Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 60

Thu, 02 Apr 2009

• 1. Re: Women at a funeral (Zev Sero)
• 2. Women at the Chapel vs Grave (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 3. Re: reasons for torah loopholes in dinei mamonos (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: birchat hachama (Micha Berger)
• 5. birchat hachama (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: t a fyneral (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Women at a funeral (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Women at a funeral (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: birchat hachama (Zev Sero)
• 10. Ani v'lo hashaliach (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Ani v'lo hashaliach (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Ani v'lo hashaliach (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] dangers of birchat hachama (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: [Areivim] dangers of birchat hachama (Mike Miller)
• 15. Re: birchat hachama (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 16. kazayit (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 17. Re: History Scenarios and (Emunas) Chachamim?? (Yisrael Herczeg)
• 18. From RSRH's Commentary on Parshas Tzav (Yitzchok Levine)

Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
>  R. Zev Sero's distinction between women at a funeral and women at the 
> cemetary is well taken and is undoubtedly correct in theory.  However, 
> since most funerals in Israel and around the world take place at the 
> Beit haKevarot - wouldn't that make this distinction nigh irrelevant or 
> moot?

Do they?  I don't know about the rest of Israel, but every announcement
I've seen for funerals in J'm has it take place at a place called Shamgar.
I've only ever been to funerals in Melbourne and NY.  In NY funerals take
place at the various chevra kadisha shtiblach; in Melbourne it depends
which of the two chevros it's with, but even with the city CK, the
funeral is in a chapel just inside the entrance to the cemetery, and I've
never ever seen a funeral there with no women, so I assume people don't
consider it to be part of the "beit hakvarot" proper, which would be the
site of the actual grave.

Is it so different in most places?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

    Zev Sero writes: "...the funeral is in a chapel just inside the
    entrance to the cemetery, and I've never ever seen a funeral there with
    no women, so I assume people don't consider it to be part of the "beit
    hakvarot" proper, which would be the site of the actual grave."
    I find this distinction unconvincing. But the real question is not me, but the Satan...
            Ar

-----------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090331/7536babc/attachment-0001.htm>

You are eliding a fundamental distinction in halacha which may not 
translate well to common law.  That is the distinction between mamon and 
knas.  We have a general rule "ein govin knas b'bavel", and, indeed, 
that principle applies as well to some unusual sorts of mamon.  It's 
true that the gemara views boshes as unusual in this regard, but it's 
equally true that boshes doesn't fit well into the category of "mamon" 
since the fine is not evaluated based on quantity of damage, but on 
other considerations (like intent).  Several of the cases you cited 
don't fit the category of "mamon" well because they are fines, and, 
since we don't assess fines, the court is acting in some capacity other 
than evaluating damage.

The original poster, AIUI, was asking specifically about mamon rather 
than knas.  This is intuitively appealing, since we might not expect 
fines to follow logical rules; they might very well depend on transient 
social norms.

Detailed comments follow:
>
> Me:
>
> My impression of the Rama is that the Beis
>
> > Din has the authority to award a fine in its capacity as keeper of
>
> > communal peace, rather than in its capacity as remedying monetary
>
> > damage.
>
RCL:
>
> Well it rather seems more than that. Basically one who is motzei shem 
> ra is guilty of a torah violation, but because it is a lav she ain bo 
> ma'aseh, there are no lashes min hatorah.  But there are lashes 
> d'rabbanan (makos mardus) at least according to one opinion.  Now 
> neither form of lashes are given today, but in their place are the 
> possibility of nidui or other remedies as decided by beis din.
>
> I agree that the remedy is not necessarily monetary - but that does 
> mean there is not a remedy in halacha, just that there may not be a 
> remedy in damages.  As I understand the basic underlying argument why 
> one might not provide a monetary remedy when embarressing somebody 
> with words is that, in theory, such a situation can be rectified in 
> other ways, so a monetary penalty is not needed.  A public flogging 
> for slander would seem to do the trick rather effectively I would have 
> thought.  The fact that the common law legal system provides primarily 
> a remedy for slander that involves monetary recompense does not mean 
> that that the only available remedy (and it is not in fact in the 
> common law either, there are various injunctions and other equitable 
> remedies available, publishing of retractions etc).
>
There's a difference between recompensing the damaged party and 
discouraging the offender from repeating his offence.  Corporal 
punishment accomplishes the latter but not the former.  This, I think, 
reinforces my point that your case is not a case of being recompensed 
for monetary damages caused by slander.

Me:
>
> > Boshes is a weird din because it requires intention, unlike the
>
> > standard cases of nezikin.
>
RCL:
>
> Why is it a weird din because it requires intention?  As I think I 
> said at the outset, the spectrum along which any judicial system could 
> award damages ranges from, at the one extreme, only when there was 
> intention to have the particular consequence (or certainty of 
> forseeability, which amounts to the same thing.  If you know with 100% 
> certainty there is going to be a certain consequence to your actions, 
> and you do it anyway, you have intention or you are a shoteh) to at 
> the other extreme, liability for the consequences of your actions, no 
> matter how remote and how unlikely it was that you forsaw it.  The 
> fact that halacha has put different forms of damages at different 
> points on the spectrum, with actual damage towards the less easily 
> forseen end, shevet and refua further along the spectrum and boshes at 
> the the other end does not seem to me to make it a weird din.
>
Adam muad l'olam.  If indeed this is recompense for damage (classified 
above as "mamon"), requiring intent is unusual, to say the least.  If, 
as you seem to undertand it above, it's a fine to discourage 
misbehavior, it's weird because it is codified in nezikin rather than 
elsewhere.
>
>  Me:
>
> > On the contrary there is one market, and kosher and non-kosher meat
>
> > are different things which carry different prices.
>
RCL:
>
> That is not at all true in the non Jewish market. If I buy my kosher 
> chicken at my kosher butcher, and go down to the non Jewish market (in 
> fact there was an open air non Jewish meat market near my old work, I 
> used to walk through it sometimes on my way to work, and they were 
> just packing up at 8.30am or so, having finished for the day) I would 
> get no more for that chicken in that market than I would for a treif 
> one with the same physical characteristics.  To them it is exactly one 
> and the same thing.
>
No.  If you told them "this is a kosher chicken and you could sell it 
for more if you labelled is as such", you could get more for it.  What 
you are describing is the result of ignorance and of structural problems 
(they'd need reputable hechshers and a knowledgable clientele, both of 
which would appear very quickly if they could sell kosher chickens for 
half price).  My own grocery store sells both kosher and non-kosher 
poultry; if you like I'll check the price difference, but I imagine it's 
at least equally large as the difference you see.
> RCL:
>
> > > But what does it mean to say that no damage has occurred to an item
>
> > > when before time X it could be sold for 100 units in a
>
> > given market,
>
> > > and now it can only be sold for 50?  How do you describe this item?
>
Me:
>
> > See the Rambam I cited last time: "hoil vl'o nishtanah hadavar vlo
>
> > nifsdah tzuraso ... aval midivrei sofrim amru hoil v'hifhis d'maihem
>
> > harei zeh hayyav".  The item hasn't been damaged; it's market value
>
> > has been reduced.
>
RCL:
>
> I thought that was what I was arguing - ie that the issue is the 
> change in market value.  But then you have to ask what is the market.  
> If you look at the non Jewish market as the basis, there has been no 
> reduction in value  -wine before nesach and produce before becoming 
> tamei obtains the same price as afterwards - so there is absolutely 
> nothing to pay.  To say that the market value has been reduced is 
> already making a judgement about the market - and saying the market is 
> the shomrei torah market, as no non Jew (or non frum Jew) would pay a 
> penny less than he would have beforehand.
>
But you've forgotten the initial question.  It was why should "hezek 
she'eino nikar" be patur min haTorah.  The Rambam says that it's because 
no damage occurred.  You argued, IIRC, that it's because damage occurred 
in one market but not in another.  The Rambam is very clear that it's 
because no physical damage occurred.  The value of a thing is not the 
thing itself.
>
> The problem it seems to me with saying that hezek sheino nikar lo 
> shmei hezek  means hoil vlo nishtaneh hadarvar vlo nifsda tzuraso , is 
> how do you then explain the position (Chizkiya on Gitten 53a) that 
> hezek sheaino nikar shmei hezek?   The Rambam's formulation remains 
> just as true, it is still true that lo nishtanah hadavar vlo nifsdah 
> tzuraso.
>
Gavra aGavra ka ramis? I don't see that this is a problem.  Hizkiyah is 
certainly entitled to disagree about the definition of damage, and the 
Rambam, who viewed himself as a codifier rather than an interpreter, had 
no need to explain his opinion.

RCL:
>
>   So that part of his formulation could not be expected to change 
> which ever way the machlokus went.  I therefore just understand that 
> part of his formulation as explaining so the audience understands the 
> case, it is not saying there is no damage (or there is damage), it is 
> saying that the case is where the object does not change form - 
> clearly true however you understand it.   It is only after that that 
> we get into the question of which way to posken.  Ie which market 
> value - and then all you need to say is that Chizkiya is looking at 
> the market of the Jews as the basis of measurement of the Torah, and 
> in that market the value has been reduced while Rav Yochanan 
> understands the basis of measurement of the Torah as being the more 
> general goyishe market in which it hasn't, with the rabbis then 
> modifying that to allow one to look at the market of the Jews.  BTW, 
> under Chizkiya's formulation, the Torah obligates payment whether 
> intentional or unintentional, but according to him d'rabbanan the 
> unintentional is exempted from payment, so that you get to a similar 
> situation to boshes, ie intentional chayav, unintentional patur - and 
> it is not weird at all.
>
>  
>
> > David Riceman
>
> Regards
>
> Chana
>
> PS RYG's point is well taken, it is interesting that we have these two 
> opinions as to what the Torah is really saying is the underlying din 
> without any reference to derivations from psukim - and only references 
> to mishnayos (ie torah shebaal peh) to try and prove that the halacha 
> is one way or the other.
>
Yes, and it's also interesting that the gemara does cite a pasuk to 
demonstrate that boshes requires intent.

David Riceman

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:50:40PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I dont think we are disagreeing. By an astromical event I mean the
: length of the (mean) solar year. Certainly nothing special is happening
: in the heavens. In fact I saw one opinion that we dont say shehechiyanu
: precisely because nothing is really happening.

: My point was that early generations seem to have accepted that a return
: to location is happening even though they knew that Shmuel was not
: correct....

1- To re-ask: Where do you get that idea that they "seem to have accepted"
any such thing? As I wrote, I don't think it's possible to kler whether
the rishonim were speaking scientifically rather than mythically,
since that's a distinction we care about far more than they and their
contemporaries did. Remember there was no "science" yet, we're talking
the days of natural philosophy and alchemy. To think they made a point
of thinking scientifically is back-projecting contemporary values.

2- The "location" the sun returns to has no physical meaning. No one
ever believed that Shabbetai was in some special location during the
hours it rules. The planets, sun and move weren't believed to be in some 
physical 7 hour cycle that brought each one to a special place in order
to have its power.

Thus, the "location" was known to be astrology with no physical location
attached, presumably they would same about the point in time as well.
I think this is a very strong argument against believing that the
concept has anything to do with science.


In fact, the LR ties the use of tequfas Shemu'el, of Nissan instead of
the usual Tishrei (usual to most of the rishonim outside of the baalei
Tosafos) and the hourly astrology of kokhavei lekhet together into
a single concept of metaphysical time. Admittedly, the LR saying it
doesn't mean the rishonoim would have.

(The LR takes bereishis 1 literally. So he wouldn't add this question. But
the Moreh as I naively read it, and as RDE quotes the Abarbanel
[Bereishis, question #9] as explaning it
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n141.shtml#09>, has the 6 "days"
of creation as causal steps or what was logically prior, not as a sequence
in time. This adds a fourth issue in assuming they were thinking
"scientifically" -- not every rishon believes the sun was actually
created / put in the sky on a Wednesday. And yet no one felt
there was a question to address either.)

So, while one can't catch them discussing physical vs mythic treatments of
the notion of location at the time the sun was made (placed), it's very
hard to explain the total silence about the pragmatics of the timing if
they were thinking in what we today would consider more scientific terms.

And, the "place" in question isn't a spacial location!


: However the fact that the beracha has to said by 3 hours or at least
: noon seems to stress
: some specific event is happening which is not true

Contrary to my error earlier, the event is not at dawn (or noon). It's
actually the night before. The moment that the sun is in its place is
during the rule of Shabbatai, which is at the start of Wed, the evening
before. The berakhah is made when the sun next appears. (Perhaps one
can compare making the berakhah after noon to making the berakhah on
the year's fruit blossoms after Nissan.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

The "return to location" I agree, but I'm not sure how you know that
they took it as an astronomical event. Again, looking at the beraisa,
that "location" is defined by the rule of Shabetai, which is decidedly
NOT an astronomical event.>

I dont think we are disagreeing. By an astromical event I mean the
length of the (mean)
 solar year. Certainly nothing special is happening in the heavens. In
fact I saw
one opinion that we dont say shehechiyanu precisely because nothing is really
happening.

My point was that early generations seem to have accepted that a
return to location
is happening even though they knew that Shmuel was not correct. In
fact Rambam indicates
that the shittah of Shmuel is not correct but still paskens the 28 years.

In modern times with a greater knowledge of astronomy or maybe more
familiarity with
the Gregorian calendar many more people recognize that no return to
location occurs and
so the increased emphasis on pedagogy or general recognition of G-d
governing the
heavens rather than a specific occasion.

However the fact that the beracha has to said by 3 hours or at least
noon seems to stress
some specific event is happening which is not true

kol tuv


-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Joseph Kaplan asked:
> does the fact that we're talking about minhagim affecting
> mourners, who are in a difficult emotional state, affect
> the answer to these questions?  That is, should the
> standards governing demanding that a mourner follow a minhag
> of mourning that he/she finds emotionally problematic be the
> same as, for example, a rabbi deciding whether to insist
> that a male not put on tefillin in the rabbi's shul on chol
> HaMoed?

I suspect your point is that when someone is "in a difficult emotional
state", he should be granted more leeway, and should be allowed to do that
which he feels appropriate even if contrary to local minhag, as opposed to
a purely ritual minhag like tefilin on Chol Hamoed.

On the one hand, my heart wants to agree. It certainly seems like such a
situation counts as a "shaas hadchak", with all the leniencies that go with
it. I even recall a principle that "we go l'kula in aveilus". (It's
probably a too-frequently misused principle, but I'm pretty sure that it
does exist.)

But on the other hand, I think that it is also fair to say that when
someone is "in a difficult emotional state", that which *feels* the best
may not actually *be* what's best. Indeed, aninus is a strong example of
this: Haven't there been many people who have suddenly lost the person
closest to them, and then were denied the comfort of familiar rituals, be
they tefillin, shul, or whatever?

My heart goes out to those who were genuinely hurt by how the rules of the
Chevra Kadisha impacted them. But I'd like to think that these minhagim did
not develop in an arbitrary manner, and that they tend to be beneficial.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Save time and money with these professional shipping solutions. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsKvFIa9RTVB7pAnmk5oNJOLNT3HTwVEYXrPKyZ8VNPxLSbFhbibBW/

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 07:51:07AM +0300, Samuel Safran wrote:
: I am aware of many of these sources but sources alone do not make
: halacha -- lomudt does.  

I find this statement curious. It doesn't apply to most non-Litvisher
poseqim, and even among Litvaks, how often does it describe the MB?
The AhS, for that matter, so consistently has lomdus that produces
minhag Litta, it seems evident to me that his lomdus is post-facto,
and his real basis is accepted pesaq.

After all, what does lomdus reason with if not the comparison and contrast
of statements made in sources in the same and related cases?

: It might be useful for the Israeli religious community to understand
: what behavior is mandated by halacha (e.g., separation) and what is aggadic.

This is a different distinction. I would agree that not every source
is a halachic source. Statements about where the satan stands are not
necessarily grounds for altering practice.

OTOH, statements about Hashem protecting the mother beshe'as leidah
DO factor into teshuvos on inducing (eg IM YD II #74). R' Baqshi-Doron
(Binyan Av IV #52) adds to that the spiritual development of the fetus,
and causing birth before the mal'akh's shiur completes the entire Torah.
(Does this means that premies' souls are quick learners?) Both therefore
limit induction to cases where the risk to the mother (including her
inability to make it more than 9-1/2 months with her sanity intact)
is greater.

: I realize that some religious trends
: do not want to differentiate between halacha and aggada-kabbala, but it
: is worth reminding
: the community that there are trends that do differentiate...

I think reality is somewhere in the middle, as I tried to show above. I
think these trends are a real "eilu va'eilu", as long as the aggadita is
not being used to override actual halakhah. Which itself is fuzzy -- how
far can you stretch it? Clapping hands for religious music is accepted
pesaq in many circles, but I can't see how. OTOH, I can see the aggadic
value of dancing on Shabbos to justify taking the side that defines the
ban on "riqud" as being about dances where the feet bang out a rhythm. Or
clapping kele'acheir yad. OTOH, I see how others wouldn't. As I said,
fuzzy.

Li nir'eh that in the current post-rupture era, where it's much easier
to find people following every chumrah in bishul beshabas than who feel
the anticipation of Shabbos in their bones all Friday, that we should
favor the trend toward more aggadita in our practice. Whatever inspires.

(WADR to RRW, who is tired of reopening the topic, but RSSafran is new
to it, so I reiterated.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 07:51:07AM +0300, Samuel Safran wrote:
: I am aware of many of these sources but sources alone do not make
: halacha -- lomudt does.  

I find this statement curious. It doesn't apply to most non-Litvisher
poseqim, and even among Litvaks, how often does it describe the MB?
The AhS, for that matter, so consistently has lomdus that produces
minhag Litta, it seems evident to me that his lomdus is post-facto,
and his real basis is accepted pesaq.

After all, what does lomdus reason with if not the comparison and contrast
of statements made in sources in the same and related cases?

: It might be useful for the Israeli religious community to understand
: what behavior is mandated by halacha (e.g., separation) and what is aggadic.

This is a different distinction. I would agree that not every source
is a halachic source. Statements about where the satan stands are not
necessarily grounds for altering practice.

OTOH, statements about Hashem protecting the mother beshe'as leidah
DO factor into teshuvos on inducing (eg IM YD II #74). R' Baqshi-Doron
(Binyan Av IV #52) adds to that the spiritual development of the fetus,
and causing birth before the mal'akh's shiur completes the entire Torah.
(Does this means that premies' souls are quick learners?) Both therefore
limit induction to cases where the risk to the mother (including her
inability to make it more than 9-1/2 months with her sanity intact)
is greater.

: I realize that some religious trends
: do not want to differentiate between halacha and aggada-kabbala, but it
: is worth reminding
: the community that there are trends that do differentiate...

I think reality is somewhere in the middle, as I tried to show above. I
think these trends are a real "eilu va'eilu", as long as the aggadita is
not being used to override actual halakhah. Which itself is fuzzy -- how
far can you stretch it? Clapping hands for religious music is accepted
pesaq in many circles, but I can't see how. OTOH, I can see the aggadic
value of dancing on Shabbos to justify taking the side that defines the
ban on "riqud" as being about dances where the feet bang out a rhythm. Or
clapping kele'acheir yad. OTOH, I see how others wouldn't. As I said,
fuzzy.

Li nir'eh that in the current post-rupture era, where it's much easier
to find people following every chumrah in bishul beshabas than who feel
the anticipation of Shabbos in their bones all Friday, that we should
favor the trend toward more aggadita in our practice. Whatever inspires.

(WADR to RRW, who is tired of reopening the topic, but RSSafran is new
to it, so I reiterated.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:

> 2- The "location" the sun returns to has no physical meaning. No one
> ever believed that Shabbetai was in some special location during the
> hours it rules. The planets, sun and move weren't believed to be in some 
> physical 7 hour cycle that brought each one to a special place in order
> to have its power.

I take the gemara's calling that hour "Saturn" to be no more significant
than any contemporary reference to Saturday.  The gemara is using it (in
this instance) as no more than the name of that hour.  It's what the hour
was known as in the local culture.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Towards the end of Maggid, just before the Ten Plagues, the Hagada quotes the pasuk "V'avarti b'eretz mitzraim", and offers these comments:

"... Ani v'lo mal'ach.
"... Ani v'lo saraf.
"... Ani v'lo hashaliach."

What is the significance of the heh hayediah in the last of these? Is Hashem referring to a *specific* shaliach, but only a generic mal'ach or a generic saraf?

Thanks!
Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Looking for insurance?  Click to compare and save big.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsHF6yw3Dffcc0kix6Q2Ci5THchTim6802xSa6UUkWVBLOvBXgQNWY/

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Towards the end of Maggid, just before the Ten Plagues, the Hagada quotes the pasuk "V'avarti b'eretz mitzraim", and offers these comments:
>
> "... Ani v'lo mal'ach.
> "... Ani v'lo saraf.
> "... Ani v'lo hashaliach."
>
> What is the significance of the heh hayediah in the last of these? Is
> Hashem referring to a *specific* shaliach, but only a generic mal'ach
> or a generic saraf?
>   
At my seder I translate it as "Moses".  If the passage is post-Islamic 
(does anyone have a date?) there's a parallel in the way Moslems refer 
to Mohammed.

David Riceman

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Towards the end of Maggid, just before the Ten Plagues, the Hagada quotes
> the pasuk "V'avarti b'eretz mitzraim", and offers these comments:
> 
> "... Ani v'lo mal'ach.
> "... Ani v'lo saraf.
> "... Ani v'lo hashaliach."
> 
> What is the significance of the heh hayediah in the last of these?
> Is Hashem referring to a *specific* shaliach, but only a generic mal'ach
> or a generic saraf?

I've wondered about that.   In the Rambam's hagadah that whole phrase
doesn't appear.  Shaar Hakolel (48:30) quotes Tanya Rabbati that the phrase
is not part of the orginal hagadah and is not found in the Mechilta; but
says it is in the Siddur HaAriZal, and says to see Zohar Vayera 117a-b.

In the Italian siddur all three items have the hei.

Rashi on Shmot 12:12 does not have the hei, but the Ramban quotes Rashi
with the hei; either the Ramban had a different girsa in Rashi, or lo dak.
In any case, the Ramban explains "hashaliach" as Metatron.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RMM asked:
> Is there a reason to say birkas hachama at
> sunrise, as opposed to davening k'vasikin and then saying birkas
> hachama right afterwards?

Don't understand the question. Davening k'vasikin happens before you
can say Birkas Hachama? - since we start the Amida as the "top" of the
sun peaks out.

Then you're "obligated" to do Chazoras Hashatz. Your first break
(since it's not Mon/Thurs) is before Alienu?which is where it's said
(at least according to "popular" Minhag Yerushalayim).

This is about 20-30 minutes after you started Amida, which is when the
sun becomes visible to those of us who live on the Western side of the
ridge.

- Danny, who did some on-site "research" for the Gabba'im.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RMM asked:
>> Is there a reason to say birkas hachama at
>> sunrise, as opposed to davening k'vasikin and then saying birkas
>> hachama right afterwards?
>
> Don't understand the question. Davening k'vasikin happens before you
> can say Birkas Hachama? - since we start the Amida as the "top" of the
> sun peaks out.

...

> This is about 20-30 minutes after you started Amida, which is when the
> sun becomes visible to those of us who live on the Western side of the
> ridge.

Right; and this will probably wind up being a little after 7:00am.

The original post referred to a birkas hachama which was "before 7:00,
at sunrise".

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:03:50 +0300
Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Reminds of the modern proofs that chazal knew the earth is round while
> early generations
> took the gemara (in several places) more literally as dealing with a flat earth.

It's not all revisionism, though.  It is pretty clear that at least some
of Hazal did know that the earth was a globe:

http://fkmaniac.blogspot.com/2009/03/chazal-earth-is-made-like-ball.html

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=290&;ArticleID=386&Page=1#_Toc184607809
a review of the subject, with data of  olive pits from chazal era...
N
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090402/c8e007da/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav Hutner has a letter on this in his Igros on p. 48.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090402/99f4dcb8/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from RSRH's commentary on this week's Parsha.

6: 2 Command Aharon and his sons as follows: This 
is the teaching with regard to the ascent 
offering: It is an ascent offering upon the place
where the offerings are burned upon the altar 
throughout the night until the morning, when the 
altar fire shall be rekindled upon it.

The Jewish perception is the antithesis of the heathen perception.
Not in the resignation of night does the Jew sense God?s power. Rather,
in clarity of thought, in creative action that conquers worlds, in the
upright posture of daytime endeavor ? precisely in these does he attain
closeness to God. The light of his clear intellect, the force of his free
will, the creativity of his endeavors ? indeed, the whole of his free
personality standing tall throughout the day ? all these were given to
him by the grace of the Creator. For the one God has granted man a
share of the infinite outpouring of His Intellect, a share of His holy free
Will, a share of His creative Power which dominates the world. Thus
God has raised man beyond the bonds of the physical world, set him
upright, and made him master of the world ? in order that he serve
God in it. In the very carrying out of a day?s work, a man fulfills the
Will of God.

In the heathen perception, the day is a struggle of mortals against the
power of the gods. To the Jew, day means serving God, and through his
work he brings God satisfaction.

6: 4 He shall then take off his garments and 
clothe himself in other garments and take the 
ashes out of the camp to a pure place.

Trumas Hadeshen  begins the avodah of the new day by recalling the avodah
of the previous day. Hotzaas Hadeshen, on the 
other hand, signifies that, at the
same time, the Jewish nation must begin its task anew each day. The
start of every new day summons us to set out upon our task with full
and fresh devotion as though we had never accomplished anything before.
The memory of yesterday?s accomplishments must not inhibit today?s
performance. Thoughts of what has already been accomplished
are likely to choke off all initiative for new accomplishments. Woe to
him who is smug with satisfaction over his past achievements, who does
not begin the work of each new day as though it were the very first
day of his life?s work!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090402/ecd0e776/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 60
**************************************
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..."