Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 193

Tue, 09 Nov 2010

• 1. sprouted wheat (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: answered tfilos (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: A Question About Yitzchok Taking a Canaanite Wife (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: A Question About Yitzchok Taking a Canaanite Wife (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: answered tfilos (Micha Berger)
• 6. atifat tallit (Eli Turkel)
• 7. The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 8. Re: atifat tallit (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: atifat tallit (Micha Berger)
• 10. Life's Role / Gender Roles (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Life's Role / Gender Roles (Ilana Elzufon)
• 12. Re: sprouted wheat (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Shmuel Weidberg)

One of our guests this Shabbos mentioned that she buys bread made out of 
flour ground from sprouted wheat.  She called the OU and they told her 
that it had the bracha hamotzi because it's considered no different than 
normal wheat flour.  How do they know that?

David Riceman

From: _Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org_ (mailto:Saul.Z.New...@kp.org) 


http://havolim.blogspot.com/2010/11/toldos-breishis-2521-vayeiaseir
-lo.html 
 
what is the price/nisayon that  tfilos that are answered comes  with...
 

>>>>>
 
 
This was an unusually interesting essay about the effects and sometimes  
unintended consequences of having one's tefillos answered, well worth  reading.
 
It's a long essay but I won't summarize or comment on it.  I will,  
however, say that when we daven for something we desperately  want, we should pay 
heed to the wording of the Rosh Chodesh  bentshing:  "Sheyimal'u mish'alos 
libeinu LETOVAH." 
 
That can mean saying, "Ribono shel olam, if You know that what I want won't 
 be good for me or won't be good for Klal Yisrael  -- then don't give it to 
 me."  Or, "Don't give it to me right now or don't give it to me in exactly 
 the way I want, but answer me in the time and in the manner that will be  
good."
 
It can mean saying, "Ribono shel olam, You did not give me what I so  
desperately wanted, but I accept Your will and I know that in some way I don't  
presently understand, You did what You knew was best for me and for the  
world."

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




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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101107/4fd63dd2/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 

: Of course I was  mistaken.  Aner, Eshkol and Mamre were Amorites --  
: descendants  of Canaan.  If Eliezer had not found a suitable wife for  
Yitzchak in  
: Aram, or she wasn't willing to come to E'Y, then Yitzchak would   indeed 
have 
: married a Canaanite woman. [--TK]

Perhaps mibenos  Kenaan didn't refer to Canaanite women but to women from
the land of  Canaan?

I wanted to say that Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei were "nefesh asher  asu
becharan", freed from their genetic and cultural origins. But then,  so
was Eliezer. So then the thought crossed my mind that maybe  Eliezer's
living in Eretz Kenaan exposed his daughter to influences that  the
converts in Trans-Jordan were not subject to.

And who other than  the avos attended the yeshivos of Sheim vaEiver?
Wouldn't any of them have  daughters? But again, they too would be
living in Kenaan.

-- 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org        




>>>>>
 
Avraham to Eliezer:  "Do not take a wife for my son from the daughters  of 
the Canaanites." (Ber 24:3)
 
Eliezer:  "Maybe the woman won't want to come with me to this  land."
 
Avraham:  "If the woman doesn't want to come here you will be absolved  of 
this oath." (Ber 24:8)
 
Rashi:  "You will be absolved of this oath....and take a wife for my  son 
from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol and Mamre."
 
Art/Scroll footnote:  "Although Aner, Eshkol and Mamre were Amorites  (SEE 
BER 14:13), descendants of Canaan (SEE BER 10:15-16), and Abraham had  
Eliezer swear not to take a wife for Isaac from among the daughters of the  
Canaanites, Abraham absolved Eliezer of this oath if he could not find a wife  
from within the family, and instructed him to take a wife for Isaac from among 
 the best of the descendants of Canaan (Mizrachi)."
 
BER 14:13: "And the fugitive came and told Abram, the Ivri, who dwelt in  
the plains of *Mamre the Amorite* (Mamre the Emori), brother of Eshkol and of 
 Aner...."
 
BER 10:15-16: "Canaan begot Zidon and....the Jebusites and the Amorites  
(the Emori)..."
 
 
So if Rivka had not come to E'Y, Yitzchak would most likely have  married a 
Canaanite (Amorite) woman -- not just a woman who happened to be  living in 
Canaan.
 
HOWEVER, there were also other possibilities.  Eliezer said to Besuel  and 
Lavan, "If you won't send Rivka with me, I will turn to the right or the  
left" (Ber 24:49)
 
Rashi there says, "To the right -- from the daughters of Yishmael.  To  the 
left -- from the daughters of Lot."
 
--Toby Katz
==========



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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101107/3e05e7d1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 12:50:27PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: So if Rivka had not come to E'Y, Yitzchak would most likely have  married a 
: Canaanite (Amorite) woman -- not just a woman who happened to be  living in 
: Canaan.

My point is that it is possible that the shevu'ah was mibenos the land of Kenaan.
Which would be an Amori woman, if she was from mei'eiver haYardein. So that would
fit RnTK's "most likely".

RnTK writes: 
: Rashi:  "You will be absolved of this oath....and take a wife for my  son 
: from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol and Mamre."

: Art/Scroll footnote:  "Although Aner, Eshkol and Mamre were Amorites  (SEE 
: BER 14:13), descendants of Canaan (SEE BER 10:15-16), and Abraham had  
: Eliezer swear not to take a wife for Isaac from among the daughters of the  
: Canaanites, Abraham absolved Eliezer of this oath if he could not find a wife  
: from within the family, and instructed him to take a wife for Isaac from among 
:  the best of the descendants of Canaan (Mizrachi)."

However, the Mizrachi doesn't say "absolved Eliezer of this oath". Rather,
the Mizrachi focuses on el artzi ve'el moladti, and working out the
logistics of Ur Kasdim vs. Charan.

Yes, he does mention the flaw in mixing zera Avraham with that of the
Poshei'ah, but after the one mention, he just discusses what homeland
means in this context.

I think there are real grounds here to argue the chiddush that the sin of
Kenaan was being more identified with the country than the genetic line.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 11:57:35AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: That can mean saying, "Ribono shel olam, if You know that what I want won't 
:  be good for me or won't be good for Klal Yisrael  -- then don't give it to 
:  me."  Or, "Don't give it to me right now or don't give it to me in exactly 
:  the way I want, but answer me in the time and in the manner that will be  
: good."

Or the end of tefillas Geshem and tefillas Tal "liverakhah velo liqlalah",
etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

The geonim say one should wear the tallit like atifat hayishmaelim.
The question is why is the proper way to wear a tallit governed by
what Arabs do?

-- 
Eli Turkel

Look in Shut HaRosh 21:8 which I saw quoted in Rabbi Bechofer's sefer
on contemporary eruvin.

Somebody wrote the Rosh that upon the passing of the former Rav of
Fereres that Rav's talmid became Rav and disallowed the eruv that had
been there under the previous Rav. The Rosh wrote back that the new
Rav had misunderstood a mishna and that the new Rav must reinstate the
Eruv. The new Rav disagreed with the Rosh and felt that he had to be
machmir to not replace the Eruv.

The Rosh told him that he had no right to understand the halacha in
the way that he was understanding it because all the poskim understood
it differently and he was making the mistake and all the poskim were
right.

Eventually the Rosh sent him a letter that was to be received by him
in the presence of two witnesses after which he would have two weeks
to replace the eruv and if not, he would be put in cherem. As well, he
told him that if it was in the time of the Sanhedrin he would be
considered a zaken mamre.

At the same time time he wrote a letter to the original complainant
and told him to deliver the letter and that if the rav did not listen
and did not accept the cherem he should present the letter to the
king's representative and tell him to fine him 1000 coins as the Rosh
had the right to punish people under authority of the king. If that
still didn't work, he was to report back to the Rosh and the Rav was
to be treated as a zaken mamre, which seems to imply that there was a
serious option of the Rosh actually sentencing him to death.

On 7/11/2010 3:38 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The geonim say one should wear the tallit like atifat hayishmaelim.
> The question is why is the proper way to wear a tallit governed by
> what Arabs do?

It's just a description.  Arabs of the Geonim's time wore their robes
in a manner that's considered "atifa".


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

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:10:37AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> It's just a description.  Arabs of the Geonim's time wore their robes
> in a manner that's considered "atifa".

Clothing in the Middle East didn't change much over time. Moshe Rabbeinu
is described by Chazal as doing the avodah during the Yemei haMiluim
wearing a chaluq and tallis, and Yemenites came to Israel wearing a
galabiyah and shamla. Both a chaluq and a galabiyah are straight things
with neck- and arm-holes and one for your feet, and both a tallis and
a shamla require tzitzis.

R' Yosef el-Qafeh ("Kapach") has a teshuvah about using a shamla
to carry things, explaining that even though it has tzitzis, since
the shamla (unlike our tallis) is not speficially for davening,
the beged itself lacks qedushah. (Or perhaps he writes it doesn't
get an issur for personal use, I only got this off a web site
<http://http://www.chayas.com/morifolder>, don't make Brisker diyuqim
in this.)

In any case, atifas Yishmaelim might be describing halachic atifah
simply because it hadn't changed since the mitzvah of atifas tzitzis
was nigzeres. (Double-check: Atifah is derabbanan, right?)

BTW, we had a discussion about the change in atifah style in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TALIT%20AND%20ATI
FA>
And atifah is on my list of things that the MB seems to conclude one
way (citing the Ari), but RMZaks reports the CC did the Litvisher
norm lemaaseh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In one of his comments Rabbi Grossman writes that he taught Maharal to
girls in his high school. I, too, am an admirer of the Maharal, and one
of the things I admire most about him is the way he manages to include
every detail of a ma'amar Hazal in his analysis of its implications.
In this case, however, Rabbi Grossman seems to have ignored many details
of the ma'amar Hazal at the center of his essay.

That ma'amar is the saying of R. Eliezer in the third perek of Sotah (as
emended by the Talmud there): "Kol hamelamed es bito Torah k'ilu lamdah
tiflus". Here are some examples of Rabbi Grossman's lack of precision:

1. Where the mishna uses the paradigms of father and daughter, Rabbi
Grossman uses the paradigms of man and woman.

2. Where the mishna uses Torah (meaning, the poskim assure us, Torah
she'b'al peh; cf. H. Talmud Torah 1:12 that Biblical commentaries are
included in the category of Torah she'b'al peh), Rabbi Grossman is
specifically concerned with Talmud.

3. Where the mishna cites tiflus as the reason for the prohibition,
Rabbi Grossman comes up with a novel explanation.

4. Where the mishna presents a mahlokes (Ben Azzai says "hayyav adam
l'lamed es bito Torah"), Rabbi Grossman implies that the archetypes he
articulates are undisputed.

I'm particularly troubled by the last point. Rabbi Goodman says that the
archetypes he describes are "rooted in reality". Yet I suspect that he
accepts that every machlokes is a dispute about legal classification,
not about reality. To me that implies that any metaphysical speculation
based on this mishna must be able to be harmonized with Ben Azzai's
opinion, yet Rabbi Grossman makes no attempt to do that.

David Riceman

R' Heshy Goodman claims that men are more suited for transcendant, abstract,
learning (like the floating yod), while women are more down to earth (the
firmly planted heh).

My experience with girls/women educated in the Israeli DL Torani system is
that they do not learn gemara, but learn lots of very abstract machshava -
Maharal, Rav Kook, Kuzari, Chassidus, etc. IMHO, gemara would have given
them a more clear, logical, feet-on-the-ground mode of thinking and
analyzing. All that machshava and no gemara too often translates into
floating fluff.

Yes, my own daughters are in that system, which has many wonderful aspects.
As RnSP has pointed out on Areivim, choosing educational institutions for
one's children always involves compromise.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101109/d8b60250/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 12:08:09PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> One of our guests this Shabbos mentioned that she buys bread made out of  
> flour ground from sprouted wheat.  She called the OU and they told her  
> that it had the bracha hamotzi because it's considered no different than  
> normal wheat flour.  How do they know that?

IIUC from <http://www.ou.org/pdf/tt/5766/698.pdf>, which was written by
someone in the OU who didn't know they had a maskanah, or the conclusion
wasn't reached yet...

Then the "Vebbe Rebbe" continues:

    The question is as follows.

    A wheat kernel, if planted, breaks down and is replaced by a stalk,
    formed by the grain and other nutrients from the ground. There are
    various opinions on how long it takes for grain to be considered
    rooted in the ground, as the beginning of a new entity. (See T'rumat
    HaDeshen 191 and Shaagat Aryeh, Chadashot 7, in regard to stalks that
    become permitted when the omer is brought, who rule three days and
    two weeks, respectively. See also, N'darim 5759, regarding t'ruma and
    other halachic entities that lose their status after being planted.)
    However, one can distinguish between being rooted in the ground and
    maintaining wheat's characteristics.

    At what point of the kernel's decomposition does it lose the status
    of wheat? Does it depend on its outer appearance or perhaps the taste
    of its product? Is the process uniform throughout the kernel or do
    certain sections change chemically more quickly? If it is not uniform,
    what is the halacha when part of the kernel is significantly altered,
    while other parts remain intact?

    There are four arguable approaches:

    1) The kernel remains wheat, and the bread made from it is regular
    bread (including regarding taking challah, which our local producer
    does);

    2) Although the kernel is wheat, its unique taste makes it deserve
    the b'racha of mezonot (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 168:7);

    3) It is not wheat, but the bread is a normal use of sprouted grains
    which warrants ha'adama (see Mishna Berura 208:33);

    4) It is like corn bread, upon which we make shehakol (Shulchan
    Aruch 208:8).

    The main choices seem to be #1 and #4; our present inclination is #4.

But he does explain #1. Not that I'm taking sides, but since you asked
about that shitah in particular, to buttress that position with points
made earlier in that Q&A piece:

One could invoke SA OC 208:9, that bread made from wheat flower and other
flour is halachic bread, as long as 1/6 or 1/8 of the flour is wheat.
Wheat sprouts used for baking include kernels that still look like
wheat. When ground up, more than 1/6 is still from the wheat kernel.

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

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 03:53:39PM -0500, Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
: At the same time time he wrote a letter to the original complainant
: and told him to deliver the letter and that if the rav did not listen
: and did not accept the cherem he should present the letter to the
: king's representative and tell him to fine him 1000 coins as the Rosh
: had the right to punish people under authority of the king. If that
: still didn't work, he was to report back to the Rosh and the Rav was
: to be treated as a zaken mamre, which seems to imply that there was a
: serious option of the Rosh actually sentencing him to death.

Would finding him chayav translate into the applicability of the onesh?
Doesn't a zaqein mamre need hasra'ah, a beis din hagadol meeting on har
habayis, etc... like other dinei nefashos?

-Micha

On 8/11/2010 6:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Would finding him chayav translate into the applicability of the onesh?
> Doesn't a zaqein mamre need hasra'ah, a beis din hagadol meeting on har
> habayis, etc... like other dinei nefashos?

The Rosh did have the authority to impose the death penalty, and seems
to have had no problem doing so.


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

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:30:12PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 6:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Would finding him chayav translate into the applicability of the onesh?
>> Doesn't a zaqein mamre need hasra'ah, a beis din hagadol meeting on har
>> habayis, etc... like other dinei nefashos?

> The Rosh did have the authority to impose the death penalty, and seems
> to have had no problem doing so.

Obviously not, for the reasons I gave.

Courts have the authority for uviarta hara'ah miqirbekha, but not the
dinei nefashos listed in halakhah. IOW, if a beis din in the 4 Aratzos
killed a murderer (including a malshin) without having a Sanhedrin in
the lishqas hagazis, it was based on the mitzvah benei Noach of having
batei din to create a safe society (or the Sinaitic equivalent).

In any case, that would mean that unless he thought lives were going
to be lost over the issue, declaring someone a zaqein mamrei does not
imply he intended a death sentence. Because that's the kind of dinei
nefashos that one doesn't do since their self-exile.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 8/11/2010 7:03 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Courts have the authority for uviarta hara'ah miqirbekha, but not the
> dinei nefashos listed in halakhah. IOW, if a beis din in the 4 Aratzos
> killed a murderer (including a malshin) without having a Sanhedrin in
> the lishqas hagazis, it was based on the mitzvah benei Noach of having
> batei din to create a safe society (or the Sinaitic equivalent).

The Rosh seems to have taken a broader view of the power given him by
the king.

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

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:01:52PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 7:03 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Courts have the authority for uviarta hara'ah miqirbekha, but not the
>> dinei nefashos listed in halakhah. IOW, if a beis din in the 4 Aratzos
>> killed a murderer (including a malshin) without having a Sanhedrin in
>> the lishqas hagazis, it was based on the mitzvah benei Noach of having
>> batei din to create a safe society (or the Sinaitic equivalent).

> The Rosh seems to have taken a broader view of the power given him by
> the king.

I'm missing something... I asserted that courts have two capacities that
justify execution:

1- The halachic requirement of dinei nefashos, and
2- The obligation of every society to protect its citizenry.

Now the king could affirm that general right for an autonomous Jewish
community to execute people. But how could the king distinguish between
the reasons for killing? And, how could he reverse the requirement for
the beis din hagadol to meet in the lishqas hagazis, a beis din of 23,
eidus, hasraah, etc... that is necessary for the accused to be chayav
misas beis din?

So, even if he found this rav guilty of being a zaqein mamrei, how could
the king change the fact that it doesn't cause a chiyuv misas beis din?

All of the above criteria aren't necessary when the beis din have to
kill someone to eliminate a threat...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:01:52PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
...
>> The Rosh seems to have taken a broader view of the power given him by
>> the king.

> I'm missing something... I asserted that courts have two capacities that
> justify execution:

> 1- The halachic requirement of dinei nefashos, and
> 2- The obligation of every society to protect its citizenry.
...
> Now the king could affirm that general right for an autonomous Jewish
> community to execute people. But ... how could he reverse the requirement for
> the beis din hagadol to meet in the lishqas hagazis, a beis din of 23,
> eidus, hasraah, etc... that is necessary for the accused to be chayav
> misas beis din?

> So, even if he found this rav guilty of being a zaqein mamrei, how could
> the king change the fact that it doesn't cause a chiyuv misas beis din?

It is not clear whether he would have actually killed him, but it seems
likely that he would have because he writes that if he ultimately doesn't
listen, yodunu oso bedin zaken mamre. The one who added footnotes writes
on those words that you should look at a previous series of teshuvas
where he discusses killing a moser to see his opinion regarding killing
people bizman hazeh.

It could be that he considered him dangerous enough to kill him even
nowadays because he was threatening the mesorah or because he was causing
other people to be nichshal in carrying on shabbos by not making an eruv
although it doesn't seem likely that they would have been over a deoraisa.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 193
***************************************

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..."