Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 100

Tue, 08 May 2007

• 1. Re: chumrah of Sefardim (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: chumrah of Sefardim (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Re: Did Shlomo HaMelech lie when suggesting the baby be cut? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Parshas Behar (Bahar?) (Zvi Lampel)
• 5. Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Love your fellow as yourself (David Eisen)
• 7. Re: fashion models and opera singers (Elliott Shevin)
• 8. Re: Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (Daniel Israel)
• 10. Re: Parshas Behar (Bahar?) (Mike Miller)
• 11. Re: what actually is the issur (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: When do the malachim come? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Sefaradim & Hamossi (Russell Levy)
• 14. Re: Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: chumrah of Sefardim (Ken Bloom)

On 5/6/07, Mike Miller <avodah@mikeage.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Ken Bloom <kbloom@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do this as much as possible. The sepharadi shuls here are makpid to
> > only serve water challah. When I do say hamotzi on sweet challah, it's
> > because I know I usually eat a lot of challah anyway, so I'll probably
> > eat the necessary shiur to say hamotzi regardless.
>
> Are we comparing water challah with sweet challah or egg challah?
>
> Forgive my stepping into my wife's territory (we have an arrangement:
> she kneads challah, I bake (aka time + test) it), but many water
> challah recipes, perhaps most, also call for _some_ sugar. The water
> is in contrast to egg, not sweet.
>
> What exactly is the geder of sweet challah that ROY is referring to?
>

I have very limited baking experience, but my science knowledge tells me
that all bread recipes will have at least some sugar, or else you'll have
very hungry yeast, and the bread will come out tasting bitter and yeasty.

BTW, it seems that being koveiah seudah acc. to ROY is quite difficult.
216 grams, ROY's shita for kevias seudah, is about 7.5 ounces, or 7.5
slices of regular bread.  That's quite a lot of challah to eat at one
meal. (Though not undoable, just difficult.)

KT,
Michael

On 5/6/07, Mike Miller <avodah@mikeage.net> wrote:
>
> Are we comparing water challah with sweet challah or egg challah?
>
> Forgive my stepping into my wife's territory (we have an arrangement:
> she kneads challah, I bake (aka time + test) it), but many water
> challah recipes, perhaps most, also call for _some_ sugar. The water
> is in contrast to egg, not sweet.
>
> What exactly is the geder of sweet challah that ROY is referring to?
>

Whether you can taste the additional ingredient (ta`am hata`arovet nikar
ba`isa). See http://www.halachayomit.co.il/displayRead.asp?readID=384
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070507/e265ce2e/attachment.html 

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Just asked this question to Rav Nosson Kaminetsky. He replied
> that his father Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky said that it was not a lie.
> Shlomo HaMelech in fact was prepared to cut the baby in half.

And what would have been his justification for it?

I understand that a melech has a LOT more leeway than other people, 
even when it comes to killing. Still, there needs to be some sort of 
reason to justify such an action. Was the dispute between those two 
women such a gigantic political problem that it needed to be solved 
even at the expense of the baby's life?

Akiva Miller

Sun, 6 May 2007 from: "Simon Montagu" <simon.montagu@gmail.com>
On 5/6/07, Mike Miller <avodah@mikeage.net> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know the name of this week's Sedra is not changed from
>> Behar to Bahar, for the same reasons that Bemidbar becomes Bamidbar?<<
>

>Probably because it's not the name of a whole book, therefore used less
often, therefore under less pressure to become corrupted by amhaaratzim. I
have no answer to why Sh'mot doesn't become Shemot, though.<

Hypothesis: The names of the parshios Be'har, Sh'mos and B'midbar were always (and still are) pronounced in their possesive form. The spelling "Bamidbar" with an "a" is a recent American or English rendition, the origin of which should be researched. (Any texts available by which to check this ?)

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070507/33640126/attachment-0001.htm 

I  will give names, so it will be easier for me to phrase my question: Let's 
say a man his name is Yoash, and his mother is Naomi, and his wife is Ruth. 
Now, let's say that Yoash dies, and after he dies Naomi gives a bitrh to a son.  
To my understanding of the Masechet, the new born son cannot be a Yabam, at 
least for two reasons:
1. He was not in this world when Yoash was alive
2. He is Yoash's brother from the mohter only.
If this is the case, why in Megilat Ruth Naomi tells Ruth and Orpa not to 
wait for her to have children? of course they cannot wait, they SHOULD NOT, 
because according to the masechet, they will not be able to marry him.

Thanks,

Aaron Galsaba





************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070507/25399de1/attachment-0001.html 

RME said:

This is off the top of my head, but I believe it was the Maharsha who
explained that he was asking for a basic principle.  Shammai pulled out
his building stick to indicate that this was the wrong way to look at
the Torah; it was not a tree, with all of the mitzvoth branching off a
single trunk, but, rather, a building which required a broad foundation.

>>>>>
See http://www.balashon.com/search?q=regula
Kol tuv,
DE 

Zvi Lampel wrote:
 
> When Rabbi Jay Marcus was the Rav of the Young Israel of Staten Island, he told us 
> he ran an experiment in a theatre: He asked the people in charge to turn off the sound 
> equipment for one moment, to see if he could hear the singing. He said he didn't. 
 
I don't think trying such an experiment in the Great Synagogue at Alexandria is a fair test, 
do you?  :-)
 
It would be interesting to try it with sound measurement equipment, to see how much 
the volume diminishes between singer and listener.
 Elly
"Striving to bring Torah Judaism into the 58th century"
_________________________________________________________________
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger?
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&;source=wlmailtagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070507/76b44f28/attachment.htm 

Galsaba@aol.com wrote:
> I  will give names, so it will be easier for me to phrase my question: 
> Let's say a man his name is Yoash, and his mother is Naomi, and his wife 
> is Ruth. Now, let's say that Yoash dies, and after he dies Naomi gives a 
> bitrh to a son.  To my understanding of the Masechet, the new born son 
> cannot be a Yabam, at least for two reasons:
> 1. He was not in this world when Yoash was alive
> 2. He is Yoash's brother from the mohter only.
> If this is the case, why in Megilat Ruth Naomi tells Ruth and Orpa not 
> to wait for her to have children? of course they cannot wait, they 
> SHOULD NOT, because according to the masechet, they will not be able to 
> marry him.

Ruth and Orpah were not Jewish when they were married to Machlon and
Kilyon.  We learn hilchot gerut from the exchange between Ruth and
Naomi on their way to EY, after Machlon and Kilyon died.  Therefore
they were never legally married to Machlon and Kilyon, and had Naomi
remarried and had a son, he would have been allowed to marry the now-
Jewish Ruth.

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

Your point, that l'halacha no son of Naomi could be a yavam to Ruth 
is very interesting, I never noticed.  However, I would point out 
that in the end Ruth marries Boaz, and the Megillah/m'farshim 
clearly connect this to yibum, even though Boaz was only a cousin.  
So it would seem clear that there is a concept in Nach of yibum 
even with more distant relatives.

Also note that in the story of Yehudah and Tamar, there is clearly 
a concept of yibum, even though yibum through the father would not 
work (in fact would be assur) min ha'Torah.  And in this case we 
see that it really is yibum, since the yerusha is through Peretz.  
Of course this is before matan Torah, so some of the mechanics are 
different.

The question I would ask is why is this inyan of yibum via more 
distant relatives not mentioned l'maaseh today (or is it and I've 
just never heard it?)  Possible teretz: if there is a brother who 
performs chalitzah, maybe the possibility of a distant relative 
effecting yibum is removed.  But it that's the case, then when 
someone has no brothers, why shouldn't we encourage a cousin to 
marry the almanah?

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On 5/7/07, Zvi Lampel <hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> >> Does anyone know the name of this week's Sedra is not changed from
> >> Behar to Bahar, for the same reasons that Bemidbar becomes Bamidbar?<<
>
> Hypothesis: The names of the parshios Be'har, Sh'mos and B'midbar were
> always (and still are) pronounced in their possesive form. The spelling
> "Bamidbar" with an "a" is a recent American or English rendition, the origin
> of which should be researched. (Any texts available by which to check this
> ?)

Interesting. I was always under the impression that Bamidbar was
actually correct (with a patach), as b'midbar sinai is grammatically
correct, but just b'midbar is missing a direct object (is that the
right grammatical term?), and thus it's changed to the definitive
bamidbar.

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

On Wed, May 2, 2007 9:42 am, M Cohen wrote:
: ..my comments were only 'limud zechus' for the girl - clearly singing
: in front of nJewish men an activity that one would recommend that
: Jewish women s/ stay away from.

Sounds like "megalgelin chov al yedei chayav" is related.

If someone sets themselves up to be a possible gilgul chov, one should
wonder in what way(s) they are chayavim.

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

On Wed, May 2, 2007 11:49 am, R Dov Kay wrote (tangentially to his
main point):
: ... I surmise that l?chu neranena is from Tehillim and therefore
: appears more traditional than lecha dodi, which is openly (if only
: metaphorically) kabbalistic in intent and meaning.

I am not sure "if only metaphorically" has meaning. Didn't R' Shelomo
al-Qabetz (as was typical for mequbalei Tzefas) hold that Qabbalah was
entirely bederekh mashal to get a small grip on the inherently
incomprehensible?

I thought we discussed literal vs allegorical WRT understanding
Qabbalah, but I couldn't find it in the archive.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On 5/4/07, Joseph Mosseri <joseph.mosseri@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> What Hakham Obadiah Yosef has stated regarding sweet Hallah is the norm
> amongst all Sepharadim.<snip>
>
> This info holds true for Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and many
> others.
>

This is NOT true of the Spanish Moroccan Sephardim at whose tables I have
eaten in Toronto.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070507/a14c420c/attachment-0001.html 

Daniel Israel wrote:

> Your point, that l'halacha no son of Naomi could be a yavam to Ruth 
> is very interesting, I never noticed.  However, I would point out 
> that in the end Ruth marries Boaz, and the Megillah/m'farshim 
> clearly connect this to yibum, even though Boaz was only a cousin.  
> So it would seem clear that there is a concept in Nach of yibum 
> even with more distant relatives.

AIUI this was more of an obligation on whoever took over Elimelech's
land to also take over his and his sons' debts, including Machlon's
moral debt to take care of his widow.



> Also note that in the story of Yehudah and Tamar, there is clearly 
> a concept of yibum, even though yibum through the father would not 
> work (in fact would be assur) min ha'Torah.  And in this case we 
> see that it really is yibum, since the yerusha is through Peretz.

But in actual yibum the yevama's oldest son has no special status at
all, despite the peshat of the pasuk.  According to the midrash halacha
that we follow, "habechor asher teled" refers to the oldest brother of
the niftar, and he is the yoresh.  After him the property goes to all
his sons equally.


> The question I would ask is why is this inyan of yibum via more 
> distant relatives not mentioned l'maaseh today (or is it and I've 
> just never heard it?)  Possible teretz: if there is a brother who 
> performs chalitzah, maybe the possibility of a distant relative 
> effecting yibum is removed.  But it that's the case, then when 
> someone has no brothers, why shouldn't we encourage a cousin to 
> marry the almanah?

Who says we don't?  It all depends on the circumstances, but it
wouldn't surprise me to hear of cases where such a shiduch was
suggested.  I do know that in the opposite case, where a woman with
young children dies, it used to be common for her husband to marry
her sister.  BH nowadays such cases don't happen often enough for there
to be a "minhag" about them.

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

On Sunday 06 May 2007 12:23:52 pm Mike Miller wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Ken Bloom <kbloom@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do this as much as possible. The sepharadi shuls here are makpid
> > to only serve water challah. When I do say hamotzi on sweet
> > challah, it's because I know I usually eat a lot of challah anyway,
> > so I'll probably eat the necessary shiur to say hamotzi regardless.
>
> Are we comparing water challah with sweet challah or egg challah?
>
> Forgive my stepping into my wife's territory (we have an arrangement:
> she kneads challah, I bake (aka time + test) it), but many water
> challah recipes, perhaps most, also call for _some_ sugar. The water
> is in contrast to egg, not sweet.
>
> What exactly is the geder of sweet challah that ROY is referring to?

The distinction drawn by the Mechaber is that it becomes mezonot when 
the taste is noticible. Even when one adds some sugar in making the 
recipe, if the yeast ferments all of the sugar and the taste is no 
longer noticible, then it's hamotzi.

There is another similar rule with mei peirot (which includes eggs), and 
there too the bread becomes mezonot if the taste is noticible. On this 
point, the Rema rules that the bread only becomes mezonot if the 
majority of the liquid ingredients are mei peirot.

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 100
***************************************

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..."