Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 286

Sun, 10 Aug 2008

• 1. Re: KSA (JoshHoff@aol.com)
• 2. Re: ID of chilazon vs. chagavim (Micha Berger)
• 3. churban habayit (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: churban habayit (Stuart Feldhamer)
• 5. Washing dishes from Shabbos Erev Tisha B'Av lunch (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Re: : [Areivim] KSA (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. Re: : [Areivim] KSA (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Hating a Meisis to Kefirah, Should be - Hating any Jew (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: division of parshas hashavua (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Like A Lion (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: division of parshas hashavua (Zev Sero)
• 12. Why Do We Mourn Over the Destruction of the FIRST Temple? (Cantor Wolberg)

 
In a message dated 8/7/2008 5:48:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

, Aug 6,  2008 at 12:21am EDT, R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote to Areivim:
:     the Kitzur considered all the opinions that came  before him, and
: he paskened accordingly.


Actually,there is a letter by R. Ganzfried in which he writes that his  
system for deciding the halacha in KSA was to look at the Chayei  Adam,  Derech 
HaChaim,and Shulchan Aruch HoRav,  and follow the  majority opinion.Btw, R. 
Ganzfried was a great lamdan, as witness, for  example, his Lechem VeSimlah, in 
which,as Rav Aharon Soloveichik often pointed  out, he says sevaros in Hilchos 
Mikvaos that were later said by R. Chaim  Brisker.



**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? 
Read reviews on AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut
00050000000017 )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080807/477fc8ed/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:08:24PM +0000, Dov Kay wrote:
> See footnote 19 of this article by R. Shaul Yonatan Weingort, originally
> published in Techumin: http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/bein.pdf. The author
> argues for a distinction between simanim d'oraisa and simanim d'rabbanan.
> The former may be relied upon without a mesora (eg fins and scales in
> fish), while the latter may not (eg birds)...

I would say the distinction is between prescritive and descriptive
simanim. A kosher fish is defined as one that has snapir vekaskeses,
whereas kosher birds to have their simanim in common.

The simanim for chilazon don't define what source may be used for a dye
(IOW, the claim is not that anything that gufo domeh layam etc... can
be used), they are the gemara's description of the source. They are
descriptive, and thus one can argue that they only serve to confirm
a mesorah.

-Micha

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

Well, which do you think is worse: Galut, or the Churban?

Which do you think is worse, the tremendous loss of life, or the Churban? >>

Why do we need to choose? Why not stress both losses. After all there
are many kinnot on many issues.
Similarly Eichah has only some minor references to the bet hamikdash.
I would have expected a lot more. Again not instead but in addition to
the destruction of the city.

Remember that the day of Tisha Ba-av commemorates the destruction
of the Temple which began burning on the 9th and into the 10th of av.
The city itself actually fell later.
The gemara tells of those who wanted to stop eating meat and wine
to remember the loss of korbanot and R. Yehoshua's answer. The
stress in later years was on the loss of the Temple more than the
loss of Bar Kochva which led to a greater loss of life.

-- 
Eli Turkel

RET:
> Well, which do you think is worse: Galut, or the Churban?
> 
> Which do you think is worse, the tremendous loss of life, or the
> Churban? >>
> 
> Why do we need to choose? Why not stress both losses. After all there
> are many kinnot on many issues.

OK fine, there's no arguing on that.

> Similarly Eichah has only some minor references to the bet hamikdash.
> I would have expected a lot more. Again not instead but in addition to
> the destruction of the city.

OK, now remember that Eichah was written by Yirmiyahu HaNavi. And according
to tradition it was written before the churban; in fact, during the reign of
Yehoyakim. Now one of Yirmiyahu's main messages was that the Beit Hamikdash
is only a building when it comes down to it. If the people aren't behaving
properly, then the BH"M is worthless. In contrast, the people all believed
that the BH"M COULDN'T be destroyed, because it was the house of G-d and
inherently holy, and when Yirmiyahu prophesized that it would, they tried to
kill him as a false prophet. Yirmiyahu tried very hard to convey the message
that just like Shiloh was destroyed, the BH"M could and would be destroyed
as well if the Jews didn't do teshuvah, and there was nothing inherently
holy about it if the Jews were sinning.

Given that, what do you think he should have written about in Eichah? To me
it makes a lot more sense that he would mourn the inevitable loss of life
and national freedom, than the loss of the BH"M.

Stuart

When are people going to wash the dishes from this Shabbos lunch (assuming
you won't be using them for third meal) - After the meal on Shabbos, TB
night/day pre-Chatzos, post Chatzos, Motzei TB?  Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080808/acc9bf76/attachment-0001.htm>

From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> 
<<I joke that if the SA were written today it would have an introduction
that it is not le-halachah le-masseh >>

No joke;  it was meant for quick chazara.  Halacha lema'aseh required the
Tur and Beis Yosef.

<<Where did you get that from?>>
In the hakdama to Shulchan Aruch he describes it as a quick reference, to
be reviewed every 30 days.  The inference is that deeper understanding, for
nonstandard situations, remains with the Tur and Beis Yosef.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3m3WLUGe3YchgoubRh1D90cU8KJb3f0DlGzhLXFXEy5xIg3H/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080808/da668076/attachment-0001.htm>

Once the commentaries were written it became a sefer psak by itself.
So my comment still holds by for Shach, Taz, MA etc

shabbat shalom

Eli

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> <<I joke that if the SA were written today it would have an introduction
> that it is not le-halachah le-masseh >>
>
> No joke;  it was meant for quick chazara.  Halacha lema'aseh required the
> Tur and Beis Yosef.
>
> <<Where did you get that from?>>
>
> In the hakdama to Shulchan Aruch he describes it as a quick reference, to be
> reviewed every 30 days.  The inference is that deeper understanding, for
> nonstandard situations, remains with the Tur and Beis Yosef.
>
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Learn about VA loan programs and benefits. Click now.
>



-- 
Eli Turkel

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:18:44 +1000, "Meir Rabi" <meirabi@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> There is a prohibition to hate a fellow Jew IN ONES HEART. That means
> secretly. There is no prohibition transgressed if one discloses that
> hatred.

Actually, that's not true as the Kesef Mishnah understands the Rambam. This
comment motivated me to finally turn part of a talk of mine from last year
into a blog entry. (The other parts were already on Aspaqlaria in other
forms.) See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/08/hatred.shtml>.

And if one discloses the hatred, then even according to the others (which
includes Rashi, Ramban and the Yad Qetana's peshat in the Rambam), you
would probably still be oveir "lo siqom velo sitor". It's just not "sin'ah
bilvavekha". The Yad Qetana suggests that sin'ah beleiv is a worse kind of
sin'ah because it stews. (Ever notice how the guy who went postal "always"
surprises the people interviewed by the reporter. "He was such a quiet
guy...")

After using it to conclude that "sin'as chinam" means sin'ah for chinam, ie
pointless hatred, rather than sin'ah because of chinam (for insufficient
cause), I see R' Binyamin Hecht (CC-ed) reaches a similar conclusion on
Nishma. You can see his treatment at
<http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-22.htm> and
<http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-23.htm>. Very similar
arguments, although he pulls from R' Meir vs Beruriah and yitm'u chata'im,
and I went a couple of degrees off from that direction, choosing not to
revisit the "hate the sin, not the sinner" theme.


-Micha

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

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 01:55:20PM -0400, Litke, Gary wrote:
: Abarbanel says in intro to Sefer Shmos that this comes from Moshe
: Rabbeynu mipi HaGvura. [He also says that Sefer Shmos has 12 portions;
: presumably he followed minhag Barcelona and divided Mishpatim into two,
: with the second beginning at 'Im Kesef Talveh'.]

Thanks. I always wondered if the Chinukh really had two parshiyos, or
if he was just trying to keep his chapter on Mishpatim from being so
long.

(Posting to list to point out that the Chinukh has them split.)

As for the substance of the cycle, see
<http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=327&;letter=T>. In it,
Joseph Jacobs writes:
> The Masoretic divisions known as "sedarim" and variously indicated in
> the text, number 154 in the Pentateuch, and probably correspond,
> therefore, to the Sabbath lessons of the triennial system, as was
> first surmised by Rapoport ("Halikot .edem," p. 11). The number
> varies, however, so that Menahem Me'iri reckoned 161 divisions,
> corresponding to the greatest number of Sabbaths possible in three
> years; the Yemen grammars and scrolls of the Pentateuch enumerate 167
> (see Sidra); and the tractate Soferim (xvi. 10) gives the number as
> 175 (comp. Yer. Shab. i. 1). It is possible that this last division
> corresponds to a further development by which the whole of the
> Pentateuch was read twice in seven years, or once in three and a half
> years. The minimum seder for a Sabbath portion when seven persons are
> called up to the Law (see 'Aliyah) should consist of twenty-one
> verses, since no one should read less than three verses (Meg. iv. 4).
> Some sedarim have less than twenty-one verses, however, as, for
> example, Ex. xxx. 1-8.

> If the 154 sedarim are divided into three portions corresponding to the
> three years, the second would commence at Ex. xii. and the third at Num.
> vi. 22, a passage treating of the priestly blessing and the gifts of the
> twelve tribal chiefs after the erection of the Tabernacle. Tradition
> assumes that the events described in Num. vi. took place on the 1st of
> Nisan, and it would follow that Gen. i. and Ex. xi. would also be read
> on the first Sabbath of that month, while Deut. xxxiv., the last portion
> of the Pentateuch, would be read in Adar. Accordingly, it is found that
> the death of Moses is traditionally assigned to the 7th of Adar, about
> which date Deut. xxxiv. would be read.

> A. Buchler has restored the order of the sedarim on the assumption that
> the reading of the Law was commenced on the 1st of Nisan and continued
> for three years, and he has found that Genesis would be begun on the 1st
> of Nisan, Deuteronomy on the 1st of Elul, Leviticus on the 1st of
> Tishri, and Exodus and Numbers on the 15th of Sheba., the four NewYears
> given in the Mishnah (R. H. i. 1)....

Bottom line, before the guesswork, it seems likely they matched the
sedarim in the seifer Torah, not 1/3 of our parshiyos.

That said, I don't see how they can hold like Rav, and have the tochakhah
said 2nd week before RH, etc... Did they make them maftir, like the
4 parshiyos of Adar/Nissan? Was Rav the one who made the annual cycle
the norm?

-Micha

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

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:16:21AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: From http://www.torah.org/learning/tefilah/lion.html
: Like A Lion
: "Arise like a lion to serve your Creator in the morning" (Shulchan Aruch 
: 1,1).

: Take a look at 
: http://www.predatorconservation.com/video/lions_wakeup.htm 
: It seems that lions do take their time getting up 
: after they have been asleep. So, Kum k"Ari must 
: not mean that one gets up very quickly!

... It's gibbor ke'ari, as already noted by others. And as Cantor
Wohlberg recently wrote WRT chodesh Av (= Sumerian "Aru", mazal aryeh),
it's probably about koveish es yitzro. Not hitting the snooze button.

However, this doesn't help the topic of doctors telling you not to get
out of bed to soon. Because there is also "ratz katzevi" and "kal
kanesher".

: In fairness, the web 
: site  http://www.torah.org/learning/tefilah/lion.html explains what this 
: means:
...
: Over two thousand years ago, our Sages recognized 
: that the urge to worship idols was too powerful 
: for the Jewish people to resist, and they prayed 
: that it should be removed. Hashem complied and a 
: fire-like lion ascended from the Holy of Holies. 
: Our Sages captured this negative inclination 
: (yeitzer hara), preventing it from having further influence (Yuma 69).
...
: From this Talmudic story, we see that this 
: negative inclination takes the form of lion. 
: Strategically speaking, if we want to defeat it, 
: we must also act like lions. For this reason, the 
: Shulchan Aruch advises us to start our day like a 
: lion (ibid. Shaarei Teshuva 1,1).
...
: When confronting the yeitzer hara, we must employ 
: similar tactics. Even though the negative 
: inclination is stronger than man, we must fight 
: it with all our might, turning to Hashem to aid 
: us in this struggle and never fearing defeat. In 
: this way, we will win the battle (Taz 1,1).

But it came from the Qodesh haQadashim! And, as R' ARYEH Kaplan notes,
this event happened in the last generation of nevi'im, with the derashah
of zu le'umas zu. I would think the implication is that the YH for
`arayos would not resemble 'arayos.

I think therefore it would be more correct to associate the gevurah
of lions with religious experience in general -- both the oveid AZ and
lehavdil the navi's. Veharaayah, the gevurah of a lion is the *kevishah*
of the yeitzer, the not the yeitzer itself!

-Micha

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

Micha Berger wrote:
> As for the substance of the cycle, see
> <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=327&;letter=T>. In it,
> Joseph Jacobs writes:


>> The number
>> varies, however, so that Menahem Me'iri reckoned 161 divisions,
>> corresponding to the greatest number of Sabbaths possible in three
>> years;

That would imply that the sidra of the week was read even on yomtov
and chol hamoed.  At least two shabbatot of each year *must* be on
yomtov or chol hamoed, which should reduce the need for sidrot by
at least 6, to 155, unless the sidra is read *every* week regardless
of what else is happening that day.



> Bottom line, before the guesswork, it seems likely they matched the
> sedarim in the seifer Torah, not 1/3 of our parshiyos.

There are no sedarim in the seifer Torah.


> That said, I don't see how they can hold like Rav, and have the tochakhah
> said 2nd week before RH, etc... Did they make them maftir, like the
> 4 parshiyos of Adar/Nissan? Was Rav the one who made the annual cycle
> the norm?

Rav was in Bavel, where they read on our annual cycle.


PS: The Zohar speaks of "GaN sidrei oraita"; the usual explanations are
that Nitzavim-Vayelech is one sidra that is sometimes split, and that
Bereshit is a preface to the rest of the Torah so it doesn't count.
If Mishpatim was originally two, then both explanations could be valid,
54 - 2 + 1 = 53.



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

It is easy for us to understand why we mourn the destruction of the  
Second Temple - after all, our lives today and the lives of the Jewish  
people over the last 2,000 years have been directly (and negatively)  
impacted by that horrible event. But why do we still mourn the  
destruction of the First Temple - an event which has seemingly been  
rectified? Did we not rebuild the Temple? Was not the second Beit  
HaMikdash's beauty and joy so tremendous that the Gemara declares them  
second to none (Succah 51a and 51b). What need, therefore, is there to  
still mourn the first Beit HaMikdash? How does it affect our lives  
today, what loss are we still crying over?

What We Lost with the Destruction of Bayit Rishon

The Rambam (based, in part, on the Gemara in Yoma 52b) in Hilchot Beit  
HaBachira (Chapter 4, Halacha 1) describes some of the more  
significant objects that the first Beit HaMikdash contained:
There was a stone in the western section of the Kodesh Kedoshim upon  
which the Aron (Holy Ark) was placed. Before it was the jar of Manna  
and the staff of Aharon.

At the time that Shlomo built the Temple (knowing that the Temple was  
destined to be destroyed) he built a deep and winding tomb below to  
[eventually] hide the Aron. And King Yoshiyahu commanded to hide it  
[the Aron] in the place that Shlomo built - as the [pasuk] states:  
"And he said to the Leviim...'place the Aron HaKadosh in the house  
which Shlomo the son of David, King of Israel, built...'" (Divrei  
HaYamim II 35: 3 - see also the commentaries of the the Radak and the  
Ralbag there) And he [King Yoshiyahu] hid the staff of Aharon and the  
jar of Man and the anointing oil with it [the Aron].
Shlomo HaMelekh knew that we could never truly reproduce the heart and  
soul of the First Temple (namely, the Aron and its surrounding  
vessels). As such, he took pains to protect the holy vessels which we  
were so fortunate at one time to possess. And while Shlomo HaMelekh's  
plan succeeded - the vessels were spared the destruction that befell  
the First Temple (see the Ralbag to Divrei HaYamim II 35:3), the  
success was not immediately apparent, as the Rambam notes in the same  
halacha:
And none of these [objects] returned with [the rebuilding of] the  
Second Temple. Even the Urim and Tumim of the Second Temple did not  
provide answers vis-a-vis Ruach HaKadosh nor did they ask questions of  
it - as the [pasuk] states: "...until a Kohein is established [who can  
ask] of the Urim and Tumim" (Ezra 2: 63 - see also the commentary of  
the Malbim there). They only made them [the Urim and Tumim] in order  
to complete the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol - so that he  
wouldn't lack any garments.
Evidently the destruction of the Temple is not something that we could  
easily reverse and that is why the rebuilding of the Temple was  
incomplete. We were able to rebuild the structure of the Temple, but  
central vessels of the Temple remained hidden away. And they will  
continue to remain hidden until the building of the third Temple - the  
Temple which, God Himself will one day "rebuild" (see Rashi Succah  
41a, beginning with the words "Iy Nami"; Pasikta Rabati, ed. Ish  
Shalom chapter 28; and the Raavan Rosh Hashana 30a).

Excerpted from an article by Rabbi Chaim Brovender
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080810/371dcb6b/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 286
***************************************

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..."