Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 54

Thu, 07 Apr 2011

• 1. Re: The Singular Way Of Saying Kaddish - How To Make Kaddish More Meaningful, Powerful, Effective, And Historically Correct (Ben Waxman)
• 2. The Singular Way Of Saying Kaddish (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 3. Re: Maharsha - There Is No Point For Some People Come To Eretz Yisroel For Yom Tov (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: Birkat HaIlanot (Gershon Dubin)
• 5. Re: Birkat HaIlanot (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 6. Re: Birkat HaIlanot (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. Re: How do Chazal calculate a king's reign? (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Women and Tallis (Daniel M. Israel)
• 9. Re: Women and Tallis (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: TIDE, Rabbeinu Tam style (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: colors in the gemara (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Women and Tallis (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Women and Tallis (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Women and Tallis (Allan Engel)
• 15. Re: Women and Tallis (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Women and Tallis (Liron Kopinsky)
• 17. Re: TIDE, Rabbeinu Tam style (Akiva Blum)
• 18. Re: Birkat HaIlanot (Simon Montagu)

I know of a few shuls that only allow one person to say kaddish. In the Holy 
Land we have an additional problem with people saying different versions at 
the same time.

The minhag for hundreds of years has been for anyone to say kaddish, so I 
don't if you can say that the "correct way" is for one person only to say 
it.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
> http://tinyurl.com/4yceq9x
>
> deals with this issue and calls for a return to having just one person say 
> kaddish at a time.  Personally, I am all for this.  YL

if  reverting to this  system , where will that  leave  the  small shul 
with multiple  kaddish sayers?    they   may not mind  not  getting  the 
amud  for each tfila  , but taking the kaddish from them  as well  wont go 
over well......


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110406/1c01b0f1/attachment-0001.htm>

Reb Weinstock was saying that the Torah could have simply said that on Yom 
Tov, people should stay home and take care of their local needy. Yet the 
Torah "went out of its way" to tell us that we are to go to a certain place. 
Therefore aliya leregel has to be something more than helping poor people.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>


> At 11:31 AM 4/6/2011, Dov Weinstock wrote:
>>There seems to be a problem with this line of reasoning - why not
>>just have a mitzva to share with your local poor/ger/levi? There
>>does seem to be some importance attached to a central place and
>>maintaining a connection to it (in addition to the primary
>>importance of sharing). Dov Weinstock
>
> I must say that I do not understand what you are saying.
> 

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" toram...@bezeqint.net
> So, I did some research (using the internet) and apparently it is
> true. All the trees of shiv'at HaMinim: olive, date, pomegranate, grape,
> figs, they all blossom in Nissan. So, if anyone can send me a picture
> of one of these trees in flower, I would greatly appreciate it.

Two can play the Internet research game:
    Fig Blossoms
    
    Fig trees do not bloom like other fruit trees that have highly visible
    blossoms. While fig trees do produce flowers, they are very small,
    and enclosed in a structure called the synconium. The synconium is
    green and resembles a small fig in shape.

    Read more: When a Fig Tree Does Not Blossom | eHow.com
    http://www.ehow.com/facts_7283746_fig-tree-not-blossom.html#i
    xzz1IlhlsoYw
    
That is apparently contradicted by Chavakuk 3:17

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.du...@juno.com] 
>> Fig Blossoms
>> *      Fig trees do not bloom like other fruit trees that have highly
>> visible blossoms. While fig trees do produce flowers, they are very small,
>> and enclosed in a structure called the synconium. The synconium is green and
>> resembles a small fig in shape.
...
> That is apparently contradicted by Chavakuk 3:17

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

For a picture of the fig "blossoms": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_fig
(halfway down the page).

These "blossoms" appear mostly in the Nissan (though they may appear shortly
before and/or afterwards).

The research I did was to check blossoming dates in Israel for the various
trees.  For the Shiv'at HaMinim the highest concentration of blossoming is
around Nissan.

The pasuk in Chavakuk talks of a time when 7 haminim do not blossom - they
do not have fruits.

Shoshana

Simply put: while every fruit must be preceded by a blossom, fig blossoms
are particularly well hidden, to the point that I (city boy that I am
with very limited fig-exposure) I thought they had none. The pasuk, as I
tried to say, indicates that in other times besides that being described,
figs do have blossoms.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

RDIsrael wrote:
> But if I understood correctly, the original question was based
> on understanding the chronology as presented in Nach.  So
> it should be counted according to our custom for how to
> count their kings, which as per RH 1:1 is from Tishrei,
> regardless of what they did themselves. OTOH, I'm puzzled
> by RMB's comment, because as you say, both Bavli and
> Persian kings are non-Jewish kings.

Not necessarily. The dates in Tanakh could be according to how the
respective surrounding cultures were proclaiming the years of their
kings.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy
* Homosexuals, Tolerance, the Apple App Store, and Freedom of Speech
* What?s More Meaningful Is More Easily Remembered
* A Christian Theologian Living in a ?Yeshivishe? Community
* Bilinguals See the World in Greater Depth
* Video: Why is Birkat HaMazon So, So Long?

Quoting Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>:
> The Mordechai says you're not yotzei the mitzvah at all with a tallis
> qatan.

Which would seem to me to imply that if you are choshesh for the  
Mordechai's position you shouldn't wear a talis katan outside on  
Shabbos where there is no eruv.  I've never heard anyone suggest that  
chumra, although I was once advised to be machmir in the minimum shiur  
to avoid the issue of hotza'ah.

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

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 01:46:04PM -0700, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> Quoting Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>:
>> The Mordechai says you're not yotzei the mitzvah at all with a tallis
>> qatan.

> Which would seem to me to imply that if you are choshesh for the  
> Mordechai's position you shouldn't wear a talis katan outside on Shabbos 
> where there is no eruv...

Actually...

R' Shternbuch testified that the Brisker Rav didn't wear a tallis qatan
in reshus harabim for this reason. (I do not have a mar'eh maqom, perhaps
RDE could assist.)

R' Steve Katz testified (Jan 2000
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n265.shtml#12>) that R'
Aharon Soloveitchik did not wear tzitzis of any sort outside on Shabbos.

See the thread at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ge
tindex.cgi?section=W#WEARING%20A%20TALLIS%20GADOL%20IN%20PUBLIC%20ON%20SHAB
BOS>
or <http://bit.ly/i8Lpwp>.

RHM attributed it to tekheiles being me'aqev, and thus the tassles are
hotza'ah. But I didn't think that was correct, because it's befeirush a
mishnah that tekheiles einah me'aqeves es halavan, and the Rambam pasqens
accordingly. OTOH, it wasn't limited to tallis qatan, so I don't know
what the Brisker inyan is.

So for all I know, RAS and RYBS would have been chosheish for the
Mordechai too, as their uncle did, even without the techeiles issue.


As I asked then, and didn't get an answer that satisfied me...

Why is there a connection between being yotzei the mitzvah and whether
one is wearing the tzitzis? Say I was wearing them because of a /minhag/
to wear them on 4 cornered garments. Or just stam for looks. The extra
buttons on your sleeve are beteilim to the beged without any mitzvah
obliging you to wear them. Why not here too?

> although I was once advised to be machmir in the minimum shiur to avoid 
> the issue of hotza'ah.

R' Yaakov Kamenecki suggested that we call a tallis qatan what we do
not because it is a tallis qetanah -- the gender is wong. Rather, he
suggests the translation "tallis of a qatan". As in the minimum shiur,
Menachos 40b.

Historically speaking, it looks like the idiom started after Ashkenazim
started calling what chazal and earlier rishonim call "tallisos"
or "tallios" by the idiom "taleisim". So I'm not sure it actually is
intended to be good grammar...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:22:14AM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
:> The HM quotes Rabbeinu Tam that "X im Y" means "with Y, the iqar, there
:> is also X". E.g. "Yechlequ yoreshei habaal im yoreshei ha'av", and
:> many other examples....
...
:> Rabbeinu Elchanan (who I believe is another baal Tosefos) says the
:> more obvious -- that Torah is the iqar, and relates it to "harishonim
:> asu Torasam qeva umelakhtam arai."

: I see Rabeinu Tam not as saying that DE is the ikar of chaim, rather, the
: ikar of the sentence...

But that doesn't fit the examples, nor R' Elchanan's objection.

If we do mean DE in the sense of DE qodmah laTorah, I actually think it
is the iqar. As per the Ramchal and the Gra, who explicitly say that
the point of shemiras hamitzvos is sheviras hamidos hara'os. (And it
appears to be implied by the Chinukh's "ha'adam nif'al lefi pe'ulaso.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 09:41:42PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: Since the asiya is only mentioned in conjunction with placing the
: g'dilim in the beged, where is there a chashash of "lo min he'asuy"
: on the making of the g'dilim themselves? ...

My understanding is that they are afraid it's not a pesil tekheiles
unless it was made in the order of melakhos given in pereq Cheileq
-- and thus presumably how tekheiles was made for the mishkan.

IOW, they must be gedilim made of pesilos made of tekheiles, and
thus the wool must already be dyed as right after nefitzah.

They have other chumeros, such as raising sheep with an alyah (a flap
of fat hanging down behind the back legs), rather than a modern breed
with hardier wool, so as to satisfy every cheshash that it's tzemer.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 08:47:55PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
: > We do many things that come from sources outside the mitzvah.
: > "Hinei Keil yeshuasi" before Havdalah, for example.
: 
: If one simply mumbles the words, then your point is valid...

You are adressing details about my examples that aren't my primary
point.

:> Qabbalas Shabbos. Etc, etc, etc...

: Ditto

Saying a collection of pesuqim before Havdalah is nice, but it's ritual,
not halakhah. Similarly a standard set of peraqim of Tehillim and a
piyut. Or a kumtzitz.

Is a kumzitz any better of a thing to wax nostalgic about than RYBS's
example of a white tablecloth for Shabbos? If the latter is a ritual,
a trapping, why not the former?

Skipping back:
:> Why is this woman wanting to do something that makes her feel
:> connected to the Borei valueless just because it is non-halachic?

: I'd put the emphasis elsewhere. I agree that merely being non-halachic
: is not a good enough reason to declare something valueless. However,
: the one who calls it "valuable" must be able to show where the value
: is located.

And the kumzitz is about the same hunting game as this woman's
mitzvah-less special beged.

: > aveilus during the 3 weeks and 9 days because of his position that
: > all minhagim are stamped with the matbei'os of halakhah, and thus
: > the aveilus of this period must parallel to the kinds of mourning
: > of the mitzvah derabbanan of aveilus.

: A new variant? Or merely an alternate explanation of existing
: minhagim? Please, teach me more!

No, a new variant, he had to declare parts of common practice in error
in order to fit it.

Most people do not permit someone getting a haircut during the 3 weeks
when it gets bad enough for friends to comment. And yet RYBS does because
of a parallel to aveilus after sheloshim.

The 9 days are like sheloshim? So where is the minhag not to eat meat
coming from?


(Side question: Didn't RYBS say that the reason why a child has 11
months but a parent who r"l loses a chlid does not is kibud av va'eim,
not compelled by aveilus itself? If so, what's the parallel to the
three weeks?)

: And when I finally got near the Leadership side of YU's Torah Leadership
: Seminar, one of the first things I did was to print a songbook with
: translations of the songs we sang at our kumzitzin, because I do agree
: that it is difficult (though not impossible) to find value therein if
: one does not understand what he is singing.

Agreed. But that value is not halachic.

Recall my recent quoting R' Chaim Brown's translation of RYBS. It took
him a while to understand the point of nevi'im if they aren't re'uyim
lechadeish devar halakhah. Nu, RYBS concludes like the rest of us would --
to reinforce values and teach aggadita; but only someone raise in Beis
Brisk would actually have ever had the question.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:37:17PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote:
:> Nevu'ah is for mussar, it's for deveiqus -- it can
:> have value without contributing to the din.

: Deveikus for the Rav is keeping Halacha

And yet he lamented the loss of the "erev Shabbos Jew".

RYBS grew up in a world where values were imparted preconsciously,
culturally. R' Chaim spent most of his life doing chesed, but you
wouldn't know this from his recorded Torah. It doesn't read like R'
Yisrael Salanter.

And so, while he made conscious effort to draw from personal experience
and relay that to his talmidim, I think the lack of conscious discourse
on values shows up in RYBS's writings.

A Litvish erev Shabbos Jew felt the rising anticipation of Shabbos
because of his sevivah, everyone else was, it was part of the culture
of his youth, etc... Today, we won't have erev Shabbos Jews without the
adoption of conscious methods to inculcate those values. Whether we're
talking Mussar, Chassidus, Chavaqu"q-esque modern chulents, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> RHM attributed it to tekheiles being me'aqev, and thus the tassles are
> hotza'ah. But I didn't think that was correct, because it's befeirush a
> mishnah that tekheiles einah me'aqeves es halavan, and the Rambam pasqens
> accordingly. OTOH, it wasn't limited to tallis qatan, so I don't know
> what the Brisker inyan is.

IIRC the Brisker view is to be chosheish for the Ba'al Hamaor who holds that
techeiles is me'aqev.

On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:08:26AM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
: IIRC the Brisker view is to be chosheish for the Ba'al Hamaor who holds that
: techeiles is me'aqev.

This doesn't really put my perplexity to rest any. We have no less need
to explain how the Baal Hamor could disagree with a mishnah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

>RHM attributed it to tekheiles being me'aqev, and thus the tassles are
hotza'ah. But I didn't think that was correct, because it's befeirush a
mishnah that tekheiles einah me'aqeves es halavan, and the Rambam pasqens
accordingly. OTOH, it wasn't limited to tallis qatan, so I don't know
what the Brisker inyan is.<

I have heard (third hand) that Rabbi Sauer in Los Angeles wears techeiles
only on Shabbos because he doesn't hold be the Eruv here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110406/f91371dc/attachment-0001.htm>

> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Micha Berger
> Sent: Thursday 07 April 2011 3:50 AM
> To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:22:14AM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
> :> The HM quotes Rabbeinu Tam that "X im Y" means "with Y, 
> the iqar, there
> :> is also X". E.g. "Yechlequ yoreshei habaal im yoreshei ha'av", and
> :> many other examples....
> ...
> :> Rabbeinu Elchanan (who I believe is another baal Tosefos) says the
> :> more obvious -- that Torah is the iqar, and relates it to 
> "harishonim
> :> asu Torasam qeva umelakhtam arai."
> 
> : I see Rabeinu Tam not as saying that DE is the ikar of 
> chaim, rather, the
> : ikar of the sentence...
> 
> But that doesn't fit the examples,

I thought it fits the examples much better.

The gemora is not telling us that yorshei habaal or yorshei ha'av are more
important. It is telling us a chidush that yorshei ha'av we already know,
have to divide with yorshei habaal.
The gemora is not telling us that YK or tshuva are more important. It is
telling us a chidush that tshuva from before YK needs YK with it.
Etc.




> nor R' Elchanan's objection.
> 

Clearly Rabeinu Elchonon didn't understand that way. But if you look in
Kovetz Maamorim, you'll see R' Elchonon Wasserman resolves the machlokes as
you wanted to, that they are referring to different types of DE, one is
work, the other is middos. So even though Rabeinu Elchonon saw a machlokes,
we can understand RT as to resolve the machlokes. As I have done.

Akiva

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>wrote:

>    Fig trees do not bloom like other fruit trees that have highly visible
>    blossoms. While fig trees do produce flowers, they are very small,
>    and enclosed in a structure called the synconium. The synconium is
>    green and resembles a small fig in shape.
>

AIUI these are the "paggim" referred to in Shir HaShirim 2:13
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3002.htm#13

   Read more: When a Fig Tree Does Not Blossom | eHow.com
>
> http://www.ehow.com/facts_7283746_fig-tree-not-blossom.html
> #ixzz1IlhlsoYw
>
> That is apparently contradicted by Chavakuk 3:17
>
>
It's only a contradiction if you assume that the Hebrew "parahh" and
"perahh" are exact synonyms of the English verb and noun "blossom", but they
seem to have a wider application.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110406/ada58b9b/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 54
**************************************

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..."