Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 146

Thu, 24 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: Is having a good time ossur (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Eating Two Kezeisim of Matza for Motzi-Matza. (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Eating Two Kezeisim of Matza for Motzi-Matza. (Zev Sero)
• 4. makom Ha'Mishkan (Goldmeier)
• 5. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Daniel Israel)
• 6. Re: Vihgadto Levincho (SBA)
• 7. Re: Avos uBanim (Harry Maryles)
• 8. Re: Hallel at the seder (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Shaliach for a mitzvah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. FW: light chanukah candles on a plane (SBA)
• 11. Re: When does mixed swimming mean? (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: Violate Shabbat to Save a Jentile (Daniel Israel)
• 13. Re: letter of RSRH (SBA)

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM, D&E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:

> Re: <<If you read Rishonim and  omit Acharonim the  issurim
> on Sefirah seem limited to:     1. Taspores       2.
> nissu'in      3. some kind of mleacha [shabasos tihyena]>>
>
> Others added that the aveilut appears only in the geonim.
> is interesting to note what the geonim said.
>
>  Natronai Gaon says only that one does not marry from Pesach
> to 'Atzeret. (That's the entire sefira. There is no discount
> that makes it a net ban of only 33 days.)
>
> Hai Gaon adds an additional issur: One does not do m'lakha
> from sunset until Shacharit.  (And that is the entire
> night!)


That is because AISI [and RambaN in HUmash seems to suggest that this is  a
quasi hulo shel mo'ed  and would have spanned  ALL 49 days.

So the list makes sense:

   1. Marriage
   2. Some limitation onf melacha
   3. and Taspores [see Elu megalchin]

the nexus between hulo shel mo'ed and Aveilus is veru comelling. It breaks
down when you asser movies, ball games, music etc. becasue the
correspondence to hulo shel mo'ed evaporates.  That is why the list in Tur
and Kitzur is so telling. it fits a pradigm taht acharonim either ignored or
were ignorant of.

>
>
> And these are the only limitations they mention.  With all
> the chumrot that have been added over the generations, one
> wonders why one of the originals was reduced from 49 to 33
> days and the other has been completely forgotten.


It's a gmara tht the talmiddim died unilt "pras shavuous"
Divided the 49/50 by 3 and you get 33 etc.
Bu your right. If my hypotehis holds  33 is irrelvant.
ARIZALheld that the ONLY heter for taspores was erev Shvuos. I dunno why but
it sure fits this paradigm neatly.


 I've seen
> attmpts to explain this loss of an issur by conjecturing
> that R' Hai meant that one shouldn't do m'lakha until after
> counting the omer!  Do they think that R' Hai didn't know
> how to write what he meant and when he wrote "until morning"
> he meant something altogether different?
>

That is why looking at original sources is so important.  But oddly Kitzur
SA  elimnates MOST of the acharonisher stuff [except that he also assers
dancing at a  s'eudas Erussin]


>
> BTW, this was discussed on list in the past and should be in
> the archives.
>
> David
>


-- 
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/20080425/6bf8ab1e/attachment-0001.htm 

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:09 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
>
> 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!)
>

Full disclosure:  I was being COY becuase I knew that some say revi'is PLUS
and others say you can rely upon the single revi'is at least behsa'as
hadechak SSK is not alone on this matter.

Point is w/o Zev Sero's point re: safeik wof which piece why do you need
TWO?
I was hinting that TWO might really mean on some level ONE pluus.  [kinda
like Shiva is 6 plus]

-- 
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/20080423/16a85272/attachment-0001.htm 

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

>> 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.

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

The question is on which matzah *should* we say the bracha.  Huvrar
lemafrea will at most only tell you on which matzah we *did* say it,
but not whether we did right.

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

The other day I went on a Chol Ha'Moed trip to Shiloh, to visit the 
Makom Ha'Mishkan and hear about it. (for a brief review of the trip, see 
my post at 
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2008/04/touring-eretz-
yisrael-chol-hamoed-day-2.html).

I have since been wondering how halacha relates to the Makom Ha'Mishkan, 
relative to how it relates to the Makom Ha'Mikdash.

By the Mikdash we know people cannot go, in a state of tumas meis, in 
certain areas (the azara), and other areas can be approached after 
tahara in a mikva to relieve oneself of tumas keri/nidda, etc. (not 
getting involved if we can determine or not where those places are).

Is there such a limitation by the makom ha'mishkan? I seem to remember 
learnign once, but cannot remember where or when, that the makom 
hamishkan is not kadosh, and only the binyan itself was. That would mean 
the place could be tread upon by anybody. Is that correct though or do I 
remember incorrectly?

Regarding the place itself, it is only supposed - basically a very 
strong guess based on deduction and logic with a bit of topographical 
evidence strongly suggesting the place they determined to be the makom 
hamishkan is correct. but they have no actual evidence to solidify the 
claim, so in relaity I doubt we would use that to say the place is 
kadosh and people could not walk there, even if that was the halacha. 
But again, I do not know.

Any thoughts?

Kol tuv
Moadim L'Simchah
Rafi Goldmeier

-- 
---------
Goldmeier
goldmeier@012.net.il

http://torahthoughts.blogspot.com
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com

Akiva Blum wrote:
> "Michael Makovi"  <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote (quoted):
>> Most importantly, the Gemara itself opines that Yehoshua wrote the
>> end of the Torah - surely Rambam cannot declare Chazal to be
>> heretics!
> 
> What's the question? Moshe Rabeinu couldn't have written them because
> that would have been not true.

Or he could have written them as nevuah, which is presumably what the 
corresponding man d'amar in the Gemara holds.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" < >
 Halichos Shlomo . 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.)"
>>

The "Minhogei CS" [10:15] writes that the CS spent the entire Seder talking
to the young children - translating every word of the Hagada and explaining
'tochen ha'inyan' to them. He didn't say any Drush at all during the Seder.
 
He was clearly following the psak of the Rema 473:6.

In his Droshos he writes that the Seder is not for giving pilpulim etc, but
purely to talk about the Nissim veNiflaos of Hashem.

The fact that he had to point this out shows that even in his days people
were saying Toros and pshetlech at the seder - rather than concentrating on
poshuteh pshat.

SBA  

 
  T613K@aol.com wrote:
          From: Micha Berger 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.-------------

  Vhigaddita LaVincha on Pesach is a specific din in Pesach of Sipur Yitzias Mitzrayim - and not in Chinuch: Vhigaddita LaVincha BaYom HaHu - e.g. Pesach.
   
  The Mitzva of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim is a D'Oraisa derived of the Chiuv of eating Matzos as follows: 
   
  VeAmartem Zevach Pesach requires that one say the Pasuk from the Torah
  when eating the Korban Pesach. Matzah is compared to the Korban Pesach
  (Al Matzos U'Merorim Yochluhu) and whatever applies to the Korban Pesach,
  applies to the Matzah. 
   
  That makes the Chiuv of Sipur Yitzias Mitzrayim a D'Oraisa. So there is a
  Chiuv for woman to say the Hagaddah on a D'Oraisa level. Women are
  required to eat Matzah on a D'Oraisa level eventhough it is a Mitzvas
  Aseh SheHaZeman Gramma because of the Lav attached to it (Kol SheYeshna
  B'Lav D'Bal Tochel Chametz - Yeshna B' Kum Ochel Matzah) They are thereby
  also required in the din of Sipur which is attached to Matzah. 
  
HM


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080424/716fbe77/attachment-0001.htm 

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

>
> The MB (422:18) also says that if saying hallel alone, and there are
> two other people available, one should get them to answer for Hodu
> Lashem, even on days when there's no question about the bracha.
>
> --
> Zev Sero


Ein hachi namie - Just that
AIUI Rema would say it is only a nice lechatichila on the 18/21 times that
YACHID gomeir es hahelel, whereas it is almost l'ikuva on Rosh  Chodesh.
AISI, Rema is relying on the Yachid clause to permit Hallel with a bracha
based upon the Braissa quoted in Shas [twice], and would only rely upon
Rabbeinu Tam's p'sak besha'as hadechak

Question: What does habbad do when a yachid says Hallel on Rosh Hodesh? Do
they stillsay a Bracha?

-- 
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/20080424/988e686b/attachment-0001.htm 

In the thread "Vihgadto Levincho", I asked:
> 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 ...

and I quoted the answer of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach:
> 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.

I mentioned this to a certain friend, because we had previously discussed a
pet question of his, about sending tzedakah by mail. He wondered how one
could be yotzay in that case, because the mail carrier is presumably
non-Jewish and therefore posul as a shaliach.

I conjectured that tzedakah is different than gittin. By a get, the giving
is a critical part of the act, and so either the husband must give it
himself, or it can be given by someone who is a real shaliach of the
husband. But if it is given by a pasul shaliach, then the husband did not
"give" it, and they are still married. In contrast, the mitzvah of tzedakah
does not require any "giving", but only that one's efforts accomplish the
goal of helping the organization. Thus, as long as the money leaves my
possession (or my bank account) and enters theirs, by any (legal) means
whatsoever, then I have done the mitzvah of tzedakah, regardless of the
halachos of the shlichim or kinyanim involved.

This seems very similar to what RSZA is saying about Maggid: In both cases,
the procedure actually used is irrelevant to accomplishing the mitzvah. All
we really care about is the end result.

Similarly, I have a sefer which quotes Likutei Kol Sinai pg 240 and Shu"t
Chelkas Yaakov 1:102-103 as saying that Mishloach Manos may be sent even
through a child or a non-Jew. Apparently, in that case too, the end result
is what really matters.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Book your next cruise vacation today! Click now to find the best prices.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nL6YFWGYweYldIdZEDmoGF4RxBl3hDboFHOoZbPwBCKrmwK/

From: "Eli Turkel" < >
I have seen teshuvot that one should light chanukah candles on a plane
even though it is against regulations. Again these rabbonim feel that
the safety of everyone can be breached for the sake of a mitzvah.
>>

Where are these teshuvos and written by whom?

SBA

A friend of mine recently learned that there is no issur of mixed
swimming per se, and asked why then do we avoid it? I replied to her:

>>>>
Actually, it makes a LOT of sense. There's no halacha for davka
swimming; rather, you have halachot of tzeniut, which applies to
swimming no more than to shopping at the mall. Why should the addition
of water change anything?

Practically, however, I imagine it is difficult for women to wear
garments that don't reveal their shape. Even those swimsuits that
cover the whole body, are skintight. Moreover, even if she wore
flowing loose garments, we all know what happens when women wear wet
clothing.

I absolutely do not think that it is a fence on a fence on fence
[which is how she described it]; rather, it seems that practically, it
is impossible to keep tzenua while swimming.
>>>>

She responded to me, however, that there is no issur of wearing tight
clothing. This seems wrong to me, but to be honest, I cannot recall an
explicit source that tight clothes are assur. We have arguments about
showing arms and revealing a tefach and uncovered hair, but I cannot
recall (from Rabbi Henkin's handy summarization of every single Gemara
on tzeniut) anything about skintight. Is my memory faulty, or is my
friend correct?

Mikha'el Makovi

Michael Makovi wrote:
> In the thread [Avodah] R' Berkovits = Conservative halacha??, Rabbi
> Unterman's teshuva (Kol Torah, Nisan 5726) to violate Shabbat to save
> a jentile (the j is to avoid showing up on antisemitic Google
> searches), was raised.

Let me just comment that things have a way of being found.  If you don't 
want something seen on the net, don't post it.  Subterfuges such as this 
one are likely not to work, and the attempt can make an innocent Torah 
discussion appear shifty.

> Personally, it seems to me that if we can say that Shabbat was given
> to us and not us to Shabbat, kal vachomer jentiles were not given to
> Shabbat (to lose their lives on its account).

Without reference to the, AFAIK, settled halacha that one does save the 
life of a non-Jew on Shabbos, the above kv"ch doesn't work.  IIUC, this 
limud says a Jew doesn't give up his life for Shabbos, so the kol 
v'chomer is that a non-Jew doesn't have to die to avoid violating 
Shabbos.  Which is clearly true: in fact a non-Jew is chayiv misah 
(bidei shamayim, I assume) for keeping Shabbos.  Nothing can be implied 
about whether a Jew should violate Shabbos to save him.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

From: joshhoff@aol.com
RSRH eventually replies to him saying "what in your eyes is a great Mitzvah
is in my eyes no small aveireh.."!
==
The letter was to Rav Kalischer. Rabbi Klugman, who included this letter in
his excellent biography of RSRH, maintained, in an article on JO, that Rav
Hirsch never changed his position in this regard However, the fact is that
RSRH did send money to help support a group of religious German Jews who had
settled in EY.
>>

I doubt that proves anything. The greatest kanoim, including the SR, the
Minchas Elozor etc sent money to support religious Jews and Mosdos and even
establishing shikunim in EY.

But that is not similar to the Mizrachi's nochshlepping the Zionist
movement.

>>Moreover, his opposition was largely based on his patriotism to Germany, 

RSRH's statement to R' Kalisher: "what in your eyes is a great Mitzvah is in
my eyes no small aveireh.." has absolutely nothing to do with German
patriotism.

BTW, I get the feeling that quite a few passionate devotees of RSRH have no
idea that his Kanous included Zionism and wouldn't be surprised to learn
that if push came to shove many of them would dump RSRH - rather than their
own Zionist hashkofos.

SBA



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 146
***************************************

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..."