Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 132

Wed, 06 Jun 2007

• 1. Torah Lishmah (Micha Berger)
• 2. "Yeshivishe Payes" (Marty Bluke)
• 3. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 129 -- OFF LIST (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Wording of Kaddish (Arie Folger)
• 5. yishuv EY (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Studying Daf Yomi and complex Gmarot (SBA)
• 7. Re: Hebrew and Aramaic (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Hebrew and Aramaic (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Hebrew and Aramaic (Russell Levy)
• 10. Re: "Yeshivishe Payes" (Danny Schoemann)
• 11. Re: yishuv EY (saul mashbaum)
• 12. Re: Yishuv EY (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. Re: Yishuv EY (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: "Yeshivishe Payes" (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: kashrus of milk (Micha Berger)

On Areivim, there was discussion of a "yeshiva" for studying Torah as
culture, with no connection to or necessary belief in its Author.

Someone suggested that this pure desire to know Torah would qualify as
lishmahh, others questioned whether lishmahh is separable from leshaim
mitzvah.

Looking at the train of thought that runs through Nefesh haChaim and
further developed by R' Chaim Brisker, it would seem that Torah
lishmahh even includes learning Torah for the intellectual excitement
of it.

In any case, this email from RYL, containing a snippet from a
translation of R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I, also touches on
the subject.

-mi

-------------------------- Original Message --------------------------
Subject: The RYS Daily 6/6/07 Mussar Doctrine VI
From:    "Yitzchok Levine" <Larry.Levine@stevens.edu>
Date:    Wed, June 6, 2007 7:31 am
To:      Recipient list suppressed:;
----------------------------------------------------------------------



He divided Torah study into two categories: The  study itself and
objectivity ("lishmah"). His method followed along these lines: first
to
proceed with the sharpest application of the mind ("giftig" in his
Yiddish) in argumentation and debate - "each person clinging
stubbornly to his own, and attacking his colleagues', opinions" which
is the sine qua non for the clarification of the subject. Then,
finally to proceed calmly, "coolly to consider both his and his
opponent's opinion" ? "each person abandoning his own position so as
to follow the majority opinion or the opinion of the greater
authority" in conformity with the accepted principles ? and so arrive
at the truth. This is "lishmah" 0 studying
for the sake of truth. Our Sages have described this by a play on
words (Num. 21.14): "Et vahev besufah" "Even if a father and his son,
teacher and pupil, who study Torah in the same gate (academy) and
become enemies of one  another, they do not depart from there until
they love (vahev) each other in the end (besofah).

Earlier issues of The RYS Daily are at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/salanter/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070606/6ff30111/attachment.html 

With regards to the length of payists, the poskim point out that the
shiur of hair in general is to bend back the hair on itself, about a
half a centimeter. In other words, al pi din, there is absolutely no
source for long payists (e.g. to grow each hair long). Each hair has
to be a 1/2 centimeter long, that is it. There is no chiyuv al pi din
whatsoever to grow each hair long enough to tuck it behind your ears.

What really gets me is people who have payists behinds their ears
while shaving/cutting their sideburns (really their payists) in the
middle of the ear. The simple reading of the shulchan aruch is that
payists extend to below the ear, by shaving them in the middle of the
ear they are going against the simple reading of the shulchan aruch,
while by having payists behind their ears, they are accomplishing
nothing al pi din.

Some want to say that growing each hair long is a hidur mitzva,
however this is very difficult. Payists is a lav, by a lav it is
difficult to say there is such a thing as hidur mitzva. Either you
violated the din or you didn't. If you didn't violate the din what
exactly is a hidur going to do. Others explain that it is done as a
siman, especially for little kids.

This time the message is for the list; it is about the message mistakenly sent 
to the list, which was labeled OFF LIST.

RMB wrote:
> My apologies for not reading the subject line and rejecting this email.

No problem. I just pray that list members will understand why I sent in a post 
which was excessively simple for Avodah and didn't bother to quote two 
relevant gemarot in the 3rd chapter of 'Hullin, one about how an animal that 
ate poison and is going to die in 5 minutes is NOT a tereifah, and another 
one that explicitly states that we do not add to the tereifot.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

[I notice that the gap between us is getting narrower.]

RMB wrote:
> Except that there was a reason why each talmid thought the Gra was
> maqpid on "zecher" or "zeicher". There was a grammatical theory that
> was his. We don't know what that theory was, and his talmidim's
> opinions might be mesorah or might be ex post facto. The practice of
> saying both, though, is a consequence of knowing a theory exists that
> gives semantic content to the difference; not knowing the content of
> the original theory.

Are you so sure that the Gra had a particular theory about that occurence 
being different from all others? Or did the ma'asseh Rav just remember that 
the Gra said Zehkher, without assuming anything about whether the word 
zeikher also existed. Lacking a Ma'aseh Rav I can only wonder whether the 
theory of the meaning of that word comes from the talmidei haGra, or was 
developed later to justify the double reading. Could those in the know please 
post (please provide documentary references).

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

Simple. Because for a  baal aveireh - it is no mitzva.
Making kiddush is a mitzva. But not if you use yayin nesech.>>

I find it hard to believe that some like Ben Gurion (or for that mattter
Menachem Begin who was not a shomer mitzvot) for all his faults
was not mekayem yishuv EY.
The Gemara credits even Achav and other sinful kings with
building the land.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070606/bd305e98/attachment.htm 

From: mkopinsky@gmail.com
> RSB wrote:
> > This masechet is filled with complex issues; issues which raise serious
> > moral and halachic implications.  Issues that should truly be dealt with
> > intensively and not during the 30+ minutes assigned to Daf Yomi.
>
> Typically, a DY shiur takes an hour.

Most DY shiurim I have seen in Chu"l are an hour, though I am aware of
shiurim that take 25-30 minutes.  In Israel, many DY shiurim are 30
minutes.
>.

I wonder if those 30 minute shiurim are the reason that some describe DY
as 'saying Tehilim'.

We have about half a dozen DY shiurim/groups in our shul and AFAIK they are
now all 4-5 blatt behind. (They all learn for an hour.)
So to make up, they are having extra sessions on Shabbos and Sunday,
hoping to catch up shortly.

Personally, if I had any say in it, I would suggest that the timetable be
reformatted slightly - by expert DY Magidei Shiur - so that when it comes to
easy gemoros/agadata etc - they learn maybe one and a half blatt and
when things get more complicated they do just an amud.

WADR to DY, I doubt that doing so, would cause anyone to be oyver
on any issur de'oyrayseh or derabonon...

SBA

Okay, here's one I've wondered about for a long time. It probably 
comes from reading too many matzeivos and yahrzeit plaques:

Is "bar" (=son) a genuine and original Aramaic word, or did it come 
to Aramaic from Hebrew from the rashei teivos of "ben rabi"?

Just curious...

Akiva Miller

On Wed, June 6, 2007 1:51 pm, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Is "bar" (=son) a genuine and original Aramaic word, or did it come
: to Aramaic from Hebrew from the rashei teivos of "ben rabi"?

No, it's authentic. Some say it's the same r <* n change as "shenei"
-> "terei". Genesius says it's from the same family as "bara". In
either case, "bar" is not just Judeo Aramaic, it's Akkadian and
Ugaritic too.

(Arabic, of course, is "ibn".)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

A quick look at Ezra 5/6 would show that it probably is a genuine word;
AFAIK, the word Rav/Rebbi was not in use in his time, and Zecharia is
Zecharia bar Adu. (And no, I don't know tanach very well, I just happened to
look this up this week).

On 6/6/07, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, here's one I've wondered about for a long time. It probably
> comes from reading too many matzeivos and yahrzeit plaques:
>
> Is "bar" (=son) a genuine and original Aramaic word, or did it come
> to Aramaic from Hebrew from the rashei teivos of "ben rabi"?
>
> Just curious...
>
> Akiva Miller
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070606/fe9ae24b/attachment.html 

On 6/6/07, Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
> With regards to the length of payists, the poskim point out that the
> shiur of hair in general is to bend back the hair on itself, about a
> half a centimeter.

Which doesn't quite match with YD 181:9 which says that the shiur of
the Paye is from the [top of the] forehead till the [top of the]
jawbone - and this entire width Lo Siga Bo Yad - shouldn't be touched.

The Beis Lechem Yehuda (ibid) clearly says that the Ari z"l would cut
his Payis if they grew longer than that, so that the hairs all reached
the bottom of his ears.

The Pischei Tshuva (ibid 3) brings a Tshuva from the Chasam Sofer
allowing one to comb that hair - in response to R' Akiva Eiger's query
on the matter.

But - as has been pointed out - there's no halachic point in having
part of the area "long" and the rest short.

- Danny

>>(2) The poskim pasken that a man can
force his wife to make aliyah.  <<

>>>>>
RTK wrote:
>>

Is this the generally accepted psak?  
>>

Yes, certainly in principle. See further on 

RTK
>>
My impression was the opposite -- that if his wife refused to live in E'Y, this would be one of the [few] permissible reasons not to live in E'Y.  Or was it only that a man is allowed to leave E'Y in order to find a wife -- but then can compel the wife he has found to leave her parents and follow him to E'Y?! 

>>

The latter.

The Shulchan Aruch is explicit that this rule applies now: See Even HaEzer 75;3-4. Either party may compel the other to make aliyah, and failing to do so is grounds for divorce, with financial penalties (if the woman is the one who refuses, she loses her ktuba, and if the man refuses he must divorce his wife if she insists, and pay her her ktuba). The mechaber in seif 5 says "yesh me sheomer" that this does not apply if travel to Israel is particularly dangerous, and gives parameters for safe travel, which clearly are fulfilled nowadays.

The Pitchei Tshuva there has a long and very interesting discussion of the subject of the mitzva of yishuv EY b'zman hazeh ; he is inclined to accept the opinion that it applies, based in part on the psak of the SA that kofin laalot l'EY. He quotes Shu"t Meil Tzedaka siman 26 in which a local beit din issued a ban on travelling to EY with small children, because of the dangers involved. The MT  concludes this ban is unreasonable, has no halachic basis, is in error, and can be ignored!

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070606/afed3486/attachment-0001.htm 

Concerning the issue of sinners coming to Israel. The Shomer Emunim 
Rebbe once told me that the higher the kedusha of a place the greater is 
midos hadin. He said he knows rabbonim who would not live in Jerusalem 
because of this factor. It would follow from this that the consequences 
of sinning while living in Israel are greater than for those living in 
New York. On the other hand the consequences of doing a mitzva are also 
greater. To put it another way, the chances of greater return on onc's 
investment in doing mitzvos has to be weighted against the chances of 
greater loss for sin.


Daniel Eidensohn

On Thu, June 7, 2007 2:58 am, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Concerning the issue of sinners coming to Israel. The Shomer Emunim
: Rebbe once told me that the higher the kedusha of a place the
greater is
: midos hadin. He said he knows rabbonim who would not live in Jerusalem
: because of this factor. It would follow from this that the consequences
: of sinning while living in Israel are greater than for those living in
: New York. On the other hand the consequences of doing a mitzva are
: also greater....

This idea was already addressed. What do you think of RDK's comparison
to geirus?

To repeat, on Thu, May 31, 2007 11:57 am, Dov Kay wrote:
> As a point of comparison, I was thinking of Gerus.  Jews have more
> mitzvos than non-Jews, with the consequence that the stakes are higher
> and we are more liable to punishment.  However, while it is true that
> we initially try to deter non-Jews from converting, we welcome genuine
> gerim and view their decision in a positive light.

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, June 6, 2007 8:32 am, R Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Lately there's been a growing trend to tuck some hair behind your
: ears; either as a Zeicher to Payesor as a public declaration that
: you're an Am Ha'Aretz.

Actually, Rav Dovid Lifshitz did it, so I would think the custom is
Litvish, not merely a "growing trend". However, RDL's payos were thick
blocks of hair swept back, not the strings one now sees.

...
: Everything else is "fashion"; tucking behind the ear vs. let it hand
: loose; curling them...

Don't you find it interesting, though, that East Europeans and
Teimanim have similar "fashions"? Just how old is the idea of wearing
long banana-curl peiyos? Could it actually date back to the split
between the two qehillos -- back around churban bayis *rishon*?

In any case, that two is a trimmed but long notion of pei'ah. And not
a product of yeshivish trends.

I therefore think there is some real Avodah-esque material hiding
under here.

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 Sun, June 3, 2007 1:41 am, T613K@aol.com apologized for asking and
wrote:
: Why would surgery make an animal treif -- if
: the surgery cured what was wrong with the animal and the animal is now
: perfectly healthy?

On Mon, June 4, 2007 8:57 am, Rabbiner Arie Folger replied:
: This is a well known halakhic question that has no easy answers. We
: assume that the 18 tereifos are fixed.... Thus, one may wonder about
: the anomaly of having tereifus lirefuoh. We are generally machmir out
: of doubt.

To be more specific: One of the 18 are niqvah hakeivah (Chullin 49a).
The keivah is the abomasum, the 4th of a ruminant's stomachs. WRT
matenas kehunah, the keivah includes the fats attached to the
abomasum; I am pretty sure but not certain they are not included here.
(Ie if someone cuts the fats, it would still be kosher.)

There are four different kinds of DA surgery, but all involve (1)
puncturing the keivah to deflate it, and (2) sowing it to the proper
location in the body.

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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 132
***************************************

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..."