Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 241

Wed, 02 Dec 2009

• 1. Re: Minhag Anglia (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: What is a minhag? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Auspicious times in Halocho (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: Minhag Anglia (Samuel Svarc)
• 5. Re: minhag avos (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: minhag avos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Project Proposal - ReWrite Hovos Hal'vavos (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 8. Lech L'shalom; Lech B'shalom... (Richard Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Minhag Anglia (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Auspicious times in Halocho (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Auspicious times in Halocho (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Auspicious times in Halocho (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Lech L'shalom; Lech B'shalom... (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Auspicious times in Halocho (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Lech L'shalom; Lech B'shalom... (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: Kosher (martin brody)

You have no problem if non-khareidim are clueless about the ideas of the 
Khazon Ish, R. Wasserman, the Satmar Rebbe, etc?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssv...@gmail.com>
 (So that I'm clear: It wouldn't
bother me if one would ban an hashkafah sefer, as this is the correct
practice throughout the ages. 

Ilana Sober Elzafun:
> Rav Broyde's guest post on Hirhurim
> http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/11/halacha-first.html
> includes several paragraphs, towards the end, about different types
> of minhagim and the different degrees to which they are binding.

I found some points disturbing

First:
Rabbi Michael J. Broyde:
> First, Nodah beYehuda observes (correctly in my view) in OC 2:18 that
> when there is a clear minhag yisrael to do something (in this case, to
> have 12 windows in a shul), but that minhag is an obstacle to serious
> religious growth, then if the minhag is not grounded in halacha, we ought
> to abandon the minhag in that particular case. Most of us think that the
> Noda beYehuda's formulation is correct, and if that is true, then all
> arguments of minhag without any serious reference to halacha will not
> really persuade anyone who is not already persuaded. They will always
> respond in reference to the Nodah beYehuda: non-halachic minhagim need
> to change as the reality of life changes. To really persuade someone,
> we need to speak the language of halacha first and foremost?

FWIW this argument has been used to overturn 12 windows but Mehitzah as
well! Because Mehitzah is arguably nothing more than a Minhag and if it
impedes sprituality - presto we can can it.

[FWIW I also found "Beyehuda" disturbing when Tehillim 74 has
"Beehuda!" Talk about a minhag ta'us! Using a popular but grammatically
incorrect format to decry popular minhag in favor of fundamental halachah
- how ironic!]

Second:
> We have to be a halachic community before we can be a traditional
> community.

IMHO this can be quite a dangerous tool. Strict letter-of-the-law
w/o tradition can lead to highly undesirable results and forms of
fundamentalism.

Note AFAICT the Noda Beehuda was not a big fan of Minhaggim, and he lived
just before Reform. I wonder if he would have been more sympathetic to
the Hassam Sofer's position had he lived 50 years later?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I believe it's time to move this thread to Avoda.

Here's the history:

Danny Schoemann wrote:
>>>>>> after seeing this ad in today's Yated Neeman
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_K1M8us_YSxA/Swur_laaRnI/
>>>>>> AAAAAAAAASY/lOucavp25ck/s1600/scan0107.jpg
>
>> Danny Schoemann wrote:
>>>>> Cry; after all, real Yidden have a Mitzva of Lo Th'Onenu (Vayikra
>>>>> 19:26) which forbids one from declaring certain times as auspicious.
>
>> R' Zev Sero  replied
>>>> Really?  That would be news to Dovid Hamelech, the Gemara, the Shulchan
>>>> Aruch, and pretty much everybody else.
>
>> Danny Schoemann replied:
>>> Please elaborate; I was simply quoting a Rashi on Chumash and the
>>> Chafetz-Chaim's Sefer haMitzvot haKatzar; Negative Mitzvah 166.
>
>>> R' Zev Sero  replied
>>> Start with Shulchan Aruch siman 1.
>
>> Which says (based on a Posuk in Yirmiyahu) that since HKBH mourns the
>> Churban Bet Hamikdash at the change of the Ashmuro (Brochos 3.)
>> therefore it's an appropriate time for us to also mourn the Churban.
>>
>> The leap from a Posuk for the correct time for Tikun Chatzos, to an
>> "obscure Sefer" declaring 9-9-9-9 as an auspicious time to Daven,
>> eludes me.
>
> R' Zev Sero  replied
>It thoroughly refutes your assertion that believing in auspicious
>times for tefillah is somehow wrong or unJewish.  There are of course
>many many more sources, but I can't be bothered compiling a list, when
>that one is sufficient.

So how do we reconcile the issur Lo Th'Onenu (Vayikra 19:26) with
various auspicious times sprinkled throughout our literature??

IIRC the Sefer Chariedim has a collection of these "auspicious times",
and if you add them all up they cover almost 24/7. :-)

- Danny, tired of playing the "devil's advocate"

My problem would be with the improper usage of a legitimate tool. One
bans from ones following things that are kefirah, not things that one
merely opposes as mistaken.

KT,
MSS

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> You have no problem if non-khareidim are clueless about the ideas of the
> Khazon Ish, R. Wasserman, the Satmar Rebbe, etc?
>
> Ben
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssv...@gmail.com>
> (So that I'm clear: It wouldn't
> bother me if one would ban an hashkafah sefer, as this is the correct
> practice throughout the ages.

RRW wrote:

> AIUI, BY used Zohar as a machria between the 2 camps.
The BY thought so, based on his uncle's teshuvah, but it turns out his
uncle was wrong. The Zohar had no influence in this matter on either
Ashkenazim or Sefardim, until the days of the Gra and the 'Hassidim;
they did change their minhag on account of teh Zohar.

> The argument in favor of wearing is spearheaded by the Rosh largely
> based upon a Yerushalmi

Regarding the Yerushalmi part, see below.

> What is true about minhag avos aspect appears to be the following
<SNIP>
> + As per BY Sephardim used to follow Rosh. They abandoned this due to Zohar

But that is demonstrably incorrect. The Meiri and others testified
about how Sefardim never followed the Rosh in this matter. The BY
based himself on a teshuvah by his uncle, and the uncle seems not to
have had access to the earlier manuscripts, so he thought that
Sefardim changed on account of the Zohar.

And by the way, as I already pointed out. here, we have a weird case
of Ashkenazim really relying on the Bavli tradition (which is not
clear in the Talmud Bavli, but can be gleaned from a diyuq) and
Sefardim from the EY minhag (which is not clearly stated in the
Yerushalmi, but can again be gleaned from a diyuq).

Source: lecture by R'J.J.Schachter on YUTorah.org.
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lectu
re.cfm/728404/Rabbi_Dr._Jacob_J_Schacter/Tefillin_on_Cholo_shel_Moed

Caveat: I did not retrace the sources, I merely listened to RJJS'
presentation and assumed that he correctly read and interpreted the
sources.
-- 
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!

R Arie Folger
> RRW wrote:
>> AIUI, BY used Zohar as a machria between the 2 camps.
>> The BY thought so, based on his uncle's teshuvah, but it turns out his
>> uncle was wrong. The Zohar had no influence in this matter on either
>> Ashkenazim or Sefardim, until the days of the Gra and the 'Hassidim;
>> they did change their minhag on account of the Zohar.

>> What is true about minhag avos aspect appears to be the following
<SNIP>
>> + As per BY Sephardim used to follow Rosh. They abandoned this due to Zohar

> But that is demonstrably incorrect. The Meiri and others testified about
> how Sefardim never followed the Rosh in this matter. The BY based himself
> on a teshuvah by his uncle, and the uncle seems not to have had access to
> the earlier manuscripts, so he thought that Sefardim changed on account
> of the Zohar.

Points well-taken but mostly tangential to my point

I was merely reporting the BY's methodology which used Zohar as a "mere"
machria [See shroshei minhag ashkenaz vol. I for how the mechabeir and
Rema view Qabbalah's impact upon halachah]

As per Rav Hamburger and this BY, the BY does not override a clear shas
by means of qabbalah
Rather it is machria when the matter is in dispute. Here the dispute
can be simplified to machloqes Rashba vs. Rosh.

As per Rema, we essentially ignore Qabbalah in these kinds of cases.

This is mamash similar to Minhag#1, Viz. where BY is machria the existing
dispute based upon Zohar and the already existing minhag.

Same for Rema - to follow minhag plus Rosh over say Rashba.

The revisionism in Ashkenaz came later by rejecting not only traditional
practice but also rejecting traditional methodology of p'saq.
[This revisionism is what motivates R Hamburger to restore. "Atara
l'yoshono"]

The facts that the facts were confused by BY - is kinda confusing the
issue with facts! :-). IOW what's important is his methodology here

Summary AISI

Myth:
BY pasqened al pi Zohar to overturn Talmudically based practice

Facts:
BY was machria a dispute in talmud based upon Zohar and existing minhag.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In studying Hovos Hal'vavos I noticed that the "fine wine" is stored in
a Lmedeival cask" so to speak.

IOW, the concepts are valuable today, but the idioms and parables
seem dated.

I would love to see a gifted author re-work this classic into a more
contemporary idiom. Any suggestions?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On the last daf of the gemara Berachos, we are informed that there is a
distinction in bidding farewell to a living person as opposed to a person
who has just died.				   R' Abin, HaLevi said:
When a man takes leave of his fellow, he should not say to him, 'Go in
peace'. but 'Go to peace'. For Moses, to whom Jethro said, Go to peace,    
		      went up and prospered, whereas Absalom to whom David
said, Go in peace, went away and was hung. R' Abin, HaLevi also said: One
who takes leave of the dead				  should not say to
him 'Go to peace', but 'Go in peace', as it says, But thou shalt go to thy
fathers in peace.

So what is the difference?  Peace is a goal towards which we aim and aspire, but it is a nearly unachievable goal, except for the rare, very righteous person.
We find this in regard to Yaakov Avinu: "Vayavo Yaakov shaleim ir Shechem..." Bereshis: 33:18 (And Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem...) In other
words, Jacob came in a perfect state of peace to the city of Shechem after his daunting encounter with his brother Esau. Rashi comments on this verse: shaleim
b'gufo -- whole in his physical being for he was healed of his lameness (shenisrapei metzalato); shaleim bim'mono -- whole regarding his physical possessions;
and shaleim b'toraso -- perfect in his knowledge of Torah, for he did not forget his learning in the house of Laban (Shab. 33).

Realistically, however, the average Joe or Jane does not achieve this
illusive goal. So we say to him "Go towards peace" because it is a
continual, ongoing process			  for the living. We
attempt to acquire as much of perfect, complete and whole peace as we
possibly can. However, once a person dies, he or she can no longer strive  
				    for peace, so instead we pray they go
IN peace. This is the peace they hopefully have already acquired because of
the righteous deeds they performed during their lifetime.

Lech l'shalom... 

ri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091130/a984e09f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:36:34AM -0500, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: My problem would be with the improper usage of a legitimate tool. One
: bans from ones following things that are kefirah, not things that one
: merely opposes as mistaken.

... which points to the danger of the broader use of kerifah heard in
everyday usage. Some belief of which you don't approve but yet conforms
to the iqarim is often called qefirah, but it's not. But the books
still get banned, and the term generates inappropriate outrage.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Danny Schoemann wrote:

> So how do we reconcile the issur Lo Th'Onenu (Vayikra 19:26) with
> various auspicious times sprinkled throughout our literature??

The same way we reconcile the issur on kishuf with the practise of
creating things with sefer yetzirah, and of tzadikim performing miracles.
The difference is not in what you're doing, but in the source of the
powers you're using: if you use kochot hatum'ah it's kishuf; if you do
exactly the same thing with the power of Torah then it isn't.  Or the way
we reconcile the issur on nichush with the practise of deciding things by
goral.  If you're ascribing the result to kochot hatum'ah ("the Fates")
then it's nichush; but if you're consulting Hashem's will by creating an
opportunity for hashgacha pratit to influence things without the need for
an open miracle, then it's a standard Jewish practise.  The same thing
applies here: if you're getting your "auspicious times" from avoda zara
then it's innun, but if you're getting them from Torah sources then it's
true.


> IIRC the Sefer Chariedim has a collection of these "auspicious times",
> and if you add them all up they cover almost 24/7. :-)
> - Danny, tired of playing the "devil's advocate"

So you were aware of this all along.  I was wondering how you could
not have been.


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

If they add up to 24/7, then they are basically meaningless.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 

> IIRC the Sefer Chariedim has a collection of these "auspicious times",
> and if you add them all up they cover almost 24/7. :-)
> - Danny, tired of playing the "devil's advocate"

There is a fundamental difference between discussing whether a phenomenon
is real, and discussing whether one may rely upon it.

Litvaks would not use practical qabbalah, seeing it as a violation of
tamim tihyeh im H' E-lokekha. That's not to say there was consensus
among Litvisher gedolim that they don't work. Amongst Sepharadim and
Chassidim, however, it has been common for generations to use segulos
and practical qabbalah.

Similarly here... The gemara speaks about prospicious times for prayer.
Does it laudibly speak of anyone utilizing them? (Other than Bil'am
knowing the moment of Hashem's anger [Berakhos 7a], which is obviously
no raayah, and davening kesaqin which is about zerizim maqdimin, not
timing for metaphysical effectiveness.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 04:23:05PM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: So what is the difference? Peace is a goal towards which we aim
: and aspire, but it is a nearly unachievable goal, except for the rare,
: very righteous person.
: We find this in regard to Yaakov Avinu: "Vayavo Yaakov shaleim ir
: Shechem..." Bereshis: 33:18 (And Jacob came in peace to the city of
: Shechem...) In other words, Jacob came in a perfect state of peace
: to the city of Shechem after his daunting encounter with his brother Esau...

How do we fit this with the Rashi on Bereishis 37:2 "Eileh Toledos
Yaaqov", the last part starting with "ve'od nidrash bo": "Vayeishev" --
Yaaqov wanted to rest beshalvah... Tzadiqim want to dwell beshalvah,
Hashem says, 'It is not enough for tzadiqim what is prepared for them
le'olam haba', but they want to dwell beshalvah in this world'?!

How do shalom and shalvah differ, that one is accomplished by Yaaqov,
and the other is withheld from him?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Ben Waxman wrote:

>> IIRC the Sefer Chariedim has a collection of these "auspicious times",
>> and if you add them all up they cover almost 24/7. :-)
>> - Danny, tired of playing the "devil's advocate"

> If they add up to 24/7, then they are basically meaningless.

Nope.  Each time has its own attributes.  And there are definitely
times that are *not* auspicious for some things, such as saying slichot
in the first half of the night, when dinim dominate and one should not
be bringing up matters that could fuel kitrugim.

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

Micha:
> How do we fit this with the Rashi on Bereishis 37:2 "Eileh Toledos
> Yaaqov", the last part starting with "ve'od nidrash bo": "Vayeishev" --
> Yaaqov wanted to rest beshalvah... Tzadiqim want to dwell beshalvah,
> Hashem says, 'It is not enough for tzadiqim what is prepared for them
> le'olam haba', but they want to dwell beshalvah in this world'?!

> How do shalom and shalvah differ, that one is accomplished by Yaaqov,
> and the other is withheld from him?

Very good point

Permit me a "drushy" answer...

"Vayavo Yaaqov shaleim". - IOW Yaaqov had been in motion and therefore
at peace

Vayeishev - biqeish Yaaqov Leisheiv beshalvah. Then
Yaaqov wanted a "stagnant" shalva - no motion, no growth, no challenges,
just status quo, to rest upon his laurels, to tkae an early retirement
so to speak.

So HKBH didn't punish him, so much as CHALLENGE him [qafatz rogzo] to
"rock his boat"

Why did Yaaqov seem to "grow stagnant"?

Apparently Yitzchaq avinu whilst alive was allowed to "retire" because we
see that "Eloqei Yitzchaq" was used by HKBH prior to Yitzchaq's passing.

So I am guessing that after Yaaqov avinu survived both the Lavan and
Esav incidents he too had arrived in peace "vayavo... Shaleim" and felt
ready to step into the background...

But Yaaqov still had more challenges awaiting him and Hashem called him
out of "early reitrement".

Maybe later - when Yaaqov went down to Egypt - then he could "retire"
beshalva

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Lawrence Teitelman <lteitel...@yahoo.com>wrote:

>  << I am familiar with this. Doesn't change the fact that what has been
> kosher
> for decades, is still kosher regardless of the hecksher and the POLCIES of
> the kashut agency.
> Kashrut has always been ingredients, taste and equipment.Unless the laws of
> suffeik ben yomo, taarvos and various other things have been cancelled,
> there is no need, with the strict enforcement of ingredient list laws in
> the
> US and the EU for example, to have any hecksher for anything other than the
> big three. Meat, wine and (real)cheese.>>
>
> Even assuming you can tell /all/ the relevant ingredients from the printed
> listing - which as has been discussed isn't so pashut both because not
> everything is listed or it can be listed ambiguously ("natural flavors") -
> how do you know about equipment?"
>

FDA and EU laws require all ingredients to be listed in order of volume. The
only exception is if an ingredient is so small and is part of another
ingredient such as natural flavours(if one of the flavours was significant
it has to be listed). These natural flavours are batel b'shishim, and are
made up of dozens, sometimes hundreds of ingredients. Still worried that you
might be consuming treif, even on a minute level? You are ignoring
Chazal, but then don't buy such a product.

Equipment is aino ben yomo. Besides, when factories cross produce, they
sterilize equipment between usage.
And see Rav Moshe YD 1, 55. He trusts the ingredient list.


>
> "To take one example, some canneries (in China) have been known to steam
> their fruits and vegetables together with treif fish. How would you know by
> looking at the label? And what about companies who use that in their
> production lines where you don't even see the cans."
>
I
So what? Can you taste it? Does it really happen? Is it really a kashrut
issue? And it doesn't bother the London Beth Din either, for example.


>
> There are other issues as well: bishul akum where applicable, agricultural
> halakhot on imports from Israel (e.g. concentrates).
>

Bishul Akum from factories is not an issue according to many opinions.
Agricultural produce from Israel could be a problem, but at the moment such
produce is a suffeik d'Rabbanam, or even suffeik suffeika when purchased
abroad.

And just to remind you there is a Gemara in Brachot discussing the blessing
on caperberries. I think it is around 38, sorry I don't have it with me.
There they decide a certain bracha was on a mixture that was imported from
India. No reference to the ingredients being suspect or the keilim. Of
course there are other examples of this.

Over 1000 kashrut agencies?



-- 
Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20091202/961f8d6e/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 241
***************************************

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..."