Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 137

Tue, 12 Jun 2007

• 1. Re: Har Habayit (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 2. Re: zeicher/zecher (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Doron Beckerman)
• 4. Har Habayit (Yisrael Medad)
• 5. Authorship of the Mishnah Berurah (re: tzitzit in or out) (Michael Elzufon)
• 6. Re: Yeshivishe Peyos (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. noach's wine (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: zeicher/zecher (reuven koss)
• 9. Re: wearing tzitzit outside (SBA)
• 10. "Tznius Police" (SBA)
• 11. Re: Yeshivishe Payes (Doron Beckerman)
• 12. Re: birchot kriat shma for sefardi women (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Yeshivishe Payes (Doron Beckerman)
• 14. Re: "Yeshivishe Payes" (Danny Schoemann)
• 15. Tzitzis - MB (Michael Kopinsky)

RGoldmeier writes:
<If I am not mistaken, one of the aspects of mora mikdash in which we 
are all required as a mitzvah, according to the Rambam, includes 
being present on Har Habayit. Others might not include that in their 
definition of Mora Mikdash, but the Rambam does.>

     Quite the contrary. The Rambam writes (Hilchos Beis Hab'chira  
7:1-2), "Mitzvas asei l'yirah es hamikdash . . . v'eizo hi iraso? Lo 
yikanes adam l'Har haBayis b'maklo o v'minal sheb'raglav . . . _v'lo 
yikaneis lo ela lidvar mitzva_."  If being present in and of itself 
would be a mitzva of mora mikdash, how would it be possible to go lo 
lidvar mitzva? 

     And we might ask, for what d'var mitzva did the recent visitors 
go?

EMT 

I asked:
> > Who is the Peulas Sokhir? When did he live? Where?

RRKoss replied:
>  Apparently he is the Mechaber of M"R and the hagahos  are called Peulas
> Sochir. He was the zkan hahoraah of Vilna at one point after the Gra's
> petirah.
> reuven

So we don't have any other source for the idea that the Gra said Zekher?

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

RMB writes: >> and
fired up by his (RDB's) exclusion of alternatives from the realm of "Torah
hashkafah". <<

Whoa. I'm a little more broad minded than that! What I said was this,
and is limited to this:

>> I think your comments on *TuM enhancing understanding that Torah is the
Chochmah of the Borei* are not in sync with the Torah's Hashkafah. <<

Can you tell me a source that Madda enhances understanding that Torah
is Chochmah of the Borei? (Not that Madda enhances understanding the Chochmah
of the Borei, but that Madda enhances understanding that *Torah* is Chochmas
HaBorei, more so that learning Torah without Madda does)



RMB: >>1- I do not believe this is the conclusion one can draw from the
gemara. Yes, binyan BHMQ takes a back seat to talmud Torah. May we
face this decision bb"a. However, we see that lemaaseh, Mordechai's
example is to be followed. We can argue about what is garu'ah about
being forced to follow his example, but the bottom line is that one
can't prioritize even safeiq piqu'ach nefesh behind Torah. <<

IIUC, you agree that Binyan BHM"Q should be prioritized behind Talmud Torah
when choosing what to do. This is true even during the time that Ezra
was eating
or resting - he was not supposed to get up from
his meal or bed and go build the BHM"Q, but to
go back and learn under Baruch ben Neriya.

Why, then, do you distinguish between this and Gadol TT MeHatzalas Nefashos,
and, if there is a distinction, what grants the Taz license to prove anything
from how to understand TT vs. Hatzalah from TT vs. BBHM"Q? The Taz
says explicitly
that these two statements are  identical in their import.


>> The CS needs to give an alternate explanation for the negative
judgment of Mordechai which would seem to say he holds that the
exchange of Torah for hatzalas nefashos would not in-and-of-itself
justify the judgment. And thus he says it was based on Mordechai's
learning being the one Hashem considers more interruptible. <<

Where is the CS?


>> 2- On the more heated issue, RDB's claim that there is a consensus
amongst all Torah hashkafos about the role of talmud Torah not a
matter of finding a maqor for those who take "TT keneged kulam" at a
maximalist face value, but a matter of disproving the existence of
other meqoros. <<

Again, I never said such a thing. I began by asking whether TuM
accepted that Torah
study was superior to any other contribution to society, and, if not, what the
sources were for equating other contributions to society to Torah
study. That "Torah
Hashkafah" thing was on a very limited point.

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070610/d3e994f4/attachment-0001.htm 

ET writes:
While his statement is true, it is also irrelevant to the
discussion, since those currently visiting the Har Habayit are not
engaged in the building of the Beis Hamikdash.

Well, this is a bit problematic.
a)  I don't know (does anyone?) exactly how the rebuilding process will
begin (if it hasn't already).  Flash of light, white donkey, victory in
1967?  See below.
b)  rebuilding also might mean simply dealing with an Islamic presence
bimkom hamikdash (see the Tzuf Dvash, "Sha'ar HeChatzer", Para. 339).
c)  already in 1969, Rav Shmuel Hacohen Weingarten, at the Kinnus Torah
Sh'B'al Peh at Mossad HaRav Kook, suggested that a state of war exists and
every ascent is part of reclaiming our ownership of the place similar to the
Gemara on "halicha b'shvil".
d)  would preventing the building of additional mosques or a fifth Minaret
as now proposed by Jordan constitute engaged in rebuilding the Temple?
Would membership in machon HaMikdash?
e)  or, to paraphrase the Chofetz Chaim, "what are you doing today to
rebuild the Mikdash?"  Some are learning Seder Kodshim, others belong to the
Dr. Eilat Mazar's Committee of Archeologists to Prevent Destruction of
Temple Mount Artifacts or digging up Ir David to maybe find out how long an
Ammah is and others are creating a new norm: Jews ascending the Har
Habayit.  Not every step forward is in the Bet HaMidrash.  There's plenty to
do, and plenty a'doing.
We can skim through Ezra 3 and see how others dealt with it, even though
they had 3 ne'vi'im to help, true:

"the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem Then stood
up Jeshua the son of Jozadak...and his brethren, and builded the altar of
the God of Israel, to offer burnt-offerings thereon...And they set the altar
upon its bases; for fear was upon them because of the people of the
countries [ah, they do were tembling], and they offered burnt-offerings
thereon unto the LORD, even burnt-offerings morning and evening [before the
comple Temple was constructed]...From the first day of the seventh month
began they to offer burnt-offerings unto the LORD; but the foundation of the
temple of the LORD was not yet laid...They gave money... Now in the second
year of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem...[they]appointed
the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the
work of the house of the LORD....

-- 
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/20070611/acbfb075/attachment.html 

To RET's comment quoted above, I remind that the CC wore his 
tzitzit inside.  When his son-in -law and grandson pointed 
out to him that this was not what was recommended in the MB, 
they reported that he replied that his talmidim had written 
that text and they misunderstood what he meant.

I believe that what he meant was that, if the beged is worn 
outside, the tzitzit should not be hidden inside.

David



[[MJE]] Pardon my ignorance, but is there any documentation for this?
Was the Mishnah Berurah written down by talmidim rather than by the
Hafetz Haim himself?

R' Michael Kopinsky asked:
> Having a pretty case for an esrog or megilla shows chibuv
> mitzvah.  Is there an element of chibuv for lavim?

Perhaps the following will illustrate the idea of chibuv for lavin:

Rashi, Vayikra 20:26: Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says, "... One should 
not say 'I am disgusted by pork' or 'I don't like wearing shaatnez'. 
Rather, he should say, 'I *DO* want it, but what can I do? My Father 
in Heaven decreed for me not to.'"

Granted, there is no action or object here (comparable to peyos or 
the esrog box), but chibuv is an *attitude*, a *feeling* which goes 
above and beyond the mere "shev v'al taaseh" passiveness of avoiding 
the action whichj the lav forbids. And R Elazar ben Azarya clearly 
went out of his way to have such an attitude.

(BTW, it took me a long time to find that quote, because I thought it 
was Rabbi Akiva's saying. Anyone know if there's someplace where R 
Akiva says this same idea?)

Akiva Miller

I recall hearing this once, but cannot find a source for it, and 
would appreciate it anyone else might be able to find the source, if 
there is one:

Rashi on Bereishis 9:20 castigates Noach for planting a vineyard so 
soon after the flood, as he should have planted something else first. 
But I once heard someone say that Noach's intentions were very good, 
that his first priority was to use the wine to praise and thank 
HaShem for rescuing him from the flood. Granted, of course, that the 
story did not end well, and Noach's plan didn't work, but at least 
his heart was in the right place.

Anyone ever hear of anything like this?

Akiva Miller

>Could you please provide references? AFAIK (based on a conversation with 
>Rav
>Mordechai Breuer zal), there were only two players in this disagreement.
>However, the MR was one of those talmidim that moved to Israel, and so the
>Perushim followed the MR. For RMBreuer, the Perushim were the only ones
>justified in following the MR.


>I asked:
>> > Who is the Peulas Sokhir? When did he live? Where?
>
> RRKoss replied:
>>  Apparently he is the Mechaber of M"R and the hagahos  are called Peulas
>> Sochir. He was the zkan hahoraah of Vilna at one point after the Gra's
>> petirah.
>> reuven
>
> So we don't have any other source for the idea that the Gra said Zekher?
>
> -- 
> Arie Folger
>

yes- but even R'CV says that it could be like the M"R. (ulai bziknuso chazar 
bo). The M"R was a  talmid after R'CV. If this is what the Gra held later 
on, then this would lechora be the ikkar shitas hagaon. The Gaon was not a 
conformist- he did what he felt was right, even if it meant changing the 
minhag!  If so, why would  only the Perushim be justified in following the 
M"R.
 derech agav the M"R was not from those talmidim who  went to E"Y.
Maybe somebody could check with Rav Brevda or Rav Eliach (who just finished 
Chumash hagra) if they know more.
reuven 

From: "D&E-H Bannett" <>
To RET's comment quoted above, I remind that the CC wore his 
tzitzit inside.  When his son-in -law and grandson pointed 
out to him that this was not what was recommended in the MB, 
they reported that he replied that his talmidim had written 
that text and they misunderstood what he meant.
>>

Looking at the MB, it is hard to believe that the 'talmidim' - if indeed
they did the writing - could have misunderstood him so badly.

SBA

From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <>
The Netziv (there) in Emek HaNetziv says: "She'minah Moshe Shomrim: Since
they were Perutzim in Chillul Shabbos, he needed to appoint guards for this
more than on any other Mitzvos...Rambam Hilchos Yom Tov and Shulchan
Aruch OC at the end of 529, Ayin Sham.] Nechemiah ben Chachlaiyah learned
this from here when he appointed guards to watch the gates on Shabbos
because they were Perutzim then, ..

I never realized that the lineage of the so-called "Tznius Police" was so
distinguished.
>>

And you think that they were less criticised (by the usual suspects) 
than today's TPs are?

SBA

I think I might have a source for this idea. The Gemara in Berachos 11a
brings the story of R' Elazar ben Azaryah and R' Yishmael re
sitting/reclining for Kerias Shema. R' Elazar B"A says - "... Mashal L'Echad
SheOmrim Lo 'Zekancha Megudal', Amar Lahem 'Yihye K'negged Hamashchisim'".

According to the Sefer HeAruch (quoted in the Mahara"tz Chiyus there),
IIUC, the  meaning of this Mashal is that the reason why this person (in the
Mashal) grows his beard long is to 'Davka' to show an opposition to those
who are Mashchis the beard.

I think it highly plausible to say the same regarding Peyos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070611/ab189095/attachment-0001.htm 

On Fri, June 8, 2007 6:36 am, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: Again I would be interested if most sefardi women really skip this
: whole section of schararit (or maaariv for that matter) and what
sefardi
: schools for women do.

A neighbor of mine had his son and daughter-in-law visiting, and they
are real "chassidim" of ROY's. She owns a "women's siddur" that claims
to be leshitato which contains birkhot Shema for Shacharit without
shem umalkhut.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

(Incidentally, the Rashba and Tosfos HaRosh learn the Gemara [Berachos 11a]
like the Aruch as well.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070611/f6b3c82b/attachment.html 

R' Marty Bluke wrote:
> See the Chasam Sofer (I don't have the exact mareh makom this second)
> where he explains the Rambam along the lines of what I said.

As I previously mentioned, 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. The CS can be found in YD 139 (and a follow up in 140).

From memory:
The CS (who doesn't mention the "4 hair" possibility) explains the
Rambam to mean that you need to leave 40 hairs in the Payes area. He
doesn't know where the Rambam got this number from. He doesn't discuss
the length of the Payes.

Other tidbits I discovered this morning:
The SA HaRav (like the AhS) skipped over YD 181.

The Sefer Darchei Tshuva (by R' Tzvi Hirsch Shapira, Av BD of Munk?cs)
is a Likut of assorted opinions on all of SA - on YD 181:

- He brings an opinion that using scissors is "Potur but Ossur".

- He brings various opinions that say that (like all hair-related
halochos) the length would be that you can bend the tip back onto the
root (as you propose).

Best of all he helps with your original question as to the source of
Yeshivishe Payes: He quotes from "the Hanhagos of the CS MHD"T [I
assume: Mahaduro Tinyoso - 2nd ed.] printed at the back of Y"D Lvov
Edition" (I assume he means the Shut CS - but it's not in the back of
our standard edition of CS or SA).

Loose translation from memory: The Ksav Sofer mentions that he father
said that letting the payos grow till the beard area is a mistake. Yet
many of his students do so - Vtovo Aleihem Brocho - a blessing on
them.

So we see that in the CS's time they already had Yeshivishe Payes!

In summary: The earliest sources we have for letting the payos grow
till the beard area are the "Smag as per the Bach" and the "Beis
Lechem Yehuda quoting the Ari z"l".

All other sources seem to pasken that the length would be that you can
bend the tip back onto the root.

All opinions seem to agree that their pask applies to the entire Payes
area (top of forehead - top of ear - bottom of ear "triangle"), with
the Rambam permitting one to thin it out to [a width? of] 40 hairs.
(Some readings have 4 hairs.)

BTW: Pictures of the CS [e.g. http://answers.com/chasam-sofer ] seem
to show that he didn't trim his peyos.

- Danny (from Answers.com)

The MB writes (and I paraphrase, since I don't have it with me at the
moment), "The excuse (of those who tuck their tzitzis in) that they are
doing it b/c they're around goyim is no excuse, because if so, they would
just tuck the tzitzis into the kanaf (rather than into their pants)."

What is the kanaf that he is referring to?  Did their tzitzis have a
pocket on the corner (like NeaTzit (R)) to tuck the strings in?

KT,
Michael


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 137
***************************************

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..."