Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 143

Wed, 23 Apr 2008

• 1. Saying Hallel responsively at the Seder (SBA)
• 2. 5th seder cup (bdcohen@optimum.net)
• 3. Re: Avos uBanim (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Avos uBanim (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 5. Re: Avos uBanim (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Eating Two Kezeisim of Matza for Motzi-Matza. (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Responsive Hallel at the Seder (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Eating Two Kezeisim of Matza for Motzi-Matza. (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Vihgadto Levincho (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (T613K@aol.com)

From: Seth Mandel < >
The Shulhan Arukh says in Orah Hayyim 479:1 that one is required to try to
have a zimmun for the seder.  The R'MO adds that this is so that people can
read sections in Hallel responsively...The R'MO considers this so important
that he allows bringing in someone from the outside who has not been at the
rest of the Seder.
.....

RY Emden writes "v'ein tzorich likros mibayis achar, veday be'ishtoy uvonov
shehigiu lechinuch sheyaanu achrov.."

>>I confess that, although I have been to lots of different places and
communities, my experience with S'dorim is limited.  ... I have never seen
this responsive reading done, outside of by RYBS.  I have also asked someone
who is very knowledgeable about Hungarian customs, and he confirmed that, as
far as he knew, there was no custom to read any part of Hallel responsively
in Hungary.  ... So: does anyone know of any communities where they
practiced responsive reading of Hallel during the Seder?  
>>

I had the zechus -for 4 years - to be a guest of the late Nitra Rov zt'l in
Mt Kisco for 8 (beautiful) sedorim. He, of course, led the seder and we most
definitely said the Hallel responsively. Yes, it was a surprise for me too,
as my late father z'l - whose sedorim were the only other ones that I
remembered, did not do so. 
And the Nitra Rov zt'l 'feered' the seder EXACTLY according to the minhogim
of his father Rav Shmuel Dovid Ungar zt'l. 

SBA

"I recall hearing that Rabbi Menachem Kasher says that since we have
returned to the Land, we should drink the fifth cup for the fifth
expression of geula, viz. returning to the land. Does anyone know
where he says to do this? The Shulchan Aruch says that if you drink
the fifth, it is to be done in Hallel (but I forget where in Hallel -
??), but one person this Pesach
opined that ha-shana ha-ba'a b'yerushalayim ha-bnuya is a
particularly fitting place.

Mikha'el Makovi"
 
See his Hagadah Eretz Yisrael, available in both Hebrew and an English translation, wherein he has a long discussion of the "5th kos".
 
David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080423/203e2356/attachment-0001.htm 

 
 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:micha@aishdas.org) 


 

: On the words "veshinantem levanecha" Rashi says, "velo livnosecha" --  
i.e.,  
: there is no obligation of Torah learning for a  daughter...[--TK]

>>But, as RAM pointed out, this goes beyond  veshinantam levanekha. If
there are no children at the table, the wife is  supposed to ask her
husband the 4 kashehs.

So there is clearly a  gender-equality to this chiyuv that isn't present
in teaching  Torah....<<
 
>>>>>
You are only repeating in other words exactly what I said.  I don't  think 
you read my post carefully.  I said that in the case of "shinantem  levanecha" 
Rashi says "velo livnosecha" but in the case of "vehigadta  levincha"  he does 
NOT say "velo livnosecha" -- thus clearly implying that  "vehigadta levincha" 
does include both sons and daughters.  That was  exactly the point of my post.
 

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






**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080423/f4f8e546/attachment-0001.htm 

R' Micha wrote: "the more obvious derashah (as we actually find in haggados) a man must contact his "feminine side" when teaching."

I'm sure you didn't mean it as a joke because you don't allow jokes on
Avodah. So how does a man teach with his "feminine side?" Does this mean an
increase in his estrogen? I can see the "feminine side" referring to
rachmonus, but teaching?
ri

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:03PM -0400, cantorwolberg@cox.net wrote:
: R' Micha wrote: "the more obvious derashah (as we actually find in
haggados) a man must contact his "feminine side" when teaching."
...

: So how does a man teach with his "feminine side?" Does this mean an
: increase in his estrogen? I can see the "feminine side" referring to
: rachmonus, but teaching?

Well, feminine side would almost certainly mean rachmanus, given the
rechem - rachamim connection. But why are you thrown by the notion that
rachmanus has a huge role in teaching?

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 3rd day
micha@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Chesed: What is perfectly
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            balanced Chesed?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> > Ein hachi Name, that was in my earlier post - namely that jsut a small
> > amound of the hamotzi should be enough and that 2 k'zeisim is not
> > needed, just a kezyis of al achilas plus some more of hamotzi. But
> > pehraps the argument is that the "plus some more" itself requires a
> > minimum of  another k'zayyis, but I am not quite convinced.
>
> No, it's got nothing to do with that; the question is which matzah
> the "al achilat matzah" is on.  Is it on the prusah over which the
> hagadah was said, or is it on the shlema.  Since we don't know, we
> take a kezayit from each.  Obviously for those who eat from neither one
> but from the box, there is no point in eating more than one kezayit.
>
> --
> Zev Sero
>

AHA!  I knew I was fuzzy but now I understand the point I overloked- yyasher
ko'ach.

And do we not say huvrar lemafrei'a?
Or since Achilas Matza this would not work?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080423/7e648bf1/attachment-0001.htm 

In a no-subject post, R' Seth Mandel asked:
> So: does anyone know of any communities where they
> practiced responsive reading of Hallel during the Seder?

This responsive reading is mentioned by Rav Eider, the Artscroll Hagadah,
and the Kol Dodi Hagada (psakim of Rav Moshe Feinstein), among many others.
None of those three mention that there might be communities which do not
have this minhag.

Based on this, I can't avoid coming to the conclusion that it is a very common minhag.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Need cash? Click to get a loan.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3mKivl4G5XeMHVjHlbAcmi7Y8SaDuXcODN3ycB6x4wBQDPOi/

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Lemashal, If I make kiddush on a revi'is of wine, is not
> that revi'is enough to create a shi'ur for bracha ahcaronah
> etc. as well as enough to make kiddush? IOW can't the one
> sh'iur handle 2 functions? OTOH, "ein ossin  mitzos havillos"
> might require a separate kos [think of sheva brachos]

It seems to me that although it is a mitzva to say a bracha acharona, it is
not the sort of mitzva which is said to be done "over a kos". At least, it
is certainly different from Sheva Brachos in that respect. Therefore, the
one reviis will suffice for kiddush, and not even a mashehu more is needed.

Similarly, no one suggests that one needs a three kezaysim - one for Matza,
one for Lechem Mishneh, and one for Birkas Hamazon. Birkas Hamazon doesn't
even enter into the calculation, and neither does the Bracha Acharona on
the wine.

But lechem mishneh is a bit different. Lechem mishneh is a mitzvah, whose
shiur is a mashehu. Thus, one kezayis of matzah is not enough - he needs
the kezayis for the mitzvah of Matzah, and another mashehu for Lechem
Mishneh.

But I'm glad you mentioned Kiddush, because it is very relevant to this
discussion, in the case where one wants to satisfy Kiddush Bemakom Seudah
with no hamotzi and no mezonos, but rather with wine. See the Shmiras
Shabbos K'Hilchasa 54:23, that in such a case he should drink a melo lugmav
for Kiddush, PLUS a reviis for the Seudah, but that anyone he is being
motzi can just drink the reviis as their seudah. (Full disclosure: He also
says that b'shaas had'chak the lone reviis will work for both kiddush and
the seudah. But I'm confident that b'shaas had'chak the lone kezayis will
work for both matza and lechem mishneh too!)

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on starting a business from your home.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3l5e2m2iNBvknukbtsyW6DHy8uQZ6peihQqT4eYjIBlZmRNg/

In the thread "Vihgadto Levincho", R' SBA asked:
> Till what age (of the son)is this mitzvah? Eg, if the father
> is 70 and his son 50, is he still mechuyev to tell him about
> Yetzias Mitzrayim?

R' Micha Berger extended the question:
> Why is there no haqpadah to go to your father's home for
> Pesach? Isn't it the only way he can fulfil his chiyuv? What's
> the matir for saying it's only if they are already at the
> table rather than obligating us to go to his table?

Several times in years past, I've asked a related question: If everyone's
chiyuv is satisfied by simply listening to the leader read the Hagada, then
how do they get relieved of the chiyuv to tell it themselves? "Shomea
k'oneh" would seem to NOT be the mechanism, because while in many mitzvos
we find the acharonim reminding us of the importance of "kavana l'hotzi and
kavana latzeis", I never saw such a thing in the context of Maggid.

What these questions have in common, is confusion over what it really is
that we are obligated to do, and how we are obligated to do it. I would
like to offer an answer to all of these questions, based on the Halichos
Shlomo of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.

I will now quote directly from the Halichos Shlomo, Hilchos Pesach 9:31.

--- Halichos Shlomo begins here ---

"If many are assembled (mesubim) together, there is no chiyuv on each one
of them to tell the Sipur Yetzias Mitzraim to his children himself, but it
is sufficient (dai b'kach) for one of the assembled to tell it to all of
them."

Note 62 there says: "Because the ikar chiyuv on the father is that his
children will hear the Sipur Yetzias Mitzraim on this night, and since they
are hearing the story properly, it is enough. He doesn't even have to
appoint the storyteller as his shaliach for this; rather he is yotzay
automatically (m'mayla)."

Note 213 there says: "In RZSA's handwritten notes, he explains the pesukim
"Tell your child on that day... and it will be a sign upon your arm..." to
mean that the ikar form of the mitzvah is the telling to children, but
really, the obligation falls on every person also in regards to himself, to
review and study (lachzor ul'shanen) the Sipur Yetzias Mitzraim on this
night with all its many details. End quote. (And occasionally, those at the
table could tell that RSZA was quietly explaining to himself (mefaresh
bayno l'vayn atzmo) the first words of the Hagadah in spoken Yiddish:
Avadim - knecht, hayinu l'faro - zaynen mir geven tzu Paro, etc.)"

Note 214 there says: "And that's how they acted in RSZA's home when his
descendants (tze'etza'av) were with him. RSZA alone would explain the story
at length as needed (marchiv b'sipur k'fi hatzorech) as above... A
questioner once asked about his own practice, which was to split up the
reading of the hagada, so that each one would read a portion with the
others listening, and even the children would read portions of the Hagada.
RSZA answered that as long as the ikar portions were being read by the
adult family members, there is no objection (ayn l'ar'er) against the
practice."

--- Halichos Shlomo ends here ---

In note 214, I think the word "descendants (tze'etza'av)" is significant.
It seems clear that (in RSZA's view) the father can sit quietly while his
child hears the story from the grandfather. Or even from someone else
entirely. The father is yotzay because he has made sure that the child does
hear the story.

If so, then perhaps now I can suggest an answer to the questions of RSBA
and RMB. Adult children are not required to go to the seder of the elderly
parent, *provided* that the adult child will go to a seder somewhere, and
hear the hagada there. If the elderly parent has given his children a
strong enough chinuch that he is confident that his child will indeed
attend a seder somewhere, then he has done his duty.

And if, for some reason, the elderly parent fears that the child might
*not* attend a seder, chalilah, well, then, if they're not neviim, they're
at least benei neviim: Isn't it the standard practice among all Jews
everywhere to beg such a child to come home for Pesach?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Hit the slopes! Click now for great packages for your ski vacation!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3ninR8Nmb8g0kIjvCG5lBfV9ZaOrR485vRbbo5ocrez9LRAu/

 
 
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
>>Just  this past Yom Tov Pesach, I saw Marc Shapiro's book The Limits of
Orthodox  Theology....he collects classical Torah opinions that controvert
Rambam's  13....


1) When Rambam says the Torah we have is the same as given by  Moshe,
Rambam cannot possibly believe that this is literally  true....
 
 
1a) Rather, then, Rambam is saying that no deliberate additions  were
made after Moshe. However, while Rambam is saying that this is  the
case, he cannot possibly be saying it is heretical to say  otherwise.
.... Most importantly, the Gemara
itself opines that  Yehoshua wrote the end of the Torah - surely Rambam
cannot declare Chazal to  be heretics! So while Rambam says no
post-Moshe additions were made, the  contrary opinion is not heresy....
 

2) As an alternative to point 1 above: Rambam knew that there  were
textual variants in our Torah scrolls, but he very well have  lied
about this, and said that there were no variants... In fact, in his  Iggeret
Teiman, Rambam makes exactly such an explicit lie. Back then,  the
Muslims were accusing us of falsifying the Torah, and any admission  on
our part would have harmed the faith of the ignorant.... <<
 
 
>>>>>
Most of this has already been extensively discussed  on Avodah but I would 
like to say that I have always found these  endless navel-gazing discussions 
annoying and frustrating.  "The Torah  we have is the same Torah that Hashem gave 
Moshe" does not mean and was  never intended to mean "and no human error has 
ever crept in even to a single  letter of the Torah."    Nor could Rambam ever 
have intended  to mean, "And Chazal grossly erred when they said Yehoshua 
wrote the last few  verses describing Moshe's death."  All this "how many angels 
on the head of  a pin" kind of discussion just seems so perverse and petty to 
me.  Rambam  meant to answer the kind of people -- so similar to the Reform 
and Conservative  of our day -- who claim that the Torah was written by men over 
a period of  centuries, based on the myths and legends of surrounding 
cultures.  
 
"So while Rambam says no post-Moshe additions were made, the contrary  
opinion is not heresy...."  -- well, Rambam is NOT stating an opinion  as to whether 
the last few pesukim were written down by Moshe or by  Yehoshua.  He IS 
stating that no post-Moshe laws and stories were added,  and if you say "The law 
against homosexual relations, and also the law  requiring the killing of Amalek, 
were later interpolations unknown to Moshe" --  then yes, you very much are a 
heretic.  If it is your opinion that some of  the laws and stories in the 
Chumash were written centuries after Moshe  lived, then your opinion definitely 
is heresy.  "The contrary opinion  is not heresy" -- I'm sorry, but the 
contrary opinion IS heresy.  It IS  heresy to believe that all or part of the Torah 
was written by human beings  out of their own heads.
 
BTW every one of the 13 Ikrim has been endlessly dissected here in  this same 
petty and perverse way.  So, for example, "It is not proper to  pray to 
anyone other than Hashem" -- instead of its obvious meaning, "Don't pray  to Jesus, 
don't pray to false gods, don't pray to intermediaries" -- is  twisted and 
made to mean "Don't ask a malach for a bracha" and then if you do  sing "Sholom 
Aleichem," someone pops out from behind a tree and goes,  "Aha!  So you don't 
accept the 13 Ikrim of the Rambam!  Well  ha ha, NO ONE does!"  Then singing 
Sholom Aleichem becomes tantamount to  being a Conservative rabbi and Yakov 
Avinu, who asked a malach for a bracha,  becomes the first Conservative rabbi, 
and all the Jews who have ever said to a  deceased relative, "Be a melitz yosher 
for us" set a precedent that you can  pretty well pray to anyone and anything 
you like  -- Rambam's ikrim now  being proven to be mere tentative 
suggestions, binding on no one, since Judaism  has no set of beliefs whatsoever, QED.  
This whole line of reasoning is  incredibly distasteful, or should be, to a 
Torah Jew.
 
As for the suggestion that the Rambam "lied," I find this to be an example  
of the unfortunate tendency to chutzpa and lese majeste to which impetuous 
youth  is sometimes prone.  I haven't read Igeres Teiman all the way through but I 
 highly doubt that he actually said in there, "And in all the Torah scrolls 
that  have ever been written throughout history, no sofer has ever made a 
single  mistake in even a single letter."   If, rather, he said, "The Torah we  
have today is the same Torah that Hashem gave Moshe, and the Torah we have was  
not written or rewritten or falsified by later writers" then he was indeed  
stating something that all Torah-true Jews must believe, not only the  
simple-minded.  This BTW would be an argument against both Moslems and  Christians who 
have claimed that the Jews "know the truth" (that Mohammed really  is the true 
prophet, or that Jesus really is the Messiah) but being the perverse  and evil 
dogs they are, the Jews have deliberately changed their own holy  scriptures 
to obfuscate the "truth."  It was against such falsehood that  the Rambam 
inveighed.  To call the Rambam himself a liar is the height of  arrogance.


 


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





**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080423/d19eba3c/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 143
***************************************

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..."