Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 171

Wed, 19 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: Qaddish and Women (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Qaddish and Women (Saul Guberman)
• 3. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (Zev Sero)
• 4. Moshe Rabbenu's Sefer Torah (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 5. Re: on following mesorah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of its Owner (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Qaddish and Women (Daniel Israel)
• 8. Qaddish and Women (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 9. lo plog (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of its Owner (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: lo plog (Rich, Joel)
• 12. mesorah (Eli Turkel)
• 13. women and Kaddish (Ari Kahn)
• 14. Re: mesorah (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: saves a life, or a Jewish life? (Micha Berger)

Saul Guberman's post is great. I think he gave a definitve answer to
my inquiry.

Nevertheless - I will now quibble from a highly traditionalist Yekke POV

NB: For background details read Rav Binyamin Hamburger's Shrashei Minhag
Ashkenaz and the Baer Siddur.

********************

What is axiomatic about Qaddish?

Not in Shas, but in Midrash

Since it Requires Minyan - therefore is a davar shenikdushah
It is recited primarily by Shatz in a Tzibbur

Elicits responses (Especially yehei sh'mei)

It was given over to Yesomim to say in lieu of leading entire service.
IOW prefernce was to lead davening
But since Yassom might be a Qatan...

Universal Early Model had only a single reciter at a time.

Revised and Reformed for Darchei Shalom to allow multiple simultaneous
zoggers [reciters] (see Baer Siddur)
 ##############

The folllowing Yekke traditions exist - but not each one in every qehillah.
    One zogger
    Recited in frony on side of. Shatz
    Tallis is worn (some places) for K'vod Tzibbur (even in yekke
       shuls that have multiple zoggers) even for Arvis

Mah hatzad Hashaveh?

The reciter is acting as defacto Shatz

_________________

Ergo, from this model
No woman may recite alone.

However, she may either do
A shoma'as k'oneh
OR
B recite along with men.

And therefore AIUI a woman reciting alone is doing a davar
shbikdushah. She might as well do bar'chu, or Hazaras Hashatz which are
leading Tzibbur functions

+++++++++++++++

Unless one says, the Reform of Qaddishto include many removed the shatz
aspect completely. I see no evidence for that point.

I guess the thinking of the permitters of women soloists is: that since
Qatan may lead, therefore a woman may lead too.
This has several implications!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

>
> Ben:
> .. But it wasn't
> > because it was forbidden for them to say it, just that they simply don't
> > get listed...



> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:23, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand the one only model well. Breuer's still employs it as did
> my old shul in Wash. Heights - albeit intermittently.
>
> The question is what if the ONLY hiyyuv is a woman? Can she say qaddish
> for a tzibbur?
>
> The implications can be staggering!


From what I have seen, there are SHUT that say women do NOT say kaddish.
Rav Tuchinsky, in his sefer Gesher HaChaim sites this as normative halacha.
Rav Tuchinsky & others who do not allow women to say kaddish are
following Chovot
Ya'ir # 222.

He seems to be the first person to address this in a SHUT. The interesting
thing about this SHUT is that the Amsterdam community allowed the daughter
to say kaddish for her father & then asked the Chovot Ya'ir about the whole
thing.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090818/94302b4c/attachment-0001.htm>

David Riceman wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:

>> Which chachamim?  Bear in mind that the halacha accepted by everybody
>> until about 1800 was that one may *not* do so, and *not* to worry about
>> eivah.

> I think you mean "at 1800", not "until 1800".  Certainly there were 
> lenient opinions earlier.  Try reading Jacob Katz's book "Exclusiveness 
> and Tolerance".

The SA Harav, in the late 18th century, still brings the original rule
as current halacha, with no mention of any change; nor does the GRA
mention anything about a change.  The first reference I have seen to a
change is the Chasam Sofer, in the early 19th century.  I have no
intention of reading this Katz's book; if he says anything relevant,
please say what it is.

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

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:44:37AM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
> My own thoughts: In the Temple, they found three scrolls and took a
> majority of each textual reading; the reason, as it seems to me, is
> that they had nothing else to go by, and this was the best they could
> do. It seems to me that contra R' Zvi Yehuda's version of Hazon Ish,
> this is *precisely* the same as an academic historical attempt! Now,
> perhaps their method was crude by modern academic standards, but the
> point is that they used historical evidence - these three Torah
> scrolls - to reconstruct as best they could what they thought was the
> best textual version. (Today they'd also use whatever it is that
> modern academic scholars do.) Presumably, in the Temple, had they
> found the three scrolls AND Moshe Rabbenu's scroll, they would have
> ignored the three scrolls and gone with Moshe's alone. In short: they
> went by a majority of the three scrolls, not because of any sort of
> halakhic al-pi-rov lo ba-shamaim hi, but rather, because
> scientifically, when you don't know what the best reading is, your
> best bet, pragmatically, is to go by majority. But if there's no
> safeiq, then you don't go by majority. And thus, Rambam followed the
> Aleppo Codex, and not the rov.
> 
> So as far as I can tell, I think it is clear that we'd go by the text
> of Moshe Rabbenu's scroll. On the other hand, Moshe's own scroll
> itself might be treif. First, it'd probably be smudged, have some
> fading letters, etc. Second, it'd be in ketav ivrit, but our scrolls
> must be in ketav ashurit. But even though the scroll itself would be
> treif, the textual reading found therein, once transcribed into fresh
> clean writing in ketav ashurit, would be kosher. (Professor Leiman,
> ibid., notes that one can write a kosher sefer torah from an unkosher
> source text, such as a humash. I don't know the laws of this, so I'll
> take his word for it.)

Assuming, of course, that one could still read the text despite the
smudges and fading letters. If not, you need to fill in those words
from some other reliable source.

Since there had to be some reason for choosing the sifrei torah that
were in the mikdash versus others that were outside the mikdash, I
would imagine (in my limited knowledge) that the three sifrei torah in
the mikdash had some chazaka as being *the standards* and that they
were well kept and ancient. One (if not more) of them may very well
have been Moshe Rabbeinu's sefer Torah.  (Remember he wrote one for
each tribe plus one that was stored in the Aron.)

I also imagine that there were very few disagreements betweent he
scrolls, and that those were attributable primarily to degradation of
a small number of letters in the text.

So before you could go ahead and say "I'll use Moshe Rabbenu's
scroll", first examine the condition of Moshe Rabbenu's scroll and see
whether it could be used.

-- 
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090818/0c74148d/attachment-0001.pgp>

RET
> One case was tefillin of Rabbenu Tam. There is no evidence that he based
> himself on some existing pair of tefillin. Rather Rabbenu Tam came to
> that conclusion on the order of the parshiyot based on his learning

FWIW
I don't know how RT got his sheeta. But neither he nor Rashi were the
first to champion their sheetos.

IOW the dispute (IIRC) preceded them in Gaonic literature

Disclaimer: I don't know whether or not RT consulted any of the
antecedent literature.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Ben Waxman wrote:
> Were the Orthodox world to go by the guidelines that the AhS gives in
> this siman, many if not most of the questions of "can I eat that
> person's food" would disappear. Of course it would all depend on how
> one defines a khashud b'zman hazeh. Is someone who eats heter mikhira
> a khasud for someone who holds that the heter is invalid? Same question
> for someone who uses khalav akum, and no doubt there are plenty of other
> points like these.

This is a settled question -- these are all variations on the case of
the Bnei Rhenus, who were known to eat what we hold to be chelev
de'oraita.  Because they relied on a legitimate minority opinion, the
SA says one may eat at their homes, from their fleishige kelim, relying
on stam kelim einan bnei yoman.  Obviously one could not eat a dish that
might contain this chelev, but one could eat other meat.  Kol shekein
someone who follows a legitimate opinion permitting an issur derabbanan.

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

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:03:02 -0600 rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>What is axiomatic about Qaddish?
>
>Not in Shas, but in Midrash
>
>Since it Requires Minyan - therefore is a davar shenikdushah
>It is recited primarily by Shatz in a Tzibbur
>
>Elicits responses (Especially yehei sh'mei)
>
>It was given over to Yesomim to say in lieu of leading entire 
service.
>IOW prefernce was to lead davening
>But since Yassom might be a Qatan...

Alternatively, the yasom may just not be knowledgeable enough to 
serve as sha"tz.  This is consistent with the ma'aseh of R' Akiva 
in the gemara.  I suggest that there is a possible important nafkah 
minah between the two reasons, see below.

>Universal Early Model had only a single reciter at a time.
>
>The folllowing Yekke traditions exist - but not each one in every 
>qehillah.
>    One zogger
>    Recited in frony on side of. Shatz
>    Tallis is worn (some places) for K'vod Tzibbur (even in yekke
>       shuls that have multiple zoggers) even for Arvis
>
>Mah hatzad Hashaveh?
>
>The reciter is acting as defacto Shatz
>
>_________________
>
>Ergo, from this model
>No woman may recite alone.
>
>However, she may either do
>A shoma'as k'oneh
>OR
>B recite along with men.

But, if it was instituted originally for a yasom, who cannot act as 
sha"tz, and it was originally instituted as a single sayer, then we 
see that it either is not a davar shebikedusha, or it is a special 
exception of some sort.  If a katan can lead it, why not an isha?  
Unless, as I say above, it was not instituted for katanim, but for 
am haratzim- in which case we should posken today that a katan 
can't lead (does anyone hold like that?).

Just thinking "out loud".

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

"The question is what if the ONLY hiyyuv is a woman? Can she say qaddish
for a tzibbur?

The implications can be staggering!"

In my shul, a man asked the rabbi a few years ago what should we do if
there was only a woman saying kaddish.	He answered:  "Don't talk and
answer amen yehey shmey rabbah."  (Unfortunately, as our congregation has
aged, it's now rare to have only one person saying kaddish at any service.) 

When my wife was saying kaddish, she wanted to daven mincha in another
local shul but didn't know what that shul's policy on women saying kaddish
was.  She called the rabbi who told her:  the policy is that a woman can
say kaddish only if a man is also saying kaddish.  The second part of the
policy is that if a woman wants to say kaddish and there is no man saying
kaddish, the gabbai is responsible to make sure that a man also says
kaddish so the woman can say it.

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090818/f045941b/attachment-0001.htm>

Why does "lo p'log [plug?] hhachamim" not apply in this case?
>>

Since it is brought I have asked people for years for any rules when
lo plog applies.

It is obviously a machloket one famous candles is lighting candles for
yom tov. The wife of the perisha says to first make the beracha and
then light since it is YomTov.
Magen Avraham yells at her and claims lo plog.

Similar ideas appear with some applications of modern lights on
shabbat and if we apply lo plog

More generally in some cases we say X is different than Y and so the
prohibition of Y does not apply and in other cases we say lo plog

-- 
Eli Turkel

Actually the Shakh brings opinions stating you can eat food with the khelev
in it.

"someone who follows a legitimate opinion " - the million dollar question.

Ben

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>
This is a settled question -- these are all variations on the case of
the Bnei Rhenus, who were known to eat what we hold to be chelev
de'oraita.  Because they relied on a legitimate minority opinion, the
SA says one may eat at their homes, from their fleishige kelim, relying
on stam kelim einan bnei yoman.  Obviously one could not eat a dish that
might contain this chelev, but one could eat other meat.  Kol shekein
someone who follows a legitimate opinion permitting an issur derabbanan.

 

Why does "lo p'log [plug?] hhachamim" not apply in this case?
>>



More generally in some cases we say X is different than Y and so the prohibition of Y does not apply and in other cases we say lo plog

--
Eli Turkel
_______________________________________________
imho this is a specific case of a more general question - is the halachic process reproducible?

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

If I understand Micha correctly he feels that halacha only takes into account
the mesorah of the generations and any new or academic evidence is ignored.

This seems to be the position of both CI and RYBS.
However, not everyone agrees. Some examples include

1. techelet scientific proofs - RYBS denies the use of any scientific proofs.
However, many talmidim includiing R. Schachter and . Tendler do wear the
ptil techelet

2. Ramban was willing to change his mind about the weight of the shekel
and some geographic question after moving to EY

More generally there are sugyot where Rashi is clearly wrong in the geography
of EY.  Anyone who has been to Sanhedria can see that "Sotem et HaGolel"
refers to rolling a rock covering a cave/burial plot

3. The most recent seforim blog  http://seforim.blogspot.com/
discusses the nikud of the word "dam" (kamatz or patach) in this weeks parsha
using also ancient manuscripts.

Reminds me that I read that RYBS read the word zecher wice even in
Ashrei according
to the(alleged) Gra that two versions were brought.
What happened to the previous mesorah?

4. I brought separately that R. Dessler felt that Rabbenu Tam changed the order
of the parshiyot in the tefillin based on his learning of the gemara. He obvious
was not overly concerned about the previous Mesorah.
R. Dessler explains that this was because there was no clear written mesorah
in Talmudic or Gaonic writings. The mesorah of what was practiced by the
kehilla was not of paramount importance.

-- 
Eli Turkel

I delivered a 2 part lecture on Kaddish a few months back, the first lecture
was on the origins of the kaddish, and the second lecture was on women and
kaddish. Both shiurim were recorded and are available for download. If
anyone wants the sources that I used please contact me. Adk1...@gmail.com



http://rabbiarikahn.com/shalacha.php?id=73



Ari Kahn

http://rabbiarikahn.com

http://arikahn.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090819/95ad4993/attachment-0001.htm>

 

4. I brought separately that R. Dessler felt that Rabbenu Tam changed the
order of the parshiyot in the tefillin based on his learning of the gemara.
He obvious was not overly concerned about the previous Mesorah.
R. Dessler explains that this was because there was no clear written
mesorah in Talmudic or Gaonic writings. The mesorah of what was practiced
by the kehilla was not of paramount importance.

--
Eli Turkel
_______________________________________________
More interesting to me is that R' Dessler aiui did not have this as a
mesorah - the question is which highly valued constructs required him to
come up with this approach to minimize his cognitive dissonance?

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 06:57:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Which chachamim?  Bear in mind that the halacha accepted by everybody
: until about 1800 was that one may *not* do so, and *not* to worry about
: eivah...

RDR already raised the question about universality. I'm curious too.
Given the sugya in AZ ein maamidim, it would seem the machloqes rishonim
is how much eivah (not doing the job, or not doing it even though he was
going to pay you) vs the Mei'iri. In any case, the Taz is before 1800,
no? YD 154 s"q 5, seems to assume that in most cases, we are mechalelim
Shabbos mishum aivah.

:         About that time the metzius of the nochrim seems to have changed
: and the fear of eivah to have become more real, leading the poskim of
: that time to rule that one may be mechalel shabbos for this purpose.

Actually, eivah went DOWN during that period in most places where we
lived. I would therefore suggest the reverse -- mishum eivah became more
of an issue when the eivah had some chance of being avoided. If we were
likely to be accused of alilas dam if they didn't have something
substansive anyway, what is gained by the chilul Shabbos?

: When that concern doesn't exist, what possible basis could there be
: for a heter?!

Darkhei Shalom.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 09:10:00PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Regarding Sanhedrin 4:5, about saving a life saving the world: does it
: read nefesh ahat mibnei adam or miyisrael?

: I have collected some sources on this at
: http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/08/save-jewish-life
: -save-whole-world.html

: Teaser: One of my sources about the Mishna's correct reading, is the KORAN!

It sort of depends on the precision of the translation. Is it "as though
he saved all of humanity" or "all of the people" [ie the Jewish People]?
You quote the latter.

In any case, here's a posting from Amitai Halevi to soc.culture.jewish
on the topic, posted 4-Nov-1996.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From: Amitai Halevi <chr0...@aluf.technion.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Quotation from the Talmud
Date: 1996/11/04
Message-ID:
<Pine.OSF.3.95.961104220750.20090A-100...@aluf.technion.ac.il>
X-Deja-AN: 194407344
sender: n...@discus.technion.ac.il (News system)
x-nntp-posting-host: aluf.technion.ac.il
references: <ULN6XtAXKieyE...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>
to: Dene Bebbington <d...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
organization: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: Amitai Halevi <chr0...@aluf.technion.ac.il>
newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Dene Bebbington wrote:
> There is a saying from the Talmud that is commonly cited as being: "He
> who saves a single life, saves the entire world", however I've read
> somewhere that the actual quote is apparently: "Whosoever preserves a
> single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had
> preserved
> a complete world".

> Can anyone tell me which is correct, and if so what the origin of the
> less accurate one is?

This question came up some time ago on scj. I cannot find my original
post on the subject in my files, so I will reproduce it in brief.

The source for this saying is in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5. It appears
in several versions:

1. In the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is: "Whoever
destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam]
... it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves
the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had preserved an
entire world".

2. In the Talmud Bavli, where this mishnah appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the
wording is the same, except for the substitution of "life of a single Jew"
[nefesh a`hat \mi-yisrael] for "life of a single human being".

3. In the Talmud Jerushalmi, Mishnah 5 is divided into subsections
(Halakhot). In my edition the saying appears in Halakhot 12-13.
Others divide Mishnah 5 differently: e.g. MTR locates it in Halakhah 9.
It reads "destroys a single life" [ma'abed nefesh a`hat] and "preserves
a single life" [meqayem nefesh a`hat]. There is no specific mention of
either "human being" or "Jew", though the former is clearly implied.

The question is: Which is the original version? Was the limitation
to Jewish lives there to begin with, and then taken out as a result
of Church censorship? This is suggested in the book of corrigenda,
Hesronot Ha-shas. Alternatively, was the universal formulation the
original one, and the limitation to Jewish lives introduced into it at
some later date, perhaps in a period when particularly severe persecution
of Jews generated a justified feeling of xenophobia?

The answer would seem to be obvious from the context, which is the same
in all three versions. The citation is preceded by the words: "This is
why Adam was created alone. It is to teach us that ...". A bit father
down it reads: "When a man mints a number of coins from a single die,
they are all identical; but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One
blessed be He, minted every human being from the die of the primal Adam,
and not one of them is like any other".

Evidently, if the original had referred to the preservation of Jewish
lives alone, the reference would have been to Abraham at the earliest.
The repeated reference to Adam, progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear
that the original must have referred to the preservation of human life
in general.

This is aparently how the Rishonim (medieval commentators) understood it
as well. Rambam adopts the Yerushalmi version, (3.) slightly altered,
in Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3, but also cites the Bavli version (2. above)
briefly in Hilkhot Rotzea`h 1:6. Hameiri too bases his commentary on
the Yerushalmi version, illustrating "the destruction of a whole world"
by pointing out that Cain's murder of Abel eliminated all of his victm's
descendents at one fell swoop. Abel, like Adam was not Jewish; he was
not even the ancestor of Jews.

The humanistic version was not universally accepted by the A`haronim
(later commentators). MaHaRSh"A, for example, in Hidushei Agadot on
Sanh.37a, stays with Version 2, and explains at some length why it is
only important to save Jewish lives, even though the Mishnah bases the
dictum on Adam's being the father of all mankind. I would be interested
in learning what present-day Orthodox Judaism regards as the authentic
reading.

(Posted and mailed)

 Amitai

 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | E. Amitai Halevi  <chr0...@aluf.technion.ac.il>                    |
 | Department of Chemistry,  Technion-Israel Institute of Technology  |     
 | http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi          |
 | "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu",  Psalms 92,15  |
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 171
***************************************

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..."