Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 53

Sat, 17 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (Elliott Shevin)
• 2. Re: Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch" (Elliott Shevin)
• 3. Re: Each tribe had different Torah? (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Ikkarim Redux (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Retzei (Samuel Svarc)
• 8. Re: Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (Zev Sero)
• 10. donating blood (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Retzei (Michael Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: Retzei (Arie Folger)
• 13. Who is Right? (Yisrael Medad)
• 14. Re: Yeruishalayim (Moshe Feldman)

Yaakov Moser wrote:
 
> I note that Rav Soloveitchik had the custom to do Nefilat Apayim even > when there was no Sefer Torah. [Nefesh HaRav p. 134]. 
I'm glad you brought this into the discussion. Soloveitchik was Cohen's rebbe.
 
I hesitate to speculate on whether the former was the latter's source, though; REC is a stickler for detail, and hv I assert anything that isn't 100% accurate.
Shabbat shalom, Elly
_________________________________________________________________
It?s tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips 
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=WLMartagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070316/680b08dd/attachment.html 

Samuel Svarc wrote:> > When he comes to collect his fee from the Yehoshua, Yehoshua declines,> telling him in effect, "L'massie, to both of our surprise, you didn't end up> singing. So what am I paying you for?".> > Davidi claims that he turned down two other weddings because he had> committed to come to Yehoshua's.> > WHO IS RIGHT?What?? You're going to keep us in suspense?? (Until I can get a copy of the book, that is.)Personally, I sympathize with Davidi. Yehoshua was unavoidably purchasing his time as well as his services. Davidi acted in good faith; he arrived with the intent to sing. True, he decided on his own not to, but to perform under the circumstances would be awkward and embarrassing. And if Yehoshua doesn't pay, he's forced Davidi to suffer the loss of the business he had to turn down. On the other hand, the story reads: >The chosson, Yehoshua, as a surprise for his kallah, Devorah, hires a>singer, Davidi, to sing certain songs, ... Aha! Davidi was hired to SING, not merely to appear. Looks like he loses out. (This really IS like Encyclopedia Brown!) But heck, I'm no boki in these halachot.I can't wait to read the answer! Elly"Striving to bring Torah Judaism into the 58th century"
_________________________________________________________________
It?s tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips 
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=WLMartagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070316/764154ea/attachment-0001.htm 

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> Pesikta DeRav Cahane[1] <#_ftn1>**(Appendix 1): *R? Huna sated that 
> Moshe wrote 13 Sefer Torahs. Twelve were for the 12 Tribes and one was 
> given to Levi?im so that if one of Tribes wanted to elminate anything 
> from the Torah ? the Levi?im would be able to produce their Sefer Torah 
> and correct the false text.

What if Shevet Levi decided to change their Torah?  Presumably they
would be prevented by the same mechanism - the other 12 tribe would
produce their Sifrei Torah and force Levi to reverse the change. But
if so, why does R Huna phrase it like that?  Why not just say "if one
of the tribes wanted to change anything in the Torah, the other 12
would correct them"?  Why single out Levi as the tribe least likely
to want to change things?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Taking a step back...

I am not sure what RMS means by "ikkarim", and I am pretty sure he hasn't
gotten my definition, at least to its full implications.

I said they have halachic import, as they are used to assess people for stam
yeinam and geirus. Then there is also shechitah. This includes things like
RASoloveitchik's lenient ruling WRT meshichtzin, which was written in terms of
the 12 ikkar. In addition to RHS's comment, which wasn't meant as a pragmatic
pesaq, but was made by a noted poseiq in a prepared public talk.

IIUC, RMS invokes "lo dak" on the use of language (a point he stressed more in
previous iterations), and where they do mean the ikkarim bedavka, the poseiq
involved doesn't know the true breadth of the history involved, and are erring
on the "metzi'us" behind the ruling.

I am NOT talking about how to define when someone else is to be excluded from
our community. I do not believe we should be in the business of excluding
people from a pragmatic perspective, not in the business of judging others
altogether from a halachic one -- except where necessary.

Nor am I even talking about much room personal usage. After all, if I honestly
get to the wrong answer I am not a kofeir, if someone rebels their way there,
guidelines won't mean much.

I am speaking specifically of the notion that they are not ignorable because
halachic questions overlap with aggadic data.

Which is why I do not understand RMS's comment:
...
: I find this realm to be quite  unproductive - because the fundamental
: assertion  -  that the discussion of the ikkarim is subject to halachic
: methodology - is what needs to be proven.....(and I thought you weren't a
: brisker...)

When not dealing with the halachic realm, there is no concept of pesaq, and
any position honestly and accurately derived from the mesorah is valid. I am
intentionally speaking of the halachic realm, because -- while this is
tangential to the Rambam's question of who is a Yisrael WRT "kol Yisrael yeish
lahem cheileq leOhB" -- it is invoked by acharonim to make halachic decisions.
But if halakhah requires that we treat them differently in these ways, we
can't simply relegate the ikkarim to one opinion among many -- it's the
opinion whose major features made it into halakhah.

IOW, I am no Brisker. (In fact, I consider the perpetuation of Brisk into an
era where there is no culture of "Erev Shabbos Jews" to be the primary problem
underlying most of the O community's imperfection. Halakhah uber ales only
works in conscious thought when everything else is provided culturally on a
preconscious/unconcious/subconscious [don't know the terms well enough to
choose] level.)

Still, it is only in the halachic realm that the question of mandate has
meaning. Noting that there is halachic impact means that side of things can't
be ignored. A Brisker would say it's the only meaningful question. But one
needn't be a Brisker to say it is an essentual question.

So, what do I think are the 13 ikkarim as utilized in halakhah? I'm not sure.
There is plenty of gray area subject to machloqes. But then, we use kezeisim
as a unit of measure even though the range of possible values is greater than
a factor of 2 from smallest pesaq to largest. (All of the pesqim I know of are
larger than archaeological consensus. But I would assume by now someone
utilized digs on Har haBayis to form a new shitah.)

So my claim is limited in both domain (a narrow applicability) and range (a
wide set of possible outcomes). But I think it still has import. If we
actually pasqen (e.g.) that Jews who do have messianic beliefs at odds with
the 12th ikar can't handle our wine, then there really is a line keeping such
people from ever feeling or being considered fully "there". RAS implies as
much when he says that meshichtzin don't qualify rather than denying there is
anything for them to qualify for. We may try to make them welcome, but as
RMShinnar noted, it will be tough going.

RMShinnar writes "the rambam would have vigorously fought against the idea
that  universal acceptance implies truth" and "a doxa is quite different than
statements of hilchot shabbat - and has always been treated differently." But
I'm talking about "hilkhos Shabbos", not doxology or determination of truth.
Which is why I feel I am not getting the idea across.

I would then add that one can legitimately derive communal-definitional
implications from the halachic development, which is closer to the role of
doxology. Not in the sense of you must believe X to be Y, but in practice, you
wouldn't be treated by other O Jews the same as most of them without such
belief.

BTW, R Zvi Pesach Frank required yayin mevushal when having tinoqos
shenishbe'u at the table, not only rebellious koferim. At an OU program on
wine and grape juice, RHS recommends being chosheish for this when having
unobservant seder guests. (Despite RYBS's reluctance to use mevushal for 4
kosos.)

One last question for RMS: Since you don't believe one is supposed to use even
a loose definition of the ikkarim even in this halachic context, the question
of the width of opinion is more on yourself. I am saying that there is a
near-universal consensus around (although not actually at) a certain point.
What then is a kofeir? Which guests at your table wouldn't you serve
non-mevushal wine to? If one denies the 13 ikkarim serving in this role,
doesn't one need to have some other set of beliefs in order to know what to
do?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Yaakov Moser wrote:
> The Rokeach uses as support the verse 
> from Yehoshua where Yehoshua falls "before God".

"Before the *ark* of God".

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Danny Schoemann wrote:

> The Be'er Heitev brings the SKNH"K (who's that?) in the name of the
> Rokeach that "if there are other seforim they have the din of a ST,
> and that's what we rely on nowadays."

1. It's ShKNHG, Shirei Knesset Hagedolah.
2. He does *not* say it in the name of the Rokeach.  He gives his own
sevara, that the Rokeach would concede that one should do NA if there
are other sefarim.
3. He doesn't say that "we" rely on this "nowadays".  He says that
*he* (the ShKNHG) relies on this sevara, to do NA where he learns.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

>From: Elliott Shevin <eshevin@hotmail.com>
>Subject: [Avodah] Retzei
>
>
>I've usually prayed from siddurim in which the brocha "retzei" is
>punctuated, "... vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha (period). Ve-ishei
>Yisrael utefilatam be-ahava tikabel...."
>
>In English, this becomes "... and return the service to the Holy of
>Holies of your house. And receive with love the fire-offerings of Israel
>and their prayers...."
>
>I've only recently noticed that many siddurim punctuate it, "...
>vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha (comma) ve-ishei Yisrael (period).
>Utefilatam be-ahava tikabel...."
>
>Or in English, "... and return the service to the Holy of Holies of your
>house, and the fire-offerings of Israel. And receive with love their
>prayers...."
>I find the latter awkward; "return the service to... and the fire-
>offerings?"


The way my father explained it to me is the following: If one will say,
"Ve-ishei
Yisrael utefilatam be-ahava tikabel..." "And receive with love the
fire-offerings of Israel
and their prayers....", he has just said something incomprehensible. There
are no fire-offerings these days (unfortunately). The most logical construct
is, "vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha
ve-ishei Yisrael" "and return the service and the fire-offerings of Israel
to the Holy of Holies of your house".

KT and GS,
MSS

R' Danny Schoemann wrote:
> The Be'er Heitev brings the SKNH"K (who's that?) in the name of
> the Rokeach that "if there are other seforim they have the din
> of a ST, and that's what we rely on nowadays."

R' Elliott Shevin asked:
> Hmm. Might one include the siddur you're davening as an eligible
> sefer? <g>

And now I ask: Why the grin? If "other seforim" count, why would a 
siddur be different?

My only guess is that you are talking about a siddur which one cannot 
do any learning from. Such a siddur would contain only the tefilos 
themselves, and not any halachos about when to say or omit any of 
those tefilos. Nor would it contain Pirkei Avos, nor Rabi Yishmael 
Omer, nor Eizehu Mekoman, nor laining for Mon/Thu.

Nor would it contain Krias Shema, with which (as Rav Teitz has 
pointed out) one can be yotzei Talmud Torah.

Akiva Miller
(who, despite all the stupid jokes, does not allow the Jewish Press 
to be brought into the bathroom)

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Danny Schoemann wrote:
>> The Be'er Heitev brings the SKNH"K (who's that?) in the name of
>> the Rokeach that "if there are other seforim they have the din
>> of a ST, and that's what we rely on nowadays."
> 
> R' Elliott Shevin asked:
>> Hmm. Might one include the siddur you're davening as an eligible
>> sefer? <g>
> 
> And now I ask: Why the grin? If "other seforim" count, why would a 
> siddur be different?

And yet the Baer Hetev, by whose time printed siddurim were already
ubiquitous, didn't draw this obvious conclusion.  Nor did any of the
later authorities who quoted him.  Therefore it seems obvious that
even according to the Shirei Knesset Hagedolah one needs something
more than a siddur.  Just what, isn't clear.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Someone claimed that donating blood to the Red Cross is against halacha
since one is "harming oneself" and most receipients are nonJewish.
Seemed strange to me as most poskim allow even violating shabbat on behalf
of a NonJew because of possible sinah. Why would donating blood be any
differewnt?
Any opinions (piskei halachot) ?

-- 
Eli Turkel

On 3/16/07, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >From: Elliott Shevin <eshevin@hotmail.com>
> >Subject: [Avodah] Retzei
> >
> >
> >I've usually prayed from siddurim in which the brocha "retzei" is
> >punctuated, "... vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha (period). Ve-ishei
> >Yisrael utefilatam be-ahava tikabel...."
> >
> >In English, this becomes "... and return the service to the Holy of
> >Holies of your house. And receive with love the fire-offerings of Israel
> >and their prayers...."
> >
> >I've only recently noticed that many siddurim punctuate it, "...
> >vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha (comma) ve-ishei Yisrael (period).
> >Utefilatam be-ahava tikabel...."
> >
> >Or in English, "... and return the service to the Holy of Holies of your
> >house, and the fire-offerings of Israel. And receive with love their
> >prayers...."
> >I find the latter awkward; "return the service to... and the fire-
> >offerings?"
> 
> 
> The way my father explained it to me is the following: If one will say,
> "Ve-ishei
> Yisrael utefilatam be-ahava tikabel..." "And receive with love the
> fire-offerings of Israel
> and their prayers....", he has just said something incomprehensible. There
> are no fire-offerings these days (unfortunately). The most logical construct
> is, "vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha
> ve-ishei Yisrael" "and return the service and the fire-offerings of Israel
> to the Holy of Holies of your house".
> 
> KT and GS,
> MSS

Here is how I understand this sentence:

We are davening that HQBH will "Retzei b'amcha yisrael uvisfilasam", and
one day he will "hasheiv es ha'avodah lidvir beisecha," and THEN "v'ishei
yisrael us'filasam b'ahava s'kabeil b'ratzon." IOW, this is a
chronological progression - first, being pleased by the Jews/hearing our
tefillos, then Binyan BHMK, and then hearing our improved/amplified
tefillos forever. After all, what are our tefillos for Binyan BHMK, if not
a bakasha for an opportunity for kirvas Hashem?  And what is kabalas ishim
utefilos if not kirvas HKBH?

Why do none of the meforshim on siddur say this? (Caveat- I haven't looked
all the meforshim on this issue, but am being someich on (I think)  
Artscroll's commentary which mentions only the two pshatim that RES
brought.)  This pshat seems to me to fit the text perfectly (unlike the
second punctuation scheme above), and explain away RMSS's objection to the
first punctuation scheme.

Michael

REShevin wrote:
> Nonetheless, I have a vague recollection that this sort of construction,
> with a subject of a prepositional phrase added after the phrase ends, is
> used elsewhere in liturgy and/or Tanach, but can't recall any examples and
> would enjoy seeing one or two.

There is one medaqdeq in our community who punctuates it exactly that way. 
There seems to exist such a tradition.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Er, was Davidi wrong in not leaving that Chupah as soon as he found out he
wasn't going to sing even though he already had lost two other events.  Or
maybe since he wasn't sure he was going to get paid, he figured he might as
well eat?

Of course, he should have immediately conferred with that Chatan who invited
him to clarify the matter without delay.

But I'm waiting for the psak.

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070317/7605e44d/attachment.html 

RETurkel wrote:
<< I dont think that RSZA had a uniform definition of Yerushalayim.
For Megillah on Prurim he held the municipality. However, for the minhag
of have only one drummer at a wedding he held that it applied only to
the old walled city. Similarly for other halachot

personally - I never quite understood that since today's walled city is
from the Turks and not the same as from Bayit Sheni and why should it
have some special status?
>>

IIRC while the Bayit Sheni wall encompassed different areas than does the
current wall, the current Jewish Quarter was encompassed within the Bayit
Sheni walls.

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070317/b095bbcf/attachment.htm 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 53
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."