Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 35

Mon, 29 Oct 2007

• 1. Steps/Stages (Jonathan Baker)
• 2. mechitza (Steven J Scher)
• 3. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos/Rabbishopping (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Top recent Seforim (Doron Beckerman)
• 5. Re: Steps/Stages (Zev Sero)
• 6. Wrapping Tefillin in or out (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 7. Re: Mikveh l'zona (Yzkd@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Minhag Yisroel (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Re: Tefillin Wrapping (Yzkd@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Al haaretz ve'al michasa ve'al kalkelasa (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Re: top recent seforim (Dov Bloom)
• 12. Re: Did Someone Forget Eilu v'eilu? (Dov Bloom)
• 13. Re: Mikveh l'zona (T613K@aol.com)
• 14. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos/Rabbi shopping (Arie Folger)
• 15. Re: top recent seforim (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 16. Re: Mikveh l'zona (T613K@aol.com)
• 17. Re: Wrapping Tefillin in or out (Simon Montagu)
• 18. Re: Minhag Yisroel (Chana Luntz)
• 19. Re: Recent Seforim (Zeliglaw@aol.com)
• 20. Re: Did Someone Forget Eilu v'eilu? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 21. praying to tzadikkim (Aryeh Stein)
• 22. Alleged story about the SM"A (Noah Witty)
• 23. Did Someone Forget Eilu v'eilu? (Dov Kay)
• 24. Specific to general vs general to specific (was: Minhag Yisroel...) (saul mashbaum)
• 25. Re: Minhag Yisroel (Rich, Joel)
• 26. Re: praying to tzadikkim (Richard Wolpoe)

From: "Menachem Posner" <menachemp@juno.com>

>Rabbi S.Z. of Lyadi writes (Likkutei Torah Parshas Masay 88d) that the
>forty two Masaos correspond to Shem Ma?B and the seven Middos which
>comprise of six Middos each (I assume that he is excluding Malchus). He
>further compares it to Ana Bchoach which is made up of seven lines with
>six words in each. 

Ah, the joys of symbolism.  Connection without causality, or even 
commonality of theme.

I'm as interested to learn kabbalah as the next 40-year-old in this
new age, but sometimes, an awful lot of it (as well as gematria, which
is related) seems to be empty symbolism. 

Meaningful symbolism, such as R' Hirsch's, links acts to concepts which
it is reasonable to assume were understood at the time the act was 
mandated, and which are reasonable to attach to the act.  Plain symbolism
points out correspondences without implying that there's some meaning to
the connection.  If the concepts are too far apart, finding a meaning can
seem forced.

The Gemara, for instance, engages in symbolism, but works hard to find
a connection that is meaningful.  For instance:

-  the symbolic foods on Pesach, betzah and zroa, because they correspond
to the chagiga and pesach offerings, better than beets and rice, the Gemara's
first suggestion.

- the three tefillos - the avos, or the korbanos?  the korbanos wins out,
because it can include all the musafim, and we have the verse "compensating
with the bulls of our lips".

The structure of the act copies the structure of that which is symbolized.

So too here: Ana Bekoach was constructed to correspond to the name of 42,
with the acrostic Kroa Satan, etc.  But the 42 stages long predate any 
of our kabbalistic concepts, by at least a thousand years.  Where's the
connection?  Otherwise, it seems too much like empty symbolism.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

I apologize for the fact that the following post refers back to a 
discussion from so long ago... I started out about 3 months behind in my 
Avodah/Areivem reading (caused mostly by the birth of Malkah Shayna back 
in June).  I am now only 3 months behind, and thought it was worth adding 
to this discussion:

R' Gershon Dubin wrote
> Much more likely that women never even showed up in shul;
> those few who did were probably in a separate room.

To which Akiva Miller responded:
>>I've heard this many times. But it only makes sense to me 99% of the 
>>time.
>>How recent is it that women come to shul for Parshas Zachor and Megillas
>>Esther and Tekias Shofar? It is difficult for me to imagine women 
>>crowded by
>>the doors and windows, when the number of women might be similar to the
>>number of men.

For what its worth, I visited the Hungarian city of Sopron a few years 
ago.  One of the highlights was a shul from the early 14th cen.  The shul 
contained a women's section which was upstairs, and was walled off from 
the main shul downstairs.  There were little slits (much like they used to 
have in castles to shoot out of) for the women to look through.

(The mikvah has also been preserved).

- Steve

***************************************************************************
Steven J. Scher              sjscher@eiu.edu         Listen to WEFT 90.1FM
Department of Psychology     217-581-7269
Eastern Illinois University               Yichus is like a potato --
Charleston, IL 61920                      They are both in the ground.
USA

Let me go back to the case of the Rav who told my friend to keep trying
when we all know there is a very simple heter that should (and because
she psak shopped was) employed in this case to enable her to have
children.  Is it not crystal clear that after 120 years, when this Rav
goes to face the din emes, if my friend had in fact followed his ruling,
then this Rav would have been held accountable for the children (and all
the countless generations possibly after them) that did not exist, not
to mention the enormous suffering of my friend and her husband, that he
had caused?  In fact did not my friend, on a deeper level do this Rav a
big favour, because now his din will only be dealing with theoreticals,
not actuals.
===========================================
Not crystal clear to me. Perhaps the Rav in question had other reasons
for his not using the heter, perhaps HKB"H had a different result in
mind.  As long as we're conjecturing, what if someone takes advantage of
a minority opinion and has children that they "shouldn't" have had.
Does the new rav in question suffer for that?  

Back in the real world it happens I agree with Rn'CL's approach but I'm
not certain of anything anymore when it comes to this issue of the
halachik process and the ratzon hashem (or put another way, I'm certain
of what I believe, but not at all certain that I'm right about it)

KT
Joel Rich

Two recent Seforim which I found to be extremely informative with some
groundbreaking Sevaros in issues of Pikuach Nefesh are:
1) Mishnas Pikuach Nefesh, by R' Yosef Aryeh Lorincz
2) B'chol Levavecha, by R' Yitzchak Isaac Weinberg

The "Chashukei Chemed" series by R' Yitzchak Zilberstein, while not a very
deep Sefer. has interesting analyses of practical cases which may set some
Halachic precedents.

Obviously the "Piskei Teshuvos" series

"Halichos Shlomo" (Tefilla, Moadim) with the Pesakim of RSZA has become a
major Halachic source.

The "Tikkunim Umilluim" to Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasah (5753)

I'm sure the Chevra will come up with some more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071029/270e3ae8/attachment.html 

Jonathan Baker wrote:

> So too here: Ana Bekoach was constructed to correspond to the name of 42,
> with the acrostic Kroa Satan, etc.  But the 42 stages long predate any 
> of our kabbalistic concepts, by at least a thousand years.  Where's the
> connection?  Otherwise, it seems too much like empty symbolism.

You're begging the question.  You're assuming that "our kabbalistic
concepts" are merely a human-constructed system, that there really is
no such thing as "shem MaB", and therefore that the 42 legs of the
journey from Egypt to the Jordan could not have *in fact* been a
reflection of that Name.

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

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer < > wrote: 
Has anyone ever seen a reason why Ashkenaz wraps tefillin coming in
while Sfard wraps going out?

I haven't seen a reason but I offer the following chidush:

Wrapping the tefillin in is because it is towards the heart (b'chol l'vovcho).
So then you ask: why do most wrap it going out? My answer would be that
we are wrapping it away from our yetzer hara.

So with that explanation, the best thing would be to wrap it in one day
and out the other. :-)

The following is a cute story regarding tefillin. There was a
stranger in town who attended a Shabbos minyan and was seen putting on
tefillin. Several people, horrified, ran up to him and yelled "What are
you doing?! Don't you know it's Shabbos and you shouldn't even touch
the tefillin, let alone put them on." To which the man responded,
"Yes, but I'm not that religious."

In a message dated 10/26/2007 6:27:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:

Regarding the  halachic issue - did Esther go to mikveh before  being 
with Achashveros? Megila(13b) said  she would  go  to  mikveh before 
visiting Mordechai. The commentaries i.e., Maharsha and  Tosfos say she 
was with Achashveros while she was a niddah. However Rashi  is 
understood  as meaning that  she went to the mikva for  Achashveros. 

As I won't have much time I will be Mistapeik bMuat for now.

1)Tos. AFAIK does not say that she was with him during Niddus rather every  
day. The Ohr Godol says Tos. does not mean literally.

2) The Maharsha as well as the Pnei Yehoshua (Shut vol. 2 # 44, quoted by  
the OG) do say so, but it is understood from them that it was an issue
that was overridden due to Ones. With the implication that there is
Issur Niddus on B'ilas Akum.

3) The Ohr Godol implies from Rashi that she actually Toiveled for
Achasveirosh. (which is based on the Hano'cho that Issur Niddus is
Chal on a Goy), however Lan"d as to Pshat in Rashi Al Asar there is
room to learn that the reason Rashi does not say Tvila for Niddus is
because the simple reading in the Gemara is that EVERY time that she
went to Mordechai she Toiveled, regardless if she was Nidda or not,
hence a reason that would cover that is Nkiyus (and if she needed for
Niddah too it would be included). And BTW Lan"d Teitch in the Limud of
"Kasher Hoysah" is that the meaning of the words is "when she was" not
"just like it was", which is where the Gemara gets that it was after
being with Achshveirosh.

4) The Pnei Yehoshua asks from "Vatischalchal Hamalka" which the Gemara
says that she became Nidda, and she relations then bRotzon (Kasher Ovaditi
Ovoditi), he answers that it was for Hatzolas Yisroel and it couldn't
be delayed as Mordechai said "Ki Im Hachareish Tacharishi Boeis Hazos",
my question is she pushed it off any ways for 3 days for fasting so what
would be so bad another 3 days.

L'SIKUM even if Pshat in Gemara Rashi and Tos. is debatable as to what
Esther did when, the fact is that in addition to the Maharsha there are
2 other sources in Tshuvos Lhalacha that hold bPshitus that Issur Niddus
is Chal even when having relations with a Goy (without going into the
details if it is Gilui Arayos for which Yeihoreig vAl Yavor).

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071029/0bd58493/attachment.htm 

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:18:07 -0400
"Rich, Joel" <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:

> RZS wrote:

>> Your ancestors did.  A person has the right to make a neder binding on
>> him and his future descendants.

> What is the makor for this right (for an individual or a community -
> although I could see a community as more logical than an individual)

"kabalas herem hala aleihem ve'al zaram ..." - SA YD 214:2
"nidui ve'herem hal al doros ha'ba'im" - ibid 228:35

> KT
> Joel Rich

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

In a message dated 10/24/2007 11:02:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ygbechhofer@gmail.com writes:

Has  anyone ever seen a reason why Ashkenaz wraps tefillin coming in 
while  Sfard wraps going out?

The Piskei Tshuvos 27:7 connects this with the Machlokes of the Beis
Yosef and Darkei Moshe brought in Biur Halacha ois 7. he brings there
also reasons for each one, if there is any interest I will send BL"N
copy of Piskei Tshuvos.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071029/7bfe9f38/attachment.html 

R'SBA asked about
> a visitor - a fine Sefardi Jew who proudly sticks to his
> traditions. After being mechabed him with a coffee and a
> few (Israeli) crackers, he made a brocho achrono - finishing
> it with "al michyasa ve'al kalkalasa".

(More likely that he said "al michyata ve'al kalkalata", or "al michyatha
ve'al kalkalatha". :-)

> I checked a Sefardi siddur that I have and indeed that is
> their nusach. So how come we Ashkenazim don't say it? ...
> (He also quotes Tosfos RY Hachosid that also in Birchas
> Hamazon one should say "al haaretz ve'al mezonoseho'.)

In Sefer Eretz Yisroel by Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky, 3:1, who was
Ashkenazi, he writes that we do change the bracha for all three versions
of Bracha Me'en Shalosh (provided that the fruit, grain, or wine was
grown in Eretz Yisroel) - but NOT in Birkas Hamazon.

Those who do not have this sefer can read it on line at
http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/eretz_yisrael.pdf Go to
page 13 of that PDF to see his exact words, and what he says about the
borders of Eretz Yisrael for this halacha.

> The LM suggests an explanation for our minhag - that
> while the Peiros and wines of EY are all of produce
> 'shenishtabcho bohem EY', 'Al Hamichya' (and Birchas
> Hamazon) are said on '5 minei dagan' - which although
> included in 'chita use'orah' - are not mentioned clearly
> in the Torah.

It seems to me that this argument would work for rye and oats, but not
for wheat and barley.

And why should "mentioned clearly" be a requirement, as opposed to
"mentioned at all"? If "mentioned clearly" is indeed a requirement,
I could argue that it would include date honey, but not the dates
themselves, which sounds pretty absurd.

> PS: Someone who was at my home mentioned that most of the
> grain used in Israel is imported, which may explain our minhag.

That was the answer I heard when I was in Eretz Yisroel, many
years ago. But I can't imagine why this argument would apply only to
Ashkenazim. By what logic would a Sefardi say "michyata" on grain from
Chu"l? I can't help but fear that your visitor was misinformed, and
that even Sefaradim change the bracha ONLY when they KNOW the grain to
have been grown in Eretz Yisroel. (Then again, maybe he did know that
particular brand of crackers to be made from Israeli grain.)

Akiva Miller

>From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> : ... the names of any top
Israeli seforim in the last 10-20 years that might have a long term impact

Everyone will of course suggest seforim close to their hear and
interests. My list may be oriented to my interests, like Tanach and
Piyyut.

I list in my top 10 mainly sefarim that broke new ground / and / or
started a trend.

1. RM Breuer's Pirkei Moadot / Pirkei Breishit - unleashed a wave of
hundreds of melamdim, shiurim, articles and books with a new way to
confront Tanach and modern Bible studies.
2. Premier shutim: ROY's Yabia Omer and Yehave Daat (encyclopedic and
influential both halachikly as well as sociologically on Sephardim)
however these began more than 20 years ago but continued. Will continue
to be classics for generations.
3. Premier shutim: RE Waldenberg's Tzitz Eliezer series and his ancillary
works like Hil Medina. These also began more than years 20 years ago
but continued. Will continue to be classics for generations.
4. Premier shutim: RSZA works including on electricity, add to that
SSKehilchata from the same beit midrash: however these began more
than years 20 years ago but continue to have great influence. SSK was
influential 30 years ago with the first editions, RSZA I think grows
only more influential as time goes on.
5. The Torat Hayyim Mikraot Gedolot, the Bar Ilan Messora based Mikraot
Gedolot : set new standards for the 450 year old MG
6. The Daat Mikra tanach peirush, breaking new ground in its method of
merging the classic and the modern
7. Shmona Kvatzim, OK so it was written nearly a century ago but it
was only published in the last 20 years. Revolutionized the study and
understanding of R Kooks writing and shitot
8. Rav Goren's monograph and articles on Har HaBayit (also a bit old). In
the last 20 years there has been a ground swell of interest and activity
relating to HHaBayit and RSGoren deserves credit for starting it
9. Ezra Fleisher and Shlomit Elitzur's works on Piyyut. Provided solid
basis for understanding Piyyut and popularizing its appreciation
10. These were written long ago but only took off in terms of their
effect on "the olam" in the last 20 years: R Nachman and R Zadok

I think these are major trend setters, if that is what you were thinking of. 

I think the BI Responsa Project and RMMKashers Torah Shleima also will
stay classic for a long time, but they are older than 20 years.

Looking over this list, most of it is really older than 20 years, but
I think it takes a Dor or 2 for an idea or a corpus to develop momentum
and to gain widespread appreciation. 20 or 40 years from NOW, we will
be able to better perceive the status and value of sefarim of the last
10-20 years.

Now, chevre: write in and say "That list is ridiculous. How could you
leave out X and Y ????"

Re: the Rambam's shita that meetings with angels told in Tanach are
prophetic visions --

See Moreh Nevuchin Helek Bet 43

Ramban Breishit 18 1 quotes the Moreh and violently argues (eleh d'varim
...asur leshom'am af ki le-haamin bahem), but a bit later he is "modeh
be'miktzat" and says that if the psukim refer to "anashim" the Moreh
doesn't apply, but it does apply if the psukim say "mal'achim".

Radak Breishit 18 1 ff "veyeish lefareish ki kol sippur had'varim haeleh
... haya be-mareh ha-nevuah" follows the Moreh
Radak Breishit 32 26 (Yaakov and the malach in Vayislach) "ve-chol
ha-maaseh haze efshar she-haya ba-mareh ha-nevuah ba-chalom"

I'm sure there are many more places where the philosophically oriented /
Rambam oriented Rishonim continue to use the shita found in the Moreh.

From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>>Rashi  (Megila 13b) says: "Esther was tovel for the sake of cleanliness 
so that she  should not be disgusting to the tzadik [Mordechai] because 
of her intimacy  with Achashveros."

Ohr Godol (Simon aleph page 9) deduces from the fact  that Rashi doesn't 
say that she was tovel for Mordechai because of nidah  that she must have 
already toveled for nidah when she was with  Achashveros.<<

Was Esther somehow slipping away from the palace at night, or was
she smuggling Mordechai in? She lived in a harem guarded by eunuchs,
I wonder how either of these scenarios would have been possible.

--Toby  Katz
=============

On Sunday, 28. October 2007 23.13:07 Chana Luntz wrote:
> Obviously I am understanding the gemora differently from the way you are
> - but I understood the bit about the captors standing at a distance as
> only applying to Shmuel's daughters, and not to the women from
> Neharda'ah.
<SNIP> 
> Does not Tosphos bear this reading out - by making it clear 
> that they are in the category of assur from the time they were
> recognised as captured.

It is hard to remain lurking with such an excellent poster.

Tosafot is very cryptic, merely asking what the purpose of the guards is
if they were possibly already violated. One does not know under which
circumstances Shemuel ordered guards. However, Rashi is crystal clear
about the purpose of the guards.

Perhaps we may resolve our difference by stating that I followed Rashi
and you Tosafot. ;-)

Regarding your question about how the daughters of Shemuel could have
been captured by government forces considering that Bavel and EY were at
the time under different dominions, Nechemia of Beit Deli is quoted in
the Mishnah (Yevamot 122a) saying that travel between Bavel and EY was
dangerous, on account of military activity. It smells of border conflicts,
though of course it could be about frontier lawlessness.

Anyway, I must go back to lurking, sorry,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:41:06 +0200 "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> A recent article I read asked for the names of any top Israeli seforim
> in the last 10-20 years that might have a long term impact

> Any suggestions?

> -- 
> Eli Turkel

1)  Five or six [0] of the volumes of the Pis'hei Hoshen have been
published within the last 20 years; I will go out on a limb and say
that the PH is the most important work on Hoshen Mishpat of the last
century, an indispensable classic.

2)  The Ozar Ha'Poskim is an ongoing classic; one can't even think of
ruling on Even Ha'ezer without it.

These are both derivative works, but of profound significance.

[0] volume 5 was published in 5748

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

From: R' Yitzchok Zirkind

>>L'SIKUM even if Pshat in Gemara  Rashi and Tos. is debatable as to what  
Esther did  when<<

Personally I find it hard to believe she was married to Mordechai, that
just doesn't seem to be implied in the Megilla at all. And if she was
having relations on a regular basis with Achashverosh, how on earth could
she have kept going back to Mordechai? The logistics are difficult
(as I already mentioned) -- how would she sneak away from the palace?
Wouldn't the palace guards stop her? Wouldn't Achashverosh wonder
where she was and how she got out -- if he happened to want her one
night and she wasn't home?!

But even more difficult is the morality and the halachic aspect of it.
How could she play with an issur kareis like that? I know she was
"like karka" but come on, how many times could she be with one man and
still be married to another?? Why didn't Mordechai just give her a
get and at least take away the danger of kareis?

Do we know for sure who was the father of her child -- Daryavesh/ Darius?

--Toby  Katz
=============

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071030/e034e07d/attachment.html 

On 10/29/07, cantorwolberg@cox.net <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer < > wrote:
> Has anyone ever seen a reason why Ashkenaz wraps tefillin coming in
> while Sfard wraps going out?

> I haven't seen a reason but I offer the following chidush:

> Wrapping the tefillin in is because it is towards the heart (b'chol
> l'vovcho).
> So then you ask: why do most wrap it going out? My answer would be
> that we are wrapping it away from our yetzer hara.

> So with that explanation, the best thing would be to wrap it in one
> day and out the other. :-)

I will never understand this terminology -- whichever way one wraps
the tefillin one is coming in half the time and going out the other
half! Last time I bought tefillin they asked me whether I wrapped
going in or out and I ended up with the straps the wrong way because
we were unable to find a common terminology.

RMB wrote here on Avodah under this heading:

> If teaching girls Torah were declared "assur" rather than 
> "tiflus", the CC's grounds for backing Beis Yaakov would 
> qualify.

And in Areivim in responding to another poster who wrote:

>:  Girls' Torah education was a pretty
>: major break, and IIRC, had to rely on 'eys laasos'....

RMB responded

>It did not. First, there is no issur -- the word used is "tiflus". 

Um, I am not sure where you are getting this from.

The precise language of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 246, si'if
6) which is word to word with the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah perek 1
halacha 13:

V'afal pi sheyesh la schar tzivu Chazal shelo yilmod adam es biso Torah
mipnei she rov nashim ain da'asan micavenes l'hislamed u'motzios divrei
Torah l'divrei havai lfi anist da'asan. Amru hachamim kol hamelamed es
biso torah kielu melamda tiflus (Rema [dvar averah]) b'ma devarim omrim
b'torah sheba'al peh aval torah shebichsav lo yilmod osah l'chatchila,
v'im melameda ano k'lamda tiflus."

Now, I struggle to see "tzivu Chazal" as anything but an issur.  The is
modified (at least for Ashkenazim) by the Rema adding that in any case a
woman is obligated (chayaves) to learn dinim shayachim l'isha. 

>Second, the CC argued that since girls were always taught enough to
become observant 
>women, today's world mandates broader education. The opening of
universal secular education changed the metzius of pre-existing pesaq to
include more.

Yes, you can try and argue that the Rema's dinim shayachim l'sha has
been broadened by the reality of the modern world - but is is a stretch,
a big stretch.  Especially when you are talking about learning Rashi,
which of course is chock full of Torah shebaal peh that is hard to argue
really falls within the category of shaychim l'isha.  And you can try
arguing that schools aren't fathers and therefore aren't included in the
issur (especially when it is done by other women! - just don't learn
Rashi with your daughters round the shabbas table!).  But both of these
are radical breaks with the way the issur was traditionally understood,
and I don't think, in the interests of emes and honesty, one should
pretend otherwise.  

> He held that universal secular education for girls 
> was a change in realia which changed the definition of 
> "teaching them enough to keep them shomeros Torah umitzvos". 
> Teaching halakhah is no longer enough; they now must also see 
> that Torah has greater beauty than the other systems of 
> thought to which they are exposed. As it is, the CC justified 
> a change in minhag Yisrael, which is KEdin and thus follows 
> the same rules -- but what was changed wasn't actually din itself.

I confess I don't think I have ever seen anything in writing from the
CC, so I don't know how he justified it, but I would be surprised, given
the explicit wording of the Shulchan Aruch, if he said anything of the
kind.  Eis la'asos sounds a fair bit more likely  - although eis la'asos
is usually about uprooting Torah prohibitions, and the language of the
Shulchan Aruch/Rambam, as well as the mishna on which they are based,
seems to make it clear that it is a gezera of the Chachamim, ie
d'rabbanan, not d'orisa - which arguably gets us back into the  - if the
reason for a gezeras chachamim no longer applies (the clapping/dancing -
the average person does not mend instruments, Tosphos argument) does it
still apply?   But with an even stronger argument that the gezera is now
counterproductive (although I have certainly heard the rationale for
allowing clapping/dancing as being related to oneg shabbas, ie that the
ban is counterproductive)?  That seems to be what we are dealing with
here - more along the lines of - if girls are going to be learning about
divrei averah from their secular education (or their television
set/other exposure to the outside world) don't you at least need to try
with the antidote?  Another example of seemingly overruling the simple
ruling of a d'rabbanan in favour of the touchy feely/it may be
counterproductive stuff is zmanei tephila in favour of proper
preparation for davening - but that is precisely why the non Chassidim
don't like it.

> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

Regards
Chana

R Doron Beckerman wrote in part:

Obviously the "Piskei Teshuvos" series

"Halichos Shlomo"  (Tefilla, Moadim) with the Pesakim of RSZA has become a
major Halachic  source.

The "Tikkunim Umilluim" to Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasah  (5753

WADr, the PT is an excellent source for ShuT and other seforim that
analyze the MB. It does tend to have a Chasidishe and at times very
Machmir stance. Halichos Shlomoh is a wonderful series. I would add
the MP Tur, Minchas Chinuch, and the new edition of the SA along with
the Mossad HaRav Kook Ritvah and Rashba along with the Frankel Rambam
as indispensable seforim.

Steve Brizel
_Zeliglaw@aol.com_ (mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071030/94f1eb40/attachment.htm 

R' Yitzchok Grossman, quoting Ralbag:
> And it appeared in his dream that God opened the ass's mouth and it
> spoke to him twice ...

What would Ralbag do with the Mishna in Avos (5:8) that says the Pi HaAson
was created Erev Shabbos?

KT,
MYG

RSN had written (on Areivim):
>>>so if i understand correctly , when you all go to kivrei tzaddikim,
you are praying to them--ie petitioning them to ask the RBSO-rather
than praying to Hashem in their zchus.>>>

I responded:

>>>I believe that you understand incorrectly - the point is to daven
to the RBSO and hope that the zchus of the tzadikim helps your
tefilos.

RSN had written:
>>>if so, what was the fuss over Machnisei Rachamim in slichos?>>>

I responded:
>>>Because there, you are asking the malachim to something on your
behalf.  It is forbidden to pray to anyone other than HKBH.

RZS wrote (on Areivim):

>>>I believe that you understand incorrectly.  If all you want to do
is invoke the zechus of a tzadik you could do that anywhere.
======================================
The Mateh Ephraim ("ME") (581:50) explains that the place of kivrei
tzadikim is a "makom kadosh v'tahor" and a person's prayers are
accepted more readily there.  The ME continues and says that a person
should not direct his tefilos to the tzadikim buried there; rather one
should ask HKBH for mercy in the zchus of the tzadikim that are buried
there.  The Eleph HaMagen ("EH") explains that the reason one should
not direct his tefilos to the tzadikim is because it's "karov hadavar
sheyihye b'chlal doreish el hameisim.

The Mishna Berurah (581:4:27) also explains that the reason to daven
at kivrei tzadikim is because a person's prayers are accepted more
readily there but a person should not not direct his tefilos to the
tzadikim buried there; rather one should ask HKBH for mercy in the
zchus of the tzadikim that are buried there.

However, it is also brought down in the ME that one of the purposes of
davening at kivrei tzadikim is to be "m'oreir the holy tzadikim to be
a meilitz yosher for us on the Yom Ha'Din."  And the EH mentions that
there are tefilos which seem to ask the tzadikim to be a meilitz on
our behalf.

And the notes at the bottom of the page bring down from the Zohar
(parshas Acharei Mos, daf 70) the question of how can we ask deceased
tzadikim to seek rachamim on our behalf - isn't there a prohibition of
"doreish el hameisim"?  R' Chizkiya answers the question - ayin sham....

>>>And it wouldn't explain going to the grave of an ancestor or
relative who wasn't particularly righteous, and hasn't got any
outstanding zechus.>>>

If it will bring the person to greater kavanah, it has a purpose.

KT,
Aryeh

There is "famous" story (I  have heard it so it's "famous" . . . about 
the SM"A who was involved in a din torah, which he lost despite his 
acumen in Choshen Mishpat.  The dayanim explained that they actually 
paskened like the SM"A's own peirush on the matter, while the SM"A had, 
in his own behalf, taken the position of the Sha"Ch, who disagrees with 
the SM"A's peirush. The story is usualy conveyed as a moralality tale 
about the blinding effect of self-interest (negi'os).  (On the topic of 
negi'os in this week's parsha, see Michtav May-Eliyahu, 2:202-203 and 
5:299-300.)

QUERY:  1)    Does anyone have a printed source for this story? If the 
answer is Krohn, pleas identify the book, and possibly a printed source 
earlier than Rav Shwadron zt"l.
                2)   Anyone have any idea what the din torah was about? 
and what halacha was at issue?

Thanks in advance.
Noach Witty

<<I'm sure there are many more places where the philosophically oriented /
Rambam oriented Rishonim continue to use the shita found in the Moreh.>>

IIRC, the Seforno on Chava and the nachash.

Kol tuv Dov Kay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071030/230169b2/attachment-0001.html 

RCL

In Yevamos 116b the gemora brings a mayse shehaya about a woman whose
husband was bitten by a snake when he went out to the wheat harvest, and
she came and testified to beis din that her husband had died, and they
went and checked it out and indeed he had died, and at that point they
legislated that a woman is believed if she comes to beis din and says
her husband has died to allow her to remarry
<snip>
But on a deeper level what this case illustrates (and I could have
brought you many other examples) is that Chazal tended not to work from
the platonic ideal and apply downwards, but tended to work from
individual cases and work upwards.

I believe that there are very few cases in the Mishna, the obvious yesod
of TSBP, in which a halachic principle is *derived* from a specific
individual case, as in the case in Yevamot RCL cited (there's a very
similar example in Ktuvot perek 2). The Mishna very often formulates the
law it is stating in the form of a case, not a principle, but it seems
to me that this is for the most part a stylistic or pedagogical form,
not an essential difference in approach.
Let's look at a few examples. Let's compare Kiddushin 1:1 with 3:1; the
former a formal statement of principles, the latter specifying the law
in a specific case. Is the latter an example of Chazal's "tendency to
work upwards from a specific case"? It seems to me more of a different
way to present the halacha than a fundamentally different approach.
BM 2:1 states legal principles; 3:1 states what the law is in a case. It
seems to me that the mishna in the latter is applying principles it
knows to the case in hand (indeed, citing one explicitly) rather than
deriving legal principles from the case.
I will readily concede that in the gemara, deriving halachic principles
from a given case is much more common, but I still think that to say
broadly that the fundamental approach of Chazal is from the specific
to the general is not accurate. On the contrary, I think that for the
most part Chazal tend to determine the halacha in specific cases from
well-known and accepted general principles.
Saul Mashbaum 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071030/b91357b3/attachment-0001.htm 

> What is the makor for this right (for an individual or a community - 
> although I could see a community as more logical than an individual)

"kabalas herem hala aleihem ve'al zaram ..." - SA YD 214:2 "nidui
ve'herem hal al doros ha'ba'im" - ibid 228:35

> KT
> Joel Rich

Yitzhak
======================================
Sorry for the lack of clarity - this din (which iiuc is based on the
gemara in Pesachim 50b) is based on a pasuk in mishlei(Shma bni
musar..). So my question was, what is the makor, as in is this an
offshoot of a neder, is it halacha moshe misinai, is it a gezeira of the
rabbanan.....?

KT

On 10/30/07, Aryeh Stein <aesrusk@gmail.com> wrote:

> And the notes at the bottom of the page bring down from the Zohar
> (parshas Acharei Mos, daf 70) the question of how can we ask deceased
> tzadikim to seek rachamim on our behalf - isn't there a prohibition of
> "doreish el hameisim"?  R' Chizkiya answers the question - ayin sham....

IIRC the Kitzur SA strongly admonishes us not to fall into Doreish el
Hameisim whilst visting any kever. -RRW

KT,
> Aryeh

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071030/c0038f36/attachment.html 

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


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

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 35
**************************************

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..."