Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 21

Wed, 20 Jan 2010

• 1. Public displays of affection, was [Areivim] mixed groups (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 2. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: New Brachos (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Public displays of affection, was [Areivim] mixed groups (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: New Brachos (Simon Montagu)
• 10. Re: New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. the word "gadol" (Michael Poppers)
• 12. Re: New Brachos (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: New Brachos (Chana)
• 14. Re: New Brachos (Micha Berger)
• 15. Coat Room Mix-up (Micha Berger)
• 16. Aveil as Sha"tz on Shabbos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

On 1/19/2010 10:35, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Well that same Rema permits having a non-Jewish woman give you a bath
> (and that was the minhag in Cracow). One of the town rabbis uses this
> Rema of an example of how one can not simple quote a source and say
> muttar or assur.

Firstly, I think I botched my original message a bit; it seems like the 
issue is her looking for nits in his hair; and I'm not sure where the 
Rema ends here and the Mechaber picks back up - I had this text stored 
electronically without font differentiation, etc.

What does the bathing have to do with public displays of affection?  We 
have before us a differentiation between things done derech chibah, and 
those not.  Bathing in a bathhouse is brought in, apparently in a 
context of "not derech chibah."  We finish with "yesh omrim, one 
shouldn't even do matters of 'chibah' with one's wife."  The issue acc. 
to the Beis Shmuel quoted is, "the onlooker will come to thinking [the 
wrong things], being reminded of their closeness by this service [of the 
man by his wife]."  If picking nits is showing intimacy, then surely 
holding hands is - thus reasoned my rebbe.

I don't know the mechanics of deriving halachah from the syntax of the 
S.A., so I'm relying on him for that reading.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
33 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10010
Tel (212) 463-0400 x5230
Fax (212) 627-3197
Email yitzchak.schaf...@tourolib.org

Access Problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

I wrote:
> I want to suggest that there is no prescriptive prohibition
> against Post-Talmudic Brachos.

R"n Chana Luntz corrected me:

> I just don't think we can say that.
>
> The Rosh says explicitly (perek kama d'kiddushin siman 41
> and prek 8 of brachot siman 8) "shein lvarech shum bracha
> shelo nizkara b'talmud".  That sounds awfully like a prescriptive
> prohibition to me, and I certainly believe that is how it has
> been taken by everybody else.

Similarly R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:

> I don't understand how you can state that NO ONE claims this ban
> when that Rosh has been cited. True he did not say "UP TO NOW"
> so if that's your point that's something else.

Okay, I concede I was wrong. I didn't realize the Rosh wrote it so clearly, and I am now backing away from that point.

On the other hand, how do we fit this in with everything else?

RCL wrote:

> Now how to understand that Rosh is another question, especially
> when we consider all of the brachos that we say that do not
> appear in Shas.

and RRW wrote similarly:

> My issue with the Rosh's ban is that AFAIK it did NOT make it's
> way into the Tur - and if so - just how normative is it? [Caveat:
> If it does turn up in the Tur, then ignore this point]
>
> And As I construe the Rosh, he makes post-Talmud Policy Ban on
> new Brachos, [though with a lot of exceptions.]. IOW it's a
> POLICY not quite a P'saq.
>
> Also AISI the cut-off should have been GAONIM not Rav Ashi. It
> just maps the facts better and would leave fewer exceptions.

Okay, let's rephrase it. The Rosh *tried* to unilaterally ban post-Talmudic
brachos, but it seems clear that this ban was not accepted, at least not
fully. Alternatively, it was accepted, but with only to a point, with
certain exceptions.

Either way, I think my main point still stands. Despite the Rosh's ban,
there never was a specific cut-off, and instead there was a gradual
drop-off. Far fewer brachos were proposed during the Geonim than during the
Amoraim, and fewer still during the Rishonim. This is a function of
Niskatnu Hadoros, where we get more and more reluctant and hesitant to
accept the awesome responsibilities involved in composing new brachos.

As I see it, this is really not much different than what RRW wrote in the OP of this thread two weeks ago in Avodah Digest 27:8 --

> Those brachos such as "magbi'ah sh'falim" fail minhag. Thus
> they get rejected completely.
>
> Summary: with this approach it lays out the issue simply
> A Talmudic Brachos are a "national" given
> B Post-Talmudic Brachos are taluy on the minhag.

I imagine that RRW and I are not very far apart. The main point I'm making
is that no era was monolithic, but that through *all* the eras, the older
brachos stood a better chance of being accepted, and a better chance of
being proposed to begin with. 

I think it also bears noting that almost all of the post-Talmudic brachos
which got accepted can be viewed as a version of a Talmudic bracha. This
includes al mitzvas Tefilin, al mitzvas Tzitzis, all of the Lehadlik Ner
brachos, even She'asani Kirtzono. Even "al nekiyus yadaim", and Tosfos' "Al
Ha'adamah" and R' Akiva Eiger's ""lodur bevayis sheyesh bo mezuzah" are
merely a new form of an existing bracha. There were very very few truly new
post-Talmudic brachos, possibly as few as two: Hanosen L'yaef koach, and
Yiru Eineinu (in Maariv).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=AP2NGgTeiAt5pEwx1qu1EQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Someone on another list commented that Teimanim STILL do the Targum on
> the Torah and Haftara readings

Though nowadays they only translate into Aramaic.  Back in Teman they
used to do *two* tarjumim, into both Aramaic and Arabic.  Aramaic was
for tradition, and Arabic so that people would actually understand it.
They dropped the Arabic since they no longer speak it.


> 1 How come Sephardim no longer do Targum? [OK I understand why - but
> here's the kicker:]
> 2 And since they don't - how can they make a brachah on the Torah
> Reading - since the reading without Targum fails to conform to Hazal's
> requirements - it should be a doubtful brachah?

Hazal's requirements were for an Aramaic translation?  Or just that
people should understand the reading?  Since nowadays Hebrew is more
understood than Aramaic, the purpose of targum seems to be taken care
of.

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

My point was that just like there are things which the Rema permitted (e.g. 
getting a sponge bath from a non-Jewish woman) and which are forbidden 
today, so too there can be things which he forbad which might be OK today.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzchak Schaffer" <yitzchak.schaf...@gmx.com>
>
> What does the bathing have to do with public displays of affection?  We 
> have before us a differentiation between things done derech chibah, and 
> those not. 

Sources see:
    SA O"Ch 437:2
    Baeir Hetev 5
    MB 9
    Beiur Halachah D"H sho'alo

+ When we rent a house
and
+ We don't know if that house has been "baduq"
+ we must still ask the owner first

This is so despite that when he is out-of-town [IOW b'di'avad]
hezaqasso baduk.

IOW even in the case of a substantial Hazakkah that it IS baduq - we
still verify first.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> Those brachos such as "magbi'ah sh'falim" fail minhag. Thus
> they get rejected completely.

Not completely.  There are still people who say it.  My Italian siddur
(Machzor Livorno) has this bracha, with a note that some don't say it.

But most people did drop this bracha, due to the Rosh's opposition.

See also the long bracha on Pidyon Haben that was said in the Rosh's
day, and to which he objected.

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

RAM:
> This includes al mitzvas Tefilin,

Who says this is Post-talmudic?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RZS:
> Hazal's requirements were for an Aramaic translation? Or just that
> people should understand the reading? Since nowadays Hebrew is more
> understood than Aramaic, the purpose of targum seems to be taken care
> of.

Look - I would agree to this logic myself
I'm talking "l'sheetasam"
I just can't see a "strict-constructionist" as buying this rationale.

And a big Heileq of S'phardim seem to be subscribing to "strict
construction." - EG those who protest brachah on "Hallel b'dillug"

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:01 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone on another list commented that Teimanim STILL do the Targum on
> the Torah and Haftara readings which led me to query:
>
> 1 How come Sephardim no longer do Targum? [OK I understand why - but
> here's the kicker:]
> 2 And since they don't - how can they make a brachah on the Torah
> Reading - since the reading without Targum fails to conform to Hazal's
> requirements - it should be a doubtful brachah?
>
>
A stronger question might be, how can each ole make two berachot (as opposed
to "poteah" making the beracha rishona and "hotem" making the
beracha aharona on the whole reading as Hazal specify).

However, I think that Sephardim accept "lo omrim 'safek berachot lehakel'
bimkom minhag" at least where there is no specific ruling against the
beracha in the SA. I believe that ROY uses this principle in a teshuva
somewhere, but I don't remember the exact reference.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100119/0eb42f73/attachment-0001.htm>

Simon:
> A stronger question might be, how can each ole make two berachot
> (as opposed to "poteah" making the beracha rishona and "hotem" making
> theberacha aharona on the whole reading as Hazal specify).

IIRC the Talmud itself changed this from the Mishnah.

> However, I think that Sephardim accept "lo omrim 'safek berachot lehakel'
> bimkom minhag" at least where there is no specific ruling against the
> beracha in the SA. I believe that ROY uses this principle in a teshuva
> somewhere, but I don't remember the exact reference.

The Both Ben Ish Chay and Kaf Hachayyim state this in several places -
that bimqom minhag, s'feiq brachos l'haqeil does NOT apply. And those
Pos'qim are quite tolerant of the Ashk'nazic position.

HOWEVER, those S'phardim who protest Ashk'nazim for brachah on Hallel
b'dilug, or for women benching lulav etc. Would lich'ora reject that
position. And it is to those "kitzonim" that I had addressed my question.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In his shiur this past motzoei Shabbos on the transition from the N'vi'im
(w/ Yirmiyahu being the last to speak in [these terms are mine] "rebuke
mode" as opposed to "chessed mode") to the Anshei K'nesses haG'dolah,
RYReisman spoke a bit about the meaning of the word "gadol."  IINM, he
quoted Rav Dessler z'l' as saying that this word in early times certainly
referred to greatness in chessed/doing for others (as opposed to greatness
in stature or, I would assume, honor), and he worked with that theme in
explaining the thoughts of GRA on the first b'rachah of the Amidah as well
as various other matters.  Not that this needs my hasqamah, but p'suqim
like the last one in M'gilas Estheir and the one related to the Shunamis of
M'lachim Beis do IMHO make more sense with such a p'shat.  However, and
this is why I'm writing, how does one understand p'suqim like "gam ha-ish
Moshe gadol m'od b'eretz Mitzrayim" of this week's parashas hashavua (P'Bo,
for those reading this during a different week :)) in light of such a
p'shat?  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100119/53796dd0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Both Ben Ish Chay and Kaf Hachayyim state this in several places - that
> bimqom minhag, s'feiq brachos l'haqeil does NOT apply.  And those Pos'qim
> are quite tolerant of the Ashk'nazic position.
>
> HOWEVER, those S'phardim who protest Ashk'nazim for brachah on Hallel
> b'dilug, or for women benching lulav etc. Would lich'ora reject that
> position.  And it is to those "kitzonim" that I had addressed my question.
>
>
I had Hallel bedillug in mind when I added the qualification "at least when
there is no specific ruling against the beracha in the SA", and the same
would apply to women's berachot on MASG. See
http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/kitsur_yalkut_yossef.htm#HtmpRe
portNum0670for
ROY's position on the latter (a huge page, containing the whole of
Yalkut Yosef OH, so it will may take some time to load)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100119/019edf9a/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:

> Well, you might be relieved to hear that it is not just me who makes
> the link between oaths and brochos.

And then went on to discuss a teshuva of R' Akiva Eiger and refer to the Sde
Chemed.

But what I should have added between, "it is not just me who makes
> the link between oaths and brochos." and the discussion regarding RAE was
to bring the language of the Rambam himself in Hilchos Brochos perek 1
halacha 15 which is "kol hamevarech bracha sheino tzricha harei ze nose shem
shamyaim l'shav v'harei hu k'nishba l'shav".

Ie the link to false oaths is explicit there in the Rambam.

Regards

Chana

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:34:01PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: ... R"n Chana Luntz's post has opened my eyes, and I thank her. There
: are many many kinds of oaths, and often, the determination of whether
: something is an oath or not will sometime depend merely on the
: context. For example, Hashem's repetition of the phrase "lo osif - I
: will not continue" a second time (Bereshis 8:21) is what made it into a
: *shevua* that He would no longer continue, according to Rashi. (Thanks
: to Wikipedia for that example.)

I have a list of comments to make, but repeatedly, between reading and
planning my reply until I find time to write it there are most posts on
the subject. However, this one thought I'm pretty safe won't be raised
by someone else, since it's not halachic and therefore not in the
direction of the main conversation.

If "'berakhah' lashon ribui", how do we understand the words "Barukh
atah Hashem"? We can't possibly be requesting a ribui of HQBH, Who is
both unchanging and lacking nothing!

I once collected a list
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/what-is-berakhah.shtml
of six approaches, grouped into three categories: statement of fact,
request, or declaration of intent.

RSRH's approach is in the third category. To quote from my blog:
    "May Your presence in this world be increased" -- through my efforts
    (R' SR Hirsch). A declaration of commitment. Since HQBH restrains
    Himself (so-to-speak) to allow for free will, by choosing to act
    according to His Will, we can increase His influence.

    I would surmise that this understanding is implied by R' YB
    Soloveitchik in his monograph "Qol Dodi Dofeiq". The Rav uses the
    rabbinic dictum "just as we bless [G-d] for the good, so too for the
    bad" to give the appropriate response to tragedy. (This quote is
    why one says "Barukh Dayan emes" (blessed be the True Judge) upon
    hearing that someone died.) He says the Jewish question of tragedy
    is not "Why?" but "What should I do?" The Rav therefore implicitly
    identifies "blessing for the bad" with my doing Hashem's Will.

This discussion is a point in favor of this translation. What kind of
similarity to shevu'ah is it to say "You are Maximally Increased", ie
Infinite? Or to say "Please reveal Yourself?" or "Please increase what we
have"?

However, lefi RSRH, a berakhah is a pledge, a pledge to use the kochos
obtained from eating this apple to serve HQBH and therefore increase
His influence in this world.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

From today's daily blog entry of a financial halakhah from the Qitzur.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/01/qsa-182-12.shtml

182:12 (translation mine):
    Someone whose utensils were switched in the pub or the like, he
    should not use the utensils that came to his hand that weren't his.
    When the owner of the item comes, he must return it -- even if his
    own item is lost. Similarly a washer-woman who washes [clothes] for
    the community and brings him a shirt which is not his, it is
    prohibited to wear it. Rather, he must return it to its owners --
    even if his own was lost.

    However, if it rests with him many days, until it is impossible that
    the owners didn't search in the meantime for their own, then it is
    permitted for him to wear it. Because by default [you may assume
    that] the washer-woman cleared [the matter] with its owners and paid
    for this shirt.

Personal observation:

    This situation comes up in shul pretty often. There aren't that
    many different styles of men coat, and it sometimes happens that
    someone looks through the coat room and realizes that the only
    remaining coat was one similar to theirs. Someone who left already
    took with the wrong coat.

    I hadn't heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person stuck in this
    situation that he is not permitted to wear the accidentally
    exchanged coat home.

What do you think?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Given: a professional Sha"tz may daven for the amud during his aveilus

Real-Life she'eilah in Teaneck this week

The Teaneck Carlebach Minyan is hosting Shacharis-Mussaf. The ONLY
Sha"tz around who knows the Carlebach Nusach is an aveil.

Q:
Since "bemakom she'ein ish" would lich'ora be operable, does he step up
and would now be construed as a "pro" in this context - and therefore
be permitted to be Sha"tz?

Or Not?

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 27, Issue 21
**************************************

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..."