Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 106

Sunday, August 13 2006

• Re: Putting oneself in danger
• Re: Rikud
• Re: Putting oneself in danger
• Re: How does one dance in front of the Kallah?
• Re: How does one dance in front of the Kallah?
• Re: How does one dance in front of the Kallah?
• RE: Putting oneself in danger
• Re: Halachah k'Mishna Brura
• RE: lo tasur
• RE: lo tasur
• Lo Tasur
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• optional birchas kohanim?
• wealth and chumros
• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• Re: Music

In Avodah V17 #105, RDrJB replied to RLPhM:
>>You know that I'm sceptic whether the American concept of heroism has any
>>place in Toure-true Judaism. So, is one allowed to do something like that?

> [Here is an old but relevant message I posted almost 2 years ago]

I don't understand how SHuT on risking one's life apply to a situation of
*giving [up]* one's life.  Can you explain?  Thanks.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Was wondering about that. The bachurim often bang out the rhythm
> with their "inner" (in relation to the circle) foot. Wouldn't this be
> explicitly the problem of ein merakkedin?

AIUI, rikud means both feet off the ground at the same time.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

R. Lipman Minden asked:
>R' Moshe Feldman wrote:
>> Ro-ie and some of his men were searching a house for Hizbullah
>> weapons when a terrorist lobbed a grenade into their room. On
>> instinct Ro-ie threw himself on top of the grenade absorbing the
>> full blast, with Shema Yisrael on his lips.
....
>So, is one allowed to do something like that?

Dr. JB responded: [Here is an old but relevant message ....

Me: While interesting, your [Dr. JB] remarks are not quite on point. In
the story as recounted Ro-ie acted on instinct, ie., without thought,
much like we act without thought when we go into a room on Shabbos and
instinctivly flip on the lights. So we should cast no aspersions on
Ro-ie's self sacrifice for his chaveirim. But I think the question RMF
was asking, was had Ro-ie had the time to think things through, would he
be permitted to throw "himself on top of the grenade absorbing the full
blast, with Shema Yisrael on his lips," ie., to commit certain suicide
to save his chaveirim.

All of the cases Dr. JB cites are not directly on point. They concern
cases of risk to the life of the rescuer, possibly even great risk,
but not out and out certain suicide. While the final result may yet be
in the direction Dr. JB indicates, it was not yet sufficiently supported
by these cites.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

> It is indeed clear from the answers that the question is not really
> about dancing. Yet the plain "teitch" of the words "Keitzad merakdim
> lifnei hakallah?" is "How does one dance in front of the kallah?"

Why is it clear that the question is not about dancing? The g'mara
obviously takes for granted that dancing in the kallah's presence is done,
and asks how it is done. However, the "how" refers not to the feet,
but to the mouth -- what is sung to accompany the dancing. After all,
on the Mishna in Beitzah 36b, Rashi comments that m'rakdin (along with
m'tapchin and m'sapkin) is "l'simcha ul'shir."

EMT

In Avodah V17 #105, RDrYL took on Micha's challenge:
>> it's clear from the [BT K'suvos 17a] answers -- "kemos shehi" vs "kalah
>> na'ah vachasudah" -- that the question isn't really about dancing.

> why indeed does the gemara give the answer that it gives? It seems to go
> against the simple meaning of the words.

(Tonight's learning in the z'chus of my "Elef laMateh" partner.)

If RDrYL is asking, "How does 'riqud' take on the meaning of 'amirah'?"
(see RaShY ad loc.), no need to worry: from the sugya on 17a, esp. "amru
alav al R' Y'hudah bar Ila-ai shehayah notail bad shel haddas umraqaid
lifnai hakkallah v'omair, 'Kallah na'ah vachasudah!'" it would seem
that "Kaitzad m'raqdin" is answered as if the Q was "Kaitzad om'rim"
only because the Q can't possibly pertain to the details of the dancing
(really, as per T'hilim 114 and as any true charaidi will tell you,
"dancing" doesn't quite explain riqud, but that's a goat of a different
color) and therefore must pertain to what was done b'derech eretz while
dancing (and note the language of MaHaRSHA: "d'derech l'shorair b'ais
hariqud") in order to endear the kallah to the chasan (and note the da'as
yachid, not l'halacha, that "mutar *l'histakkail* [emphasis mine --MP]
bifnai kallah kal shiv'a k'dai l'chib'va al ba'lah" [!]).

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

At 03:43 AM 08/10/2006, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
>     Why is it clear that the question is not about dancing?  The
>g'mara obviously takes for granted that dancing in the kallah's
>presence is done, and asks how it is done.  However, the "how" refers
>not to the feet, but to the mouth -- what is sung to accompany the
>dancing.  After all, on the Mishna in Beitzah 36b, Rashi comments
>that m'rakdin (along with m'tapchin and m'sapkin) is "l'simcha
>ul'shir."

How can it be with the mouth when today the music at most Chasanas is so
loud that one cannot talk easily to the person sitting next to you? >:-}
(This has led to my latest "minhag" - bringing ear plugs with me to
Chasanas.)

All kidding aside, if singing is to be done while dancing in front of
the Kallah, then this is yet another reason (besides the damage done to
the ear drums of those in the hall) to lower the volume of the speakers.

Yitzchok Levine 

R. Lipman Minden asked:
>R' Moshe Feldman wrote:
>> Ro-ie and some of his men were searching a house for Hizbullah 
>> weapons when a terrorist lobbed a grenade into their room. On 
>> instinct Ro-ie threw himself on top of the grenade absorbing the full

>> blast, with Shema Yisrael on his lips.
....
>So, is one allowed to do something like that?

[R' Chaim Manaster:]
> While interesting, your [Dr. JB] remarks are not quite on point. In
> the story as recounted Ro-ie acted on instinct, ie., without thought,
> much like we act without thought when we go into a room on Shabbos and
> instinctivly flip on the lights. So we should cast no aspersions on
> Ro-ie's self sacrifice for his chaveirim. But I think the question RMF
> was asking, was had Ro-ie had the time to think things through, would he
> be permitted to throw "himself on top of the grenade absorbing the full
> blast, with Shema Yisrael on his lips," ie., to commit certain suicide
> to save his chaveirim.

> All of the cases Dr. JB cites are not directly on point. They concern
> cases of risk to the life of the rescuer, possibly even great risk, but
> not out and out certain suicide. While the final result may yet be in
> the direction Dr. JB indicates, it was not yet sufficiently supported by
> these cites.

1. One of my rabbeim told us during the 6 day war that people don't
understand that the "halachot" of war differ from what's found in shulchan
aruch/poskim on seemingly related issues. Does anyone posit that hamelech
David's warriors could refuse a mission because of vadai pikuach nefesh?
He went on to point out that bavonoteinu harabim there is no significant
older responsa literature because we haven't been in the position to
have an army to defend us.

2. I would also analyze the instinctive actions of an individual based
on the individual. From what I've read of R' Ro-ie H"YD he was a ben
torah and talmid chacham. Thus his instincts were most likely informed
by the "lev shel torah" t in his case likely, greater extent. He likely
analyzed in that split second the probability of any of them escaping
alive and determined that his action was in consonance with the halacha.

May we never be faced with such shailot again and may we not hesitate
to be mkayem the ratzon hashem as we understand it.
May HKB"H have mercy on his people and his land.
Joel Rich

R'Wolpoe wrote:
>> R. Hersh Goldwurn ZTL in his Halachic compilation at the end of the Yom
>> Kippur Machzor makes the MB the default but specifically notes that he
>> will cite cases taht either
>> A) the MB did not adress
>> B) most/many congregations do NOT follow the MB

>> QED he did not believe that the Halachah was always like the MB albeit
>> it was the default.

Regarding Rav Moshe's attitude towards the Mishna Berura

Rav Moshe disagreed with the Mishna Berura many times as did the Chazon
Ish - despite Chazon Ish comparing the Mishna Berura to the Sanhedrin.
[Collected Letters vII #41] Similarly the Chazon Ish had no qualms about
disagreeing with the Shulchan Aruch - which he said is the fall back
position [Choshen Mishpat Likutim #1] Rav Moshe also said it was permitted
to disagree with Rishonim in certain circumstances.[YD I #101 page 186]

Rav Moshe's attitude to Mishna Berura is is best reflected in the 8th
volume OH V #13.9 page 26 "Halacha l'maaseh even though there is a reason
to prohibit - which is my inclination - nevertheless someone who wants to
be lenient according to what seems to be the view of the Mishna Berura
can rely on him because he is the Maran of later generations in horaah
concerning issues of Orech Chaim."

Anticipating intertest in this question I made a separate entry in the
new English edition of the Yad Moshe for "Mishna Berura" p225 where Rav
Moshe specifically deals with the Mishna Berura

Bottom line - a halachic view which has become widely accepted is
difficult to disagree with while one that has no consensus is open to
all competent poskim - even against the Mishna Berura.

Daniel Eidensohn

Joel Rich wrote:
> R"AM(mizrachi) as quoted in the Yad Hamelech states "afilu tachshov
> blibcha shehu toeh bdin... vaal tomar eich ehyeh ochel hachelev
> hazeh... elah tomar kach tzivanu hanoten et hatorah shenaaseh kchol
> asher yorenu hashofet hahu... vlo yeitzeih mipihem ki im haemet"

But see the Ramban on the pasuq (Deuteronomy 17:12)

"afilu tahshov bi-l'vavekha she'heim toim, ve-ha-davar pashut b'einekha
k'yamin li-s'mol, ta'asseh k'mitzvotam, v'al tomar eikh okhal ha'heilev
ha-gamur ha'zeh o eikh e'herog ha-ish ha-naki ha-zeh, elah tomar kakh
tzivah oti ha-adon ha-m'tzaveh ha-mitzvot . . . v'al mashma'ut da'atam
natan li ha-torah, APHILU IM YIT_U.

Also see the Hinukh mitzvah 496

v'amru zal "lo tasur min ha-davar asher yagidu l'kha yamin u-s'mol."
k'lomar aphilu im y'hiyu to'im b'eizeh davar min ha-d'varim, ein r'uyah
l'kha lakhloq aleihem, aval NA'ASSEH K'TA'UTAM. V'tov lisbol ta'ut Ahat
'nihiyeh hakol mesurim tahat da'atam ha-tov tamid, v'lo she-ya'asseh
kol ehad k'da'ato, she-bazeh yih'yeh hurban ha-dat, v'hiluq lev ha-am,
v'hurban ha'uma l'gamri.

David Glasner

[R David Glasner:]
> But see the Ramban on the pasuq (Deuteronomy 17:12) ..
[See prev post. -mi]

Yes I noticed that (and it reminded me of the 2 reasons given for why
eidim zomimim are not put to death if they succeeded in their plan) but
my original question still stands - how can the mishnah in Horiyot be
reconciled with this position when it states that the dayaan or talmid
raui lhoraah acts on the psak of bet din he knows to be wrong is chayav
an individual chatat (according to rashi because he erred in the mitzvah
to be shomea divrei chachamim)

May HKB"H have mercy on his people and his land
Joel Rich

"Rich, Joel" wrote:
> We're all familiar with Rashi's statement that even if they tell you 
> that right is left you have to listen....        Has anyone seen a 
> reconciliation of this position with the mishneh in Horiyot which 
> states that a member of bet din or talmid raui lhoraah can not rely on
> bet din and if he acts on bet din's psak, knowing it's wrong, he's 
> chayav (according to rashi of misunderstanding the meaning of lshmoa 
> dvrei chachamim)

R"AM(mizrachi) as quoted in the Yad Hamelech states "afilu tachshov
blibcha shehu toeh bdin... vaal tomar eich ehyeh ochel hachelev
hazeh... elah tomar kach tzivanu hanoten et hatorah shenaaseh kchol
asher yorenu hashofet hahu... vlo yeitzeih mipihem ki im haemet"

Here is R. David Nieto's comments on this Mizrachi in Mattaeh Dan,
coming soon, G-d willing, from Yashar Press.

Meir. Levin

    67 The Khazar said: But how will you respond what they said that
    even if the Sages tell you that right is really left - you must
    follow them[1].

    68 The scholar said: Our Teacher Rabbi Elija Mizrachi in his
    super-commentary on Rashi's commentary quote of this passage from
    the Sifri explained as follows: "Even if you think that one of the
    Sages erred in his determination of a law and said that the right
    is left and left is right, do as he advises. Do not say: How can I
    eat this completely forbidden fat that he pronounces permitted? How
    shall I execute this innocent man who he says is guilty? Instead,
    say: The Giver of the Torah has so commanded - follow what the
    judge resolves by applying the Torah, not only when he says that
    right is right and left is left. This is so because the spirit of
    the Most High is over his servants at all times. It will keep them
    for error and from a mishap. Only the truth will come out of their
    mouths." These are his words about this issue, like those of an angel.

    69. The Khazar said: From you quote it appears that the explanations
    that the Sages offered are wholly theirs and not received from Moses
    from Sinai[2].

    70. The scholar said: God forbid that such a great and well-regarded
    scholar should have believed and meant that. He presented it as a
    possible line of reasoning, that is, even if you may suppose that
    there is no received tradition in a particular matter and even that
    there is no sense to the Sages' verdict and the way they reasoned,
    you must subject yourself to their decision. As I have shown, this
    is the plain meaning of this text.

    71. Said the Khazar: Yes, this is what you demonstrated previously.

 ---------------------------------
[1] Isn't that arrogant?

[2] The Khazar realizes that claiming legitimacy due to Divine Inspiration
obviates a need for any kind of tradition. If we follow the Sages because
of their Holy Spirit, what need remains for laws received by tradition?

RabbiRichWolpoe  wrote:
>R. Seth Mandel, Elbogen and the Geniza support Oseh Hashalom as the
>original Nusach 

See the extensive notes in Avodat Yisrael by Baer showing from a slew of
midrashim and other ancient sources such as Piyutim that Oseh Hashalom
was the original Hatima. (Baer was of course not aware of the Geniza
sources. )

The Machzor HaMikdash for Pesach by R Yisrael Ariel has an extensive
article on the subject placed at the Musaf Hazarat HaShatz and Bircat
Kohanim.

Dov A Bloom
dovb@netvision.net.il

In Al-Nakawa's Menorath HaMaor (ed. Enelow, vol. 2, p.151, line 5) it says
"hayu sham kohanim, v'hiskimu hakahal la'asoth birkath kohanim ..." then
he gives the procedure. What does he mean by the clause requiring
consent? How does a member of the kahal go about demurring? Why would
he want to?

David Riceman 

IIRC, when we were discussing eating at other people's houses, Rabbi Levin
said that in his community people just don't do that, and at simchos,
of course, they use publicly accepted caterers. Long long ago (when
my Dad was young) people didn't use caterers. They cooked for simchos
themselves. I wonder whether this is a new custom that Rabbi Levin's
community has. If it's old, how did they treat simchos in the olden days?

David Riceman 

[R' Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@juno.com>:]
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 16:56:44 -0400GMT, R' Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Areivim he spoke of these earlier versions of LhQ as proto-Hebrew
>> (a fact already made public on Avodah beshe'as ma'aseh).  Complete with
>> the theory that there were once two ayin's that collapsed into a  single
>> letter before matan Torah.

> Why would the two `ayin sounds (`ayin & ghayin, to be specific) have
> had to have collapsed before matan Torah? Did RSM (or do you?) see
> a hashqafic difficulty with them merging after matan Torah as opposed
> to before?

> 'After' would be specifically, some time after Alexander the Great,
> due to the evidence of Greek transliterations that lead towards Lo`azit
> _Gaza_ for _*Ghaza_=`Aza and _Gomorrah_ for _*Ghamora_=`Amora, etc.

R. Micha sent this to me a month ago. I only now am getting around to
responding to emails, since I have been on the road a lot.

Your question is quite valid. There are a couple of reasons why I used
the assumption that the collapse was before mattan Torah:

1) There is no record in any of the three-four punctuation systems of
a differentiation between different kinds of 'ayins. The punctuation
systems are, to be sure, many centuries later, but they represent a
fairly conservative treatment of consonants, not one that is tied only
to the consonants available in the lettering system.

2) The Greek transcriptions of Biblical names that you note and that led
to speculation that the 'ayin-ghayin differentiation existed at the time
the names were borrowed are not consistent. I remember seeing a study
done about 50 years ago that concluded that as many original ghayins
ended up realized as zero in the Greek names as did represented by gamma.
Even if this was not true, by the time of Origenes there was clearly no
differentiation between ghayin and 'ayin in Hebrew.

These two arguments do not show that the collapse occurred by the time of
Mattan Torah, but are enough to make the onus of proof lie on those who
argue that the collapse occurred later in Hebrew. The other important
point to make is that it is pretty clear that the Greek names were not
borrowed from Hebrew, but from some other language used in the area.
I remember that most of the students of Albright concluded that the
names used in the Septuagint were not transcriptions made at the time
of the Septuagint, but names common among the speakers of Koine living
in the area that had made their way into Greek many years prior to the
Septuagint translation. Greek may have borrowed the names from a Canaanite
dialect that preserved the distinction between 'ayin and ghayin, even
if the study I remember seeing mentioned in 2) above is not correct.

As an example of the difficulty of making arguments from place names
I need only point to the name Moscow in English. Any attempt to derive
the name from a Russian pronunciation (or even any Slavic pronunciation,
eg Polish) will end in failure. Rather, the name was taken from a German
form of the Slavic name (probably Polish).

Seth Mandel

RabbiRichWolpoe wrote:
>> Why not? The minag/halacha for hundreds of years is not to listen
>> to music.

> What are the sources for this ancient Minhag?
> Maybe it's not quite so ancient?

I referred to the Worms minneg books and the Chavves Yoer's notes to
one of them, where no mention of a prohibition of music is to be found.

Lipman Phillip Minden
http://lipmans.blogspot.com

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


[ 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         ]