Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 211

Wed, 28 Oct 2009

• 1. Re: Question (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Question Sin of Adam vs. Kayin (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Pizza - is it Pashtida? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Telling the Truth About Great Men (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Telling the Truth About Great Men (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: RAYK's Orot - Criticism of RSRH? (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: shlichei tzibbur, davening speed, and halacha (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Shlichei tzibbur, davening speed, and halacha (Richard Wolberg)
• 10. Re: mei marom (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: quoting terminology (Saul Mashbaum)
• 12. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help (Rich, Joel)
• 15. children at a wedding (SBA)
• 16. Re: children at a wedding (T6...@aol.com)
• 17. children at a wedding (Y. Dovid Kaye)
• 18. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (David Riceman)
• 19. Beth Hillel - from a Pedagogical Perspective (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:04:54PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
: >But, as already noted, we don't find the subsequent generations that
: >Qayin did produce suffering for his curse. And lehefech -- while he was
: >"na vanad", his offpring invented the concept of city.

: Because the original sin was the one that determined the rest of human 
: history. They had one mitzva to do and they blew it...

Doesn't that just beg the question? WHY was one sin determinant of the
rest of human history, and the other not?

I suggested that it's because the first sin, regardless of its content,
showed humanity that sin is possible. Naaseh lo keheter doesn't
get started until there is a first occurance. And so, the YhR was
internalized.

The first murder lacks that element.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:06:48PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: Our need to work is not because we don't live in Gan Eden, it is because 
: the entire world was cursed. Was the world before the sin one in which 
: people would have had to work?

REED writes that hainu hakh. The world we're in is a matter of perception,
and the cheit changed human perception. Being kicked out of the ideal
world and moved to a cursed one is a change in us which in turn imposes
a new order on the universe.

See MmE vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah" pp 304-312. That This michtav
also discusses the Maharal's shitah on nissim. REED is is being very
Kantian, and holds that what we think of as reality is really the order
that human perception imposes on reality.

Elsewhere, REED says that this applies even to time (MmE IV pp 113,
Zeman veHishtalshelus) and that our current concept of a linear flowing
time is a product of the eitz hadaas (MmE 2 pp 150-154).

I wrote about this at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/02/rav-dessler-on-reality-and-pe
rception.shtml

Esnst Mach (after whom they named the speed of sound) and Einstein took
this one step further and used it to explain why science is possible.
The latter often said, "the most incomprehensible thing about the world
is that it is comprehensible". How is it that our mind's logic matches
the world's rules? Their solution: We are analyzing the phenomenological
universe -- the kinds of things we can measure and find patterns in is
itself shaped by the structure of that mind as the theory created to
explain it.

And so, it would appear (MmE I) that eviction from gan eden was descent
from olam hayetzirah to olam haasiyah, which was "really" a change in
adam and the order his new perception made of reality. Nissim are the
results of occasional flashes in which the person is on a plane where
the laws of olam haasiyah are more real and absolute than those of
physics.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:55:39AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Yes, but the problem (at least in my limited mind), is when we try
: to look back to a time period that was more based on "sounds right"
: and deduce what algorithm they used...

What algorithm is implied by the subseq of the data already rule upon. As
is you say in your reisha, they didn't actually use one.

:                                  My observation is that our attempts
: (throughout the generations) have been yielding less than 100% accuracy
: and we then use a fudge factor...

Where do you see this?

What I see is that the system becomes ever simpler and more rigid,
as more dinim transition from the looser "sounds right" to rules. I
would want you to produce evidence that the algorithm doesn't actually
describe halakhah pesuqah as it exists nor then use that to produce a
new pesaq still within the range of valid machloqes.

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 Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 01:05:07PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
:> Not everyone agrees that Pashtida is a special case, but they hold
:> that it has the same halachos as ordinary Pas Habaa B'Kisnin.
...
: I have vague recollections that the Aruch Hashulchan might pasken like
: this little-known Taz, against the more well-known Magen Avraham.

That was my suspicion as well, because it was news to me that others do
not just simply call pashtida simply a type of PHB, and I got that far
in AhS Yomi. See OC 168:46. Also, you posted on this subject and even
this se'if of AhS already, see
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n005.shtml#19 and RnCL's
reply at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n018.shtml#16 both of
which were a tangent of a thread at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=M#MEZONOS%20BREAD
(see also the next 2 entries in the index, some wrote "Mezonos", others,
"Mezonot").


: CAVEAT: This post concerns only the Pashtida aspects of pizza, not
: any of the many other points which have been raised over the years.

I think current norms simply didn't catch up with the fact that the basis
of the pesaq of saying mezonos on one slice was based on a reality that
since changed. Few people snack on pizza today compared to in the 50s
and 60s.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

That the Malbim gives an excellent explanation does not mean that the 
Ramban's and RSRH's cease to exist.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
 >>>
>
> IMVHO, the Malbim's excellent explanation of these events make a lot of
> sense even bederech pshat, thus allowing us to revert to the recognition
> that Avraham Avinu was indeed an unconditional - perfect - tzaddik.
>
> SBA 

At 04:53 PM 10/27/2009, Ben Waxman wrote:
>That the Malbim gives an excellent explanation does not mean that 
>the Ramban's and RSRH's cease to exist.
>
>Ben

Actually, RSRH spends a good deal of time analyzing Avraham's actions 
in a positive light. However, as I am sure you know, the reason for 
my posting this is because of his statement that all men are human 
and hence make mistakes.  Our gedolim books completely over look this 
or ignore it.

I am not saying that one has to focus on the shortcomings of great 
people. But at least acknowledge that they have some.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091027/2383bbf0/attachment-0001.htm>

R'MMakovi wrote a post RAYK's Orot - Criticism of RSRH?, where he
claims/shows that Rav Kook and Rav Hirsch disagreed on less than is
often assumed.

You know, R'MM, I have often silently disagreed with posts of yours,
in line with the very eloquent criticisms of R' MB, that you put too
much stock in some fringe figures.

However, here, I must say that you are definitely on to something.

And I agree, too, that few people really read RSRH. I also think that
few people bother truly reading Rav Kook, though his is not an easy
read.

Yasher koach!

-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!

I asked about a situation in which I was part of a minyan of 10 men. I 
happened to daven somewhat slower than the others. My told me that I should 
speed up so as not to cause a tirkha for the rest of the minyan. Your 
situation would be a kal v'khomer.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avram Sacks" <achdu...@gmail.com>


>I would like to open up a discussion about something that has
> troubled me for a long time, but which now has very practical
> consequences for me as I now have a chiyuv to daven as a shliach
> tzibbur and will continue to have this chiyuv for some time: davening 
> speed.
>
> 

To R' Avram Sacks:
You ask a very important question which I'm sure does not only apply  
to you.

I have the opposite problem.
As a shaliach tzibbur, I daven at a fairly rapid pace which satisfies  
all but one, who is one of the prominent members.
Because of him, I have to wait for him to finish, before I conclude  
each tefilla.
This is a source of tircha for the rest of the tzibbur, but they all  
understand why I do it.
Fortunately, he does not attend every service, but when he does, it  
takes an extra 10 or more minutes, which as you say,
can be significant on a weekday.

I would suggest that you articulate your concerns to the tzibbur at  
some auspicious time in the very near future.
Let them be the ones to tell you that it is either o.k. or to suggest  
another option that would be agreeable to all.

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Yitzchok Adlerstein wrote:
>> I've been trying to introduce a friend of mine to Mei Marom. Someone
>> recently presented him with a few of the sefarim, and he came back to
>> me scratching his head. He found himself in perek 10 of Urie Veyishi,
>> and takes the mechaber to mean, in the words of my friend, that even
>> after "Tshuvah Me'Ahavah, a person still needs to be purged of his
>> sins in Gehenom.  The Baal Teshuavh will enjoy the pain however,
>> because of the realization of the ultimate benefit."

> In the story with R, Chananiah ben Tradyon his executor who helped
> him and then leaped into the fire was "muzman" to the next world.
> RYBS insists that in fact he received the same olam habah as R. Chananiah
> ben Tradyon.  Doesnt sound like he went to hell.

I don't see how this is relevant, though.  His Olam Haba was not the
result of teshuvah, but rather a reward from RChbT for helping him
("tzadik gozer, veHKBH mekayem").  IOW he got it despite his sins,
not because they had been wiped away.  The same applies to the miracles
performed for the goy who saved R Meir; it's not that he was some kind
of tzadik, but that R Meir gave him this gift despite his remaining a
rasha.   In our case, though, we're talking about the process by which
sins are wiped away, and a rasha becomes a tzadik who *deserves* OHB,
not as a gift but as his just desert; the question is whether teshuvah
me'ahava is capable of doing this all on its own, or only together with
yisurim.

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

RGDubin asked about k'mo sheneemar and sheneemar in the haggada.

The Malbim in his introduction to 'arami oved avi' there explains this
explicitly.


The passage of mikra bikkurim encapsulates the entire yetziat mitzraim story
in Sh'mot.
For  each phrase of mikra bikkurim, the baal haggadah 1) explains the aspect
of the Mitzraim experience the phrase refers to
2) cites the pasuk in Sh'mot which relates to this matter. This is the use
of "k'mo sheneemar" - what we
are saying now about a phrase in mikra bikkurim is like the following verse
in Shmot .

In two places the baal haggada brings a midrashic explanation of a passage
 in  parshat mikra bikkurim.
In these cases, the baal haggada brings a proof-text to support the
midrashic explanation. The proof text
is introduced by "sheneemar" as is common in Rabbinic texts. The verse
quoted is not a mere citation ,
as in k'mo sheneemar,  but a proof of the midrashic explanation.


The Malbim Haggada  can be seen in hebrewbooks  http://hebrewbooks.org/10814
The passage in question is on page 25 there  :
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=10814&;st=&pgnum=25

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091027/d6f33c70/attachment-0001.htm>

RDR writes:

> Hazal set minimum shiurim for sukka which are well below what 
> I imagine
> housing was like even in those days -- can you imagine living 
> in a 7 tefah
> by 7 tefah house? I suspect "teishvu k'ein taduru" has to be 
> understood
> in the subjunctive: live as you would live if this were your house.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make was that neither my husband (who was
eating what is for him a ridiculously big breakfast so he would not be
hungry when he was out and about at lunch time) nor the family at legoland
were living "as you would live if this was your house".  One does not take
one's house with one when one travels (which is ROY's solution too, BTW, he
says take a pick up truck or similar and put a sukkah on the back) (well
some people, like truck drivers do, I guess, they sleep in their cab, but we
are talking there about the modern day equivalent of camel drivers).

And even this 7 tefach by 7 tefach house -  my thinking is that that minimum
was probably for a batchelor with little possessions.  Part of teshivu k'ein
tadiru is that you are supposed to take your nice kellim into the sukkah -
and for most people today, there would not be room in something that size.
Not to mention the idea that comes up not infrequently that tashivu kein
tadiru means ish v'ishto.  On the other hand, if you were a poor batchelor
who rented a tiny room which was only used for breaking bread in the evening
and sleeping (or a vagabond given a pallet in shul), you probably didn't get
much more - and hence you really would be living like you would live in your
house.

> This explains lots of peculiar details in halacha -- dinim 
> associated with
> rain, for example. I just acquired a copy of Damesek Eliezer 
> last week,
> so I'll point you to 640:4:11 (the very last comment, on the 
> Rama's remark
> "v'ein hamitztaer patur ... ").

Since I don't have it, it would be helpful if you provided more information.

> There are, furthermore, other kiyumim which one does in a sukka --
> l'ma'an yed'u doroseichem (see OH 625:1), for example.
> 
> >  presumably the simple answer to
> > what to do when one went to Legoland would be simply to 
> picnic.  But Rav
> > Moshe, inter alia, is dead against this, and says that that 
> ptur is only for
> > a tzorech like business.
> 
> I haven't looked at the tshuva you allude to, but I wonder about this.

Well he is not keen about people going one trips for pleasure (the teshuva
is Orech Chaim chelek 3 siman 93 - and the heading is "im mutar l'tzeit
l'taanuk b'alma l'makom shelo haya lo sukkah" - , and states emphatically
that the ptur of holchei drachim does not apply.  ROY's tone is somewhat
more concillatory  - the heading of the teshuva (Yachave Daat chelek gimel
siman 47) is "hayotzim l'tiyul b'yamei chol hamoed sukkot, haim rashaim
l'echol sudat kavua chutz l'sukah or lo?".

I confess, both of these teshuvos struck me as somewhat missing the point in
many cases.  My husband (and I am sure the man in the pop up sukkah in
Legoland) was not actually going on these tiulim for his own pleasure (or at
least only vicariously).  They were going to be mesameach benei beiso.  The
kids are off school and gan and whatever, and however ideal staying in your
sukkah at home and learning torah may be - with lots of little ones, that is
not like to lead to an enormous amount of general happiness, if you sum that
of yourself and your wife and the rest of your family.  If, according to the
Taz, a man does not need to sleep in his sukkah because his wife would miss
him in the bedroom and he has an obligation to be mesameach her (therby
enabling one to apply osek b'mitzvah), then why would the same logic not
apply here?

But I agree that is a different issue from whether there is yeshivu k'ein
tadiru even if you take your sukkah with you and whether the ptur of holchei
drachim should apply.  And I guess the further question as to whether, if
one of the pturim (such as holchei drachim or osek b'mitzvah) applies to
you, and you eat in a sukkah anyway, should you not be saying the bracha?

> Hazal compare someone eating outside to a dog; but certainly no one I
> know has a visceral response to someone eating an ice cream cone while
> strolling, or to someone eating at a picnic. So I wonder whether the
> halacha was codified when people ate meals only in their homes except
> in extreme situations.

I confess like other posters I had understood this to mean while walking in
the shuk, while standing up etc, not sitting at formal picnic tables in the
open air in family units.

> David Riceman
> 

Regards

Chana

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:55:39AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Yes, but the problem (at least in my limited mind), is when we try
: to look back to a time period that was more based on "sounds right"
: and deduce what algorithm they used...

What algorithm is implied by the subseq of the data already rule upon. As is you say in your reisha, they didn't actually use one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 

Semantics perhaps, I would say they used one subconsciously that they could/did not articulate.
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.

:                                  My observation is that our attempts
: (throughout the generations) have been yielding less than 100% accuracy
: and we then use a fudge factor...

Where do you see this?

What I see is that the system becomes ever simpler and more rigid, as more
dinim transition from the looser "sounds right" to rules. I would want you
to produce evidence that the algorithm doesn't actually describe halakhah
pesuqah as it exists nor then use that to produce a new pesaq still within
the range of valid machloqes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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


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.

From: Eli 
A relative of mine is getting married for a second time after a divorce.
One rabbi advised the grown children not to attend the chupah ceremony but
only come to the dinner afterwards

Is this custom mentioned by poskim?
>>

Dunno. But that is how it seems to be done in the numerous cases that I know
of.

SBA

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 1534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091028/087d1d33/attachment-0001.bin>

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

 
From: Eli Turkel _eliturkel@gmail.com_ (mailto:elitur...@gmail.com) 

A relative of  mine is getting married for a second time after a divorce.
One rabbi advised  the grown children not to attend the chupah ceremony but 
only
come to the  dinner afterwards

Is this custom mentioned by  poskim?







>>>>>
 
When my husband asked him this question, R' Yirmiyahu Aloy zt'l, who  was a 
Dayan on the Bes Din in Johannesburg (and my husband's uncle), told  my 
husband that in Europe children /never/ went to their parents'  weddings.
 
(btw when my husband further asked him if it made a difference whether  the 
parents were widowed or divorced, he said, "Divorced?  Who ever got  
divorced?")
 
Children "fashter" the simcha because in their hearts they are  never 
wholeheartedly besimcha to see one parent marrying another partner,  whether the 
other parent died or was "lost" because of divorce.  To  see a parent 
re-marrying causes a child tza'ar (even an adult child).   The tza'ar the child 
feels, however slight, puts a chill on the simcha.  I  don't want to say that 
a child might cause an ayin hara at his parent's wedding  but maybe 
something like that.
 

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091028/d7830a1d/attachment-0001.htm>

See Shut. Dvar Yehoshua 2:113 second paragraph


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091028/a9400350/attachment-0001.htm>

Chana Luntz wrote:
> Yes, but the point I was trying to make was that neither my husband 
> (who was
> eating what is for him a ridiculously big breakfast so he would not be
> hungry when he was out and about at lunch time) nor the family at legoland
> were living "as you would live if this was your house".  One does not take
> one's house with one when one travels
There are two issues here.  One is whether one travels with one's house 
(or to a place without a house).  The second is whether one can use a 
sukkah the way one uses one's house.  You distinguish these two issues 
clearly below.  Your description of the man sitting with children on his 
knees while the rest of his family waited outside struck me as 
addressing the latter issue.

The first question is related to the question of whether people ate 
picnics in the times of Hazal (see more about that below).  It is the 
second that I was addressing with the comment about size of houses.
> Me
>> I just acquired a copy of Damesek Eliezer 
>> last week,
>> so I'll point you to 640:4:11 (the very last comment, on the 
>> Rama's remark
>> "v'ein hamitztaer patur ... ").
>>     
> RCL
> Since I don't have it, it would be helpful if you provided more information.
>   
The Rama says that a mitztaer may leave the sukkah only of doing so will 
alleviate his distress.  The DE understands the Gaon to say that this is 
an example of Teishvu k"ein Taduru, "ain adam dar b'makom shemitztaer", 
and if he'd undergo the same discomfort in his house it follows that the 
distress is tolerable and he is fulfilling TkT in the sukkah.

I was deducing the converse, that if he's not mitztaer then the defining 
rule is the "house" he's in now, not the house he lives in the rest of 
the year.  Admittedly not an inarguable deduction.
> But I agree that is a different issue from whether there is yeshivu k'ein
> tadiru even if you take your sukkah with you and whether the ptur of holchei
> drachim should apply.  And I guess the further question as to whether, if
> one of the pturim (such as holchei drachim or osek b'mitzvah) applies to
> you, and you eat in a sukkah anyway, should you not be saying the bracha?
>
> Me:
>> Hazal compare someone eating outside to a dog; but certainly no one I
>> know has a visceral response to someone eating an ice cream cone while
>> strolling, or to someone eating at a picnic. So I wonder whether the
>> halacha was codified when people ate meals only in their homes except
>> in extreme situations.
>>     
>
> I confess like other posters I had understood this to mean while walking in
> the shuk, while standing up etc, not sitting at formal picnic tables in the
> open air in family units.
>   
See Berachos 42b-43a.  If people ate picnics why would the brayysa have 
to specifically mention holchim baderech, and why would the din be so 
obscure that talmidei d'Rav didn't recall it?

David Riceman

Beth Hillel as a matter of course teaches Beth Shammai's Opinion First
Usuaully this is seen simply as a lesson in humility.
In addition - what secondary lesson may be learned?

Please see:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/10/beth-hillel-from-pedagogical.html

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 211
***************************************

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..."