Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 156

Fri, 20 Jul 2007

• 1. Re: kosher watermelons (Aryeh Stein)
• 2. When was the last korban? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Adakm vs. ish (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: kesuvah (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: kesuvah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Arzei HaLevanon (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 7. tisha ba-av (Eli Turkel)
• 8. kamtza and bar-kamtza (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Ben Beserah (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Ben Beserah (Micha Berger)
• 11. 2AM Friday Night (Yisrael Medad)
• 12. Re: When was the last korban? (Micha Berger)

FWIW, see below for R' Heineman's opinion about using watermelon cut
in a supermarket.

(I would venture to guess that those persons who won't swallow
non-flavored pills on Pesach before checking R' Gershon Bess' guide
will not buy sliced watermelon in a supermarket....)

http://www.kosherblog.net/2007/05/03/r-heinemann-recap-part-2/

==========================================
CUT FRUIT & FISH

One can assume that varieties of cut fruit sold year-round in a
supermarket or other similar setting are probably cut with a dedicated
knife, leaving the fruit kosher. Seasonal fruits, like watermelon,
though, may be cut with knives also used in other areas, so when
purchasing a watermelon portion, one should trim a small amount off
the edges to maintain kashrut.

Fish, too, may be considered similarly. If, for example, a whole,
kosher fish has had its head and tail removed in a non-kosher fish
market, we may trim away the cut edges with a kosher a knife and use
the fish. (Since scalers can only be used on fish with scales, i.e.
kosher fish, there are no kashrut concerns about the scaler's use on
non-kosher fish.)

Most interestingly, we may assume that kosher fish which is cleaned
and filleted in an (unsupervised) industrial setting is being
manipulated with dedicated equipment only used for such (kosher) fish.
(To learn how this material might apply to your own fish-buying
practices, consult your rabbi.)

==========================================
KT,
Aryeh

MIcha:
In 130 CE Hadrian had Turnus Rufus plow over Har haBayis. This makes
it onto the list of 5 tragedies of 9 beAv. Why? I mean it's bad, but
is it in the same league as the meraglim, the two churbanos, and the
fall of Beitar (which one roman source claimed was the murder of
580,000 people, aside from the concomitant hopes of immediate
ge'ulah)?

One theory is that the plowing refers to making a pomerium, the furrow
that marks the border of a Roman city -- a symbolic act of turning Y-m
into Aelona Capitolina.

But Chazal refer to Har haBayis.
==============================================================

I think the tragedy is self-explanatory.  At one time - for a period of 65
years - the ruins of the Temple still stood. It was STILL a common focal
point for all Jews -  and  one could view the dimensions etc [a limited
masechss Middos of sort.]  Plus it functioned asa matzeiva or a Tziyyun for
the former Mikdsah that stood there

Ploughing under the Mikdash meant that all the tangible remains were
destroyed.  Kind of like ploughing a Beis haKevoros and destroying the
collective matzeivos.

But, Hazal may have been even more prescient.  Todays' Islamo-Fascists deny
the very existence of our Holy Temple!  L'havdil no vsisitor to Rome denies
the FORMER glory of the Colliseum etc. even though it is no obviously in
ruins!  The ruins ARE their eidah/matziva to what WAS a glorious Roman
structure. [I mean to say "glorious in THEIR terms not ours!"].  Same for
the Mikdash.  The ruins were a surviving testimony to what WAS glorious to
us and to HKBH  The removal of this souvenir took awy even that last bit of
nostalgic solace

-- 
Kol Tuv- Best Regards,
Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070719/181e80c4/attachment.htm 

RELinas wrote:
> Thanks for the idea. As far as E h'T, I actually already looked there
> and didn't come up with anything.

Look under "Ish" IIRC.

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

RMB wrote:
> A single codicil on a kesuvah can make the whole shetar an asmachta.
> This is the problem with the Leiberman clause. Which is not only
> restricted to covering the case of divorce, but only to the case of
> civil divorce with no get forthcoming -- a very rare resolution of the
> contract.

I don't see what my explanation has to do with Lieberman or with codicils.

> I therefore fail to understand your answer.

The ketubah has three intended purposes: divorce, widowhood and marriage.
About the latter, it is written: "vana afla'h veoqir etc. kehilkhot guvrin 
Yehuda'in".

Our financial negotiations make the divorce close somewhat supefluous, but the 
other elements are still necessary, and nowadays, they gain in importance, 
esp. the part about working, etc.

By the way, the divorce element of the ketubah is still a moral message, and 
among Sefardim it is brought up to current standards of living, so that it 
loses none of its potency.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:40:12AM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
:> This is the problem with the Leiberman clause. Which is not only
:> restricted to covering the case of divorce, but only to the case of
:> civil divorce with no get forthcoming -- a very rare resolution of the
:> contract.

: I don't see what my explanation has to do with Lieberman or with codicils.

I asked why having a minhag of not paying the kesuvah when giving a get
didn't make the document an asmachta.

Your answer, to the best I can tell, was that it wouldn't be an asmachta
because the issue only comes up if the marriage ends with a get. Your
words were:
> Because the ketubah isn't only about what the wife will get when she
> gets a get (puns intended), but both the support owed while married and
> the maintenance owed after her husband dies.

Well, the kesuvah isn't only about the case of a mesareiv get, and in
fact far more rarely ends in siruv than in get, and a codicil about this
possibility /is/ ruled as being able to turn the whole thing an asmachta.

So if a very rarely invoked clause could invalidate the contract, why
wouldn't a more frequently invoked one that gets routinely ignored do
the same thing?

I admit, the difference between honoring the get clause in the kesuvah
is about the same as ignoring it -- we're only ignoring it because she
is getting more money "on the side" anyway -- but I am confused about
a minhag to regularly ignore a contract (even by mutual agreement) vs
the definition of asmachta. If going in, the chasan knows it would be
ignored if they ever ended up giving a get, how is that phrase in the
kesuvah not enough of an asmachta to void the whole contract?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Following R' Saul Mashbaum's post on Sinat Chinum, I thought to post the 
following link:

http://www.kipa.co.il/hibbur/show.asp?n=13846&;cat=978
 (Hebrew)

The article starts with the Kinna Arzei HaLevanon and brings the famous 
Agada on the Assara Harugei Malchut and examines and explains various 
aspects of it.

I found it while doing research for the women's Rosh Chodesh Shiur that I 
give.  The section I read during the lesson was the quote from the NaTziv on 
what exactly is Sinat Chinum.

I think it's something to consider.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Some thoughts on tisha ba-av from the book
"The Lord is Rightwous in All his Ways" (RYBS)
The introduction is over 100 pages and so I will give a VERY
short synopsis (with my own additions)

Questions:
Many things are missing from the Tisha Ba'ac tefila:
Tachanun, Avinu Malkenu, Titkabel (in the morning), Neilah
(unlike a taanit tzibur over rain)
We dont sit on chairs only until noon unlike other dinei aveilut
that apply the whole day. Nahem only in the afternoon.
A mourner is prohibited in all work while on Tisha Ba'av only
work that disturbs ones concentration. One should cry on
tisha ba'av but there is nothing equivalent for a mourner.
The kinot do not stress the absence of korbanot and other
avodah in the Temple unlike musaf of Yom Kippur.
"Moed" in the Eichah has nothing to do with happiness. How
can Tisha Ba'av be considered a happy day.

Answer: The essence of Tisha Ba'av is "Sattom Tefillati"
On Tisha Ba'av we mourn not the destruction of the Temple but rather
the result that we are distant from Hashem. While between Rosh Hashana
and Yom Kippur we are close to Hashem on Tisha Ba'av we are at the
other extreme. Hence, it is not appropriate to add requests like
Neilah, Tachanun, Avinu Malkenu or Titkabal. RYBS refused to
say a request for a sick person on Tisha Ba'av. As opposed to RDE
it is a day far away from approaching G-d with Teshuva. RYBS interpreted
Moed in the original sense. Tisha Ba'av is an appointed time - for
destruction and removal from this time. Thus we dont say Tachanun because
it is a holiday but rather because of our distance from Hashem.
We mention other tragedies like the crusades since the essence is
not the Temple but what can happen when G-d is distant.

A mourner is not required from the din to not sit on chairs. Hence the
requirement on Tisha Ba'av is not because of aveilut which in fact would
last the whole day and similarly for work. Rather we dont sit on chairs
because we are banned from Hashem and working would disturb are
kinot. A mourner's main obligation is "aveilut be-lev". Inward and not
crying. On Tisha Ba'av the mourning is not natural and so we force ourselves
to cry. Similarly the 3 weeks build up to the highest level slowly as we
learn intellectually about our distance from G-d. A mourner is emotional
and begins with the worst and slowly acclimates to the world. Kinot and
Eichah are central to Tisha Ba'av but not to a mourner because
we must cause ourselves to feel the loss of the Templw while for a mourner
it is natural.

After Mincha we begin Nechama. Paradoxically this occurs when the
fire was set to the Temple. Hence we are comforted that G-d chose
to destroy wood and stone rather than the nation. In the morning it
was not clear what the punishment would be. So the afternoon changes
from stressing our distance from G-d to a more "normal" aveiult of
other fast days though the 5 "iyunim"  of a taanit tzibur continue
but not sitting on the floor or titkabel and now we can say nachem.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070720/62326545/attachment.html 

On Sun, July 15, 2007 4:04 am, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: The Jews on the contrary always act without thinking of the
: consequences (see last Tosafot Gittin 65b).... In the last two
: stories the Jews start up with the Romans over minor customs that
: certainly are not within "yehareg ve-al ya-aovor".

Except that besha'as hashemad, you can't even cave in on shoelace
color, no? Is that because one is hiding Jewish identity, or because
in times of shemad, every hanhagah is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor?>>

The Romans were not trying to stop the minhag. The Jews took the
initiative (not passive) because of what the Romans did inadvertently.
This was not  besha'as hashemad,

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070720/705c2ead/attachment.htm 

Hillel was handed the title by the benei Beseira. That would make R'
Yehudah ben Beseira old enough to have been a leading figure in the
Sanhedrin at the time Hillel returned to EY. The churban was a century
later (Shabbos 15a) -- Hillel, R Shim'on, R Gamliel haZaqein, R
Shim'on ben Gamliel, and R' Yochanan ben Zakkai.>>

There were several different people called Ben Beserah.
Historians debate whether they were from an extended family
or perhaps this was just a title. There is no connection between
the one in the days of Hillel and the later one in Nesivin outside
of Israel

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070720/b2fd5a06/attachment.html 

On Fri, July 20, 2007 7:54 am, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Historians debate whether they were from an extended family
: or perhaps this was just a title....
:                                  There is no connection between
: the one in the days of Hillel and the later one in Nesivin outside
: of Israel

See the Maharsha (Agados, Pesachim 66a) who says R' Yehuda ben
Beseira, R' Yehoshua and R' Shim'on are the same Benei Beseira who
bowed before Hillel. (Something I learned from your nephew, Rav
Mordechai, BTW.)

An argument against Benei Beseira being actual sons of a man named
Beseira is that it would rule out their serving togather. However, who
said the three called Ben Bereira were the sons of a R' Beseira
either?

Setting him in relation to other people:

R' Yochanan ben Bag Bag sends him a she'eilah (Qidushin 10b).

R' Elazer ben Shammua and R' Yochanan haSandler started to go to
Nisivin to learn under him but they couldn't handle the thought of
becoming yoredim and turned back (Sifrei, Devarim 80).

So far, he must have lived during Bayis Sheini. As long as there was a
RYbB during Bayis Sheini, whether or not there was another (or two)
later, one can't use RYbB's tricking the nachri into asking for
cheilev as proof that qorbanos were brought after the churban. It
could have been the one who was a contemporary of REbS, RYhS, RYbBB
and Hillel.

However, as you probably guessed from my "so far" and "another (or
two) later", there is evidence for RET's claim as well. Google is your
friend... It pointed me to the Jewish Encyclopedia entry. Thereby
giving me meqoros beyond RMK's citation of the Maharsha that I was
basing my earlier post upon.

Menachos 65b has a machloqes RYbB and R' Aqiva. Tosafos therefore
conclude there is more than one RYbB.

Then there's the RYbB who was a contemporary of Rebbe, unless the
girsa "Pesira" is correct (Sanhedrin 96a). And the contemporary of
Rebbe (Chulin 54a, Shabbos 130a), and the contemporary of R' Yoshia
(Sifrei, Badmibar 123).

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

I spotted this item and wondered: if the sun hadn't set, it wasn't night,
right?
Or is there any other way to do Shabbat in Fairbanks?

Outtakes:*I heard about a recent show you performed on a Friday night in
Fairbanks, Alaska, where the sun didn?t set. Within your religion, that?s
not common.*

Matisyahu: It was the first time in my career that I performed on a Friday
night because the Sabbath didn?t hit. That was an amazing show. The sun
didn?t go down until 2 a.m., so it was cool. There was no rush.
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/crossfade/2007/07/matisyahu_preview.php

-- 
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/20070720/cfe120bf/attachment-0001.htm 

On Thu, July 19, 2007 10:41 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I think the tragedy is self-explanatory.  At one time - for a period
: of 65 years - the ruins of the Temple still stood. It was STILL a
: common focal point for all Jews -  and  one could view the dimensions
: etc [a limited masechss Middos of sort.]  Plus it functioned asa
: matzeiva or a Tziyyun for the former Mikdsah that stood there

And the loss of that is on the same scale as the churbanos? Or of the
loss of the messianic dream 5 years later?

The har was only plowed over for 2 years before Bar Kochva came to
power, and if the theory is right, it was less than 5 years before the
ground was prepared for his attempt to build a bayis. So, the gemara
put on the list of 9 beAv tragedies that the har habayis was cleared
off for a few years?

I took it for granted that this doesn't on the face of it measure up
to the other elements on the list.

Besides, we today have a "tziyun" for the BHMQ, and as RRW points out,
the har is currently worse than plowed over. And since archeologists
found stones from the BHMQ even after the Byzantines, Moslems and
Crusaders built there, even plowed over didn't mean all signs beyond
the kotel were gone.

I therefore think that the idea that the plowing marked the inability
to know or have access to maqom hamizbeiach and ended the last
attempts at qorbanos to have merit. It explains why the gemara takes
it for granted that the loss was as big as the loss of the BHMQ
structure.

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 156
***************************************

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..."