine -- it was
> restricted to people who could understand the doctrines.

Interestingly in light of our previous debate: both sides debate the
point in terms of whether the sefiros and Eitz Chaim qualify as giving
a tzurah. Not in terms of whether one may believe in tzuros.

As for the Rambam requiring comprehension. The Rambam is hard to
understand on this point. OT1H, he invokves a Negative Theology, that
we can only speak about what Hashem isn't. Omnipresence means a lack
of specific location. (For that matter Aristotle argued that there is
no completed infinity, only potential ones. When discussing attributes,
the Rambam has no attribute that is infinite in magnitude either.)

OTOH, the Rambam also speaks of Hashem as HaYodei'ah, Hayedi'ah,
vehaYadu'ah. Not a negative attribute nor a description of His behavior
toward us.

I saw suggested on the web that perhaps the two do not contradict because
the latter is totally incomprehensible. Shifting from saying we can't
comprehend Hashem vs Hashem is Yodei'ah but we can't understand his
Yedi'ah isn't much of a shift.

But in any case, the stress is on what we can't know and can't imagine.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (413) 403-9905                       an act of kindness?

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:28:56 +0300, "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
wrote:
> With regard to translations of Moreh Nevukhim, it might be noted that
> the Rambam himself examined Ibn Tibbon's translation and approved it.

See R' Kapach's own introduction, where he deals with this, criticising R'
Ibn Tibbon's translation and maintaining that the Rambam did not approve
of it.

>In a message dated 05/04/2004 3:08:29 PM EDT, rygb@aishdas.org writes:
>>>How do you explain fasting and hespedim on Yahrtzeit's? ...
...
>> 1. It has no source in Chazal, it is pure minhag.

>I always assumed the true makor was shevuot 20a which mentions one who
>takes a neder not to eat meat/wine "cyom shmet bo aviv"

Perhaps (according to Rashi). But see the Rabbeinu Chananel there who
makes it clear that it is not a yahrzeit, but yom she'meis bo aviv mamash
- which makes sense, because an onein is assur in bosor and yayin.

YGB 

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:22:01AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: We have no days in our calendar to remember the dead and mourn (note the
: antithetical character of Lag ba'Omer!)...

Moreso, Rav Tzadoq writes that 33 baOmer is really to remember Rabbi
Aqiva, and a life that spanned teshuvah, a critical link in the shalsheles
hamesorah, living and dying bemesiras nefesh. He too died on 33 baOmer,
in addition to RShbY. However, when R' Aqiva died it wasn't too wise
to set up a day to remember someone the occupying power killed, so we
instead said we're focusing on the talmid rather than the Rebbe.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (413) 403-9905                       an act of kindness?

proptrek wrote:
>> this story happened at the time of the first churban, not the second.

> or rather, an after-second-hhurban midrasher told a story to convey a
> message he wanted to get through. en mikra yotse mide peshuto; mikelal
> zeh anhhnu shome'im shemidrash yotse weyotse.

The Rambam makes this point in the into to PhM Cheileq. I've also cited
the Maharal, Gra and Maharshah to this effect. But this quote is new to
me; where's it from?

 -mi

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> What I was trying to say that first can be counted the minute it entered
> and it does not connote completeness. An entity is being defined by
> its relationship to other members of the set, nothing else. One, on the
> other hand, is properly only counted once it is complete.

I disagree. A first item can be counted as soon as you encounter the item.
A measure of one day can only be counted after the day. Thus "yom echad"
could only be a measure from Pesach.

> One, as I actually discussed in the book on Shema, is a composite term
> that can mean first, singular, complete, indivisible, unique.

Echad is IMHO a poor example. In Bereishis 1 "yom echad" is in parallel to
"yom sheini", etc... ie as "first", not just "one". More telling is the
terminology for the other days of the omer.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (413) 403-9905                       an act of kindness?

What about entering a C synagogue to teach, e.g. (but not limited to)
for qiruv purposes?

 -mi

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:00:59AM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
: I think he thinks it's amazing, because its just so open ended.  For
: example, what's the difference b/w this and me shaking a female's hand?

Poor example. RMWillig also allows giving a "dead fish" (very non-derekh
chibah) handshake rather than offend.

 -mi

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:39:42AM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: It should, hopefully, be obvious that you do not need a mechitzah when
: you have friends over for dinner...

Nothing is ever pashut. In Yemen, it was not taken for granted. When
company was over, men and women would stay on different floors.

 -mi

Halakhah changes when we find that the metzi'us changed in some critical
way.

That could generate a heter either because (1) the new metzi'us does
not have a detail that is central to the reason for the chumrah; or
(2) the new metzi'us invokes an outweighing motivation leheteir that
didn't exist in the past.

There is also the change in pesaq when (3) a poseiq believes he found
the previous ruling is not a valid pesaq, that it runs counter to the
din. Not simply without basis, but runs against a critical source. But
that's a restoration of halakhah, not a change within it.

Uprooting a valid pesaq without such a change in the facts on the
ground simply isn't how halakhah works. (No matter what other Jews
might believe.)

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (413) 403-9905                       an act of kindness?

My wife is looking for any sources that 40 women baking and separating
Challah Erev Shabbos is a great zechus for childless couples and refuos
and shidduchim. According to her, it is murgal be-fi ha-nashim, but we
are looking for a solid mekor.

I am aware of Chazal that be-zechus challah a beracha enters
one's home, and that in the zechus of challah the world was created
(reishis/be'reishis). We're looking specifically for something about a
group of 40 women baking?

Thanks

I have no desire to reopen our discussion concerning perfection of the
avot but rather have a question in the other direction. The medrash says
that Avraham was punished for making an angaria on talmidei chachamim.
I thought ususally where chazal noted an imperfection in the avot
there was some clear reason (eg story itself, wording...). In this case
what was the "tell" that led chazal to a negative interpretation of an
otherwise unremarkable seeming pasuk.

Also what is the source of the apparently assumed prohibition of angaria?

KT
Joel Rich

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
>>How do you explain fasting and hespedim on Yahrtzeit's?
...

> 1. It has no source in Chazal, it is pure minhag.

And being matfis a neder as in hareini beta'anis keyom shemeis bo
aviv ve'imo?
Aderaba, fasting on a yahrtzeit is the ONLY minhag with a mekor in Chazal.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

At 02:33 PM 5/6/2004, gershon.dubin@juno.com wrote:
> And being matfis a neder as in hareini beta'anis keyom shemeis bo aviv
> ve'imo? Aderaba, fasting on a yahrtzeit is the ONLY minhag with a mekor
> in Chazal.

Where is this Chazal?

Im kabbala he nekabbel, but I believe you are referring to the same Gemara
as did RJR which speaks about bosor v'yayin and which I addressed under
separate cover.

YGB 

>> en mikra yotse mide peshuto; mikelal
>> zeh anahhnu shome'im shemidrash yotse weyotse.

> this quote is new to me; where's it from?

my own phrasing of what i remember to have understood from the great
ones you mention.

as they say (our old headmaster and latin teacher used to say it, later
i found it quoted in i forget whose name): educatedness is what remains
when a body has forgotten all he has learnt.

/dw

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
<<But don't we hold that kivrei tzadikim aren't m'tamei?
I never heard before that Kohanim don't go to Kever Rachel, etc.>>

And I never heard that Kever Rachel was a mosque.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: remt@juno.com
<<Even more directly: OC 329:9 states that all who go out "l'hatzil"
may return carrying their weapons, instead of being required to leave
them to avoid carrying, and as the MB explains, it is to prevent their
not desiring to go out to rescue in the future>>

But the pesak for Hatzala (by RMF BTW) was that is matir even d'oraiso,
which is not at all clear from the sources you quote.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> But the pesak for Hatzala (by RMF BTW) was that is matir even d'oraiso,
> which is not at all clear from the sources you quote.

in the olden days they believed rashuth harabim etc. was deoraytha. lots
of gezeroth based on this belief.

/dw

<The interesting point here is that there is no issue of kohanim entering
ma`arat hamakhpela. Why not?>

Perhaps because the avos have a din of b'nei Noach (as we just learned
in Daf Yomi, Chulin 100b, that according to R. Yehudah, who says the
issur of b'nei Yisrael eating gid hanasheh began before mattan Torah,
it was a case of "issuro noheig bivnei Noach").

EMT

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:17:29PM +0000, remt@juno.com wrote:
: Perhaps because the avos have a din of b'nei Noach (as we just learned
: in Daf Yomi, Chulin 100b, that according to R. Yehudah, who says the
: issur of b'nei Yisrael eating gid hanasheh began before mattan Torah,
: it was a case of "issuro noheig bivnei Noach").

I recall from RDLifshitz's shiur the maskanah that we hold like R' Yehudah
lehalakhah.

I don't know if that means they're metamei, though. After all, a deceased
nachri isn't metamei tum'as ohalim. Implying that categorizing the avos
as such would *reduce* tum'ah.

:-)BBii!
-mi

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:32:12PM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: From my perspective, it's all semantics. You view it as a change to
: halacha, but I see it as a question of which of two conflicting halachos
: overrides the other, or whether this situation is even covered by that
: halacha to begin with. The halacha itself doesn't change.

: Well, not recently, at least. One could argue that the halacha changed
: when they instituted to say Birkas Hamazon on just a kezayis, even if one
: wasn't satisfied....

First, I'm not sure we want to revisit the "How may halakhah change"
discussion yet again. (For those who are new to the chevrah, search for
threads with the word "mamrim" in it. Rambam Hil' Mamrim pereq 2 is one
of the key meqoros for such a discussion. As is this machloqes acharonim
over why amora'im don't argue with masqanas hatan'im, and what it implies
about acharonim treating halakhos made in earlier eras.)

But you're discussing two different things. You give examples (I only
left one) of enacting taqanos. We're speaking about the unwinding of
existing taqanos and pisqei halakhah.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (413) 403-9905                      results in harmony and balance?

> Why? The Gemara seems pretty clear that Kivrei Tzadikim (and while 
> it's not clear who is a tzadik, the Avos were clearly intended to be 
> included in that phrase) are not m'tamei.  

IIRC, in a shiur on the halachos of visiting the mkomos hakedoshim in EY,
RHS commented once that he recalled seeing that Kohanim duchaned in the
Meoras HaMachpelah. IIRC, RHS expressed some concern over the propriety
of that practice because of the possibility of tumas ohel. When someone
quoted the Gemara as to kivrei tzadikim aino mtamei, RHS mentioned
further that many Poskim understand that Gemara al derech hadrash,
as opposed to stating a psak halacha.

IIRC, RHS mentioned that many Rishonim and Acharonim do not accept the
Gemara as stating halacha lmaaseh.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

For the list of those who forbid kohanim to go to kivre tzaddikim,
add KSA 202:14

Shlomo Goldstein

Gil Student wrote:

>Carl wrote:
>>The Gemara seems pretty clear that Kivrei Tzadikim (and while
>>it's not clear who is a tzadik, the Avos were clearly intended to
>>be included in that phrase) are not m'tamei.

>It is not clear at all in the Gemara, and most
>poskim do not hold like that. See Tosafos, Kesuvos 103b
>(<http://www.e-daf.com/Kesuvos/103b.gif>) and, more recently, Minchas
>Elazar 3:64 (<http://www.aishdas.org/torahnet/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=1026>).

On this topic:
Over the ages some kohanim have relied on this to attend the funerals
of tzadikim (see Shut Minchas Eliezar 3:64). However, the vast majority
of poskim have not relied on this midrashic statement and forbid kohanim
from attending the funeral of tzadikim (See discussion in Beit Yosef YD
373; Pischei Tshuva YD 372:2; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 202:14; Bach YD 374;
Shut Divrei Yatziv (by Klausenburg rebbe) YD:231; Yechave Daat 4:58).
The contemporary greats, including Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yaakov
Kamenetzky, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman, Rav Yitzchak Hutner, and Rav
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach all come down as prohibiting in their letters
of approbation to the book Ziyon L'nefesh Zvi. See footnotes 50 and
51 to Al Hadaf Kesubos 7/No.65/July 2 '00. The only exception would be
the actual nasi, for whom the Shulchan Aruch (YD 374:11) says all (even
kohanim) may become tamei. See the responsum on this topic of graves of
tzadikim causing tumah in Eliyav ben Achisamach (written by Rav Sender
Friedenberg, formerly rav of Prashvitz and then of Bastravtza, in 5671
[1911]). See also the specific responsa of Rav Shlomo Kluger (1785-1869;
Tuv Taam v'Daas 2:Aveilut:231) who ruled that kohanim could not go
near the grave of the great chassidic rebbe Rav Aaron of Chernobil,
or of any other tzadik. see article by Prof Ta-Shma in JSIJ vol. 1
(<http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ>). A thourough discussion of this topic can
be found in Ziyun L'nefesh Zvi: A treatise concerning the presence of
cohanim at the grave of tzaddikim, by Rabbi Marcus Spielman, Brooklyn,
1976 (over 400 pages!). [See Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 202:14) that "kohanim
hedyotim" rely on this rule to visit the graves of the righteous, but
they are mistaken and one should correct them.]

>>>How do you explain fasting and hespedim on Yahrtzeit's? ...

>> I responded to a similar inquiry yesterday:

>> 1. It has no source in Chazal, it is pure minhag.

>I always assumed the true makor was shevuot 20a which mentions one who
>takes a neder not to eat meat/wine "cyom shmet bo aviv"

On the contrary, that g'mara proves that it is, as RYGB wrote, pure
minhag. The g'mara explicitly refers to it as a davar hanadur, something
he took upon himself, and not something that is binding. What it _does_
prove is that it was already a minhag at the time of Chazal.

EMT  

[From areivim:]
> He (and others) have testimony from hundreds of shochtim in
> Europe that it was the minhog in all the places that they
> shekhted and that they knew of to remove even large qnoqnos of
> the gid, and to remove all the nerves emerging from the gid as
> far down as they could, which involved cutting most of the meat
> into small chunks.  Although no one is claiming that this is
> necessary me'iqqar hadin, since it was the custom in all

Wasn't that a *chumra*, and acknowledged as such? If so, how could it
become din?

(Would it be assur for a Jew from an area where everyone kept Rabbeinu
Tam Zman *as a chumra* to start keeping regular zman?)

Akiva

In Israel, it has recently become common to see appeals for donations
for a segula called 'Chai Rotel Mashke' to distribute at the kever of
Rashbi in Meron. This is claimed to be an excellent segula for just
about anything you could possibly want.

Has anyone heard of an authentic Jewish source for this?

Has anyone heard of ANY source for it?

Can anyone remember hearing of such a segula more than a few (let's say
10) years ago?

If (and only if) the answer to any of the above is yes, what does it mean?

Akiva

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:45:59AM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Tanks are designed with baffles as in the muffler of a car. This prevents
: the cold water when entering at the bottom from mixing with the hot water
: higher up. Hot water tanks are designed with this in mind for the sake
: of efficiency and economy .

As some point, though, the incoming cold water is heated to become the
next batch of "hot water higher up".

See <http://tinyurl.com/3a8db> from Home Wiring and More, which has
a picture of a far simpler device than you describe, more like what
I assumed.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (413) 403-9905                      results in harmony and balance?

Someone posted a question about not understanding the distinction between
the deer and the cow in niqqur ahorayim (removing the gid hanoshe).
In addition, about<< commercial value of what's left in that whole area.>,

R. Jonathan Baker wrote: <This puzzled me. Gershon: didn't R' Wikler
say, when we were learning beryah, that the part of gid hanasheh that
we worry about is only about a tefach? I know the gemara talks about
knoknos, but after hearing R' Wikler, it sounded like that wasn't the
actual halacha. Now the OU says that it is.>


I was speaking to R. Belsky and, in the course of the discussion, got
some clarification, to wit:

He (and others) have testimony from hundreds of shochtim in Europe that
it was the minhog in all the places that they shekhted and that they
knew of to remove even large qnoqnos of the gid, and to remove all the
nerves emerging from the gid as far down as they could, which involved
cutting most of the meat into small chunks. Although no one is claiming
that this is necessary me'iqqar hadin, since it was the custom in all
communities that we know of, it is binding as a minhog (or, in light of
the conference title, as the mesorah of how we treiber cattle).

For deer, OTOH, R. Belsky got testimony from 2 prominant shokhtim (one
of whom was R. Maizlesh, considered the dean of European shokhtim who
emigrated to EY), that for deer they did not pursue any qnoqnos, and
did not cut up the meat but rather pulled out the two large branches
after the gid splits up. This was in specific distinction to cattle.
R. Belsky is a little more makhmir than that, and requires the OU to cut
some of the meat in removing the branches, but since there is no binding
tradition to go any further, and, indeed, in Poylin (where they shekhted
lots of deer, according to the testimony), there is no need for us to
go beyond the plain halokho. Many things in the niqqur are transmitted
by mesorah/ AKA "qabbolo"; that fact is specifically mentioned by the
acharonim, and is the reason why a shokhet has to have a "qabbolo" for
shekhting. The acharonim take these matters as binding, even if they
are not mentioned in the g'moro. The OU follows this line of reasoning,
as was evident from the conference, and believes it is the proper one
to follow for a kashrus organization serving the entire Jewish community.

That is also the answer to R. JB's comment <It was also interesting
how he, um, didn't quite answer Dr. Greenspan's question about why the
OU doesn't [yet] approve the odd birds for which he has documented and
received a mesorah.>

As R. Belsky said at the conference, his position (and the OU's) is that
it is not enough to have a tradition from one community, since others
might have forbidden it for a reason. It perhaps would be permissable
for an individual rov to pasken that way, but for an organization serving
the entire community R. Belsky feels it is inappropriate to allow things
unless we have testimony (even from one person) that all communities in
Europe did things that way or had that masorah. The OU will not issue
a separate hekhsher for Teimanim, nor for German Jews vs. Polish Jews,
nor for Frankfort Jews vs. Berlin Jews. In my own humble opinion, this
is absolutely correct: From a purely theoretical standpoint, I might be
persuaded to eat an arbeh, or some other animal, if I could find a rov who
was a boqi confirm his tradition that it was acceptable and answer all my
questions in the matter, but I would never allow a kashrus agency that I
were to head to give a general hashgocho on them. That is theoretical: I
will never head a kashrus agency, and I have no plans to eat any locusts.
The Moshiach will tell me which ones I can eat when he arrives...

Seth Mandel

> <The interesting point here is that there is no issue of kohanim entering
> ma`arat hamakhpela. Why not?>

see areivim on this (why there - see there)

/dw

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


[ 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         ]