Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 71

Tue, 03 May 2011

• 1. Re: royal wedding (Zev Sero)
• 2. shattering of vessels...why not pleasing?? (Harvey Benton)
• 3. Re: Haftorah question (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets (Meir Rabi)
• 5. rabbis at royal wedding (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: our way of (roundabout) speaking (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 7. Whats the source for calling People for an Aliya to (LReich)
• 8. Re: D'zabin vs. Diz'van (Simon Montagu)
• 9. Bittul of non-K food (Meir Rabi)
• 10. what makes a minhag (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 11. Re: If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Micha Berger)

On 2/05/2011 2:41 PM, Hankman wrote:

> I don't question that Lord R. Sacks knew of a heter that was applicable.
> However, the tzushtel of Nechemiah is not that clear (though not
> impossible). 1) Lord R. Sacks did not have a Sanhedrin to provide him
> with a special heter, 2) The heter issued to Nechemiah was as you put it,
> "to drink goyishe wine," not for presence in a church during a religious
> service which may be different.

I cited Nechemiah as an extreme example.  Drinking their wine is a clear
issur, black on white, and one that we're very machmir with; if he could
get a heter even for that, we see how far one can go for the sake of
shtadlonus.  Entering a church, OTOH, and being a spectator at an AZ ritual,
are not AFAIK such clear issurim; I'm not sure where in SA it actually says
one may not do these things, though it's obvious that they're not generally
the way a yid should behave.

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

according to this site, the vessels of tohu (medrash) did not please Hashem, 
although they serve a purpose (e.g. in order to be destroyed)... if so, why were 
they created?
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380568/jewish
/Shattered-Vessels.htm


Thus Tohu was a primordial form of existence that "was created in order to be 
destroyed, and destroyed in order to be rebuilt" in a superior form(see Mevo 
L'Chachmat HaKabbala part 2, shaar 6, ch. 7). The order of creation that 
followed the disintegration of the world of Tohu is called the world 
ofTikun (literally translated as "rectification" or "restoration"). 
RegardingTikun, the Torah states, "And G-d looked over everything that He had 
made, and indeed it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). In the words of 
theMidrash (Bereishit Rabba 3:7; 9:2), as explained by the Arizal, "these please 
Me" refers to the sefirot of Tikun, whereas the sefirot of Tohu "do not please 
Me".....

The shattering of the sefirot of Tohu is not a coincidence, nor does it signify 
a flaw in the creative process. On the contrary, it serves a very specific and 
important purpose, which is to bring about a state of separation or partition of 
the light into distinct qualities and attributes, and thereby introduce 
diversity and multiplicity into creation, as explained above. In addition, the 
shattering of the vessels of Tohu allows for the possibility of evil, and gives 
man the opportunity to choose between good (for which he gains reward) and evil 
(for which he is punished). Thus G-d's attributes of chesed and gevura - the 
attributes from which reward and punishment derive - are revealed in the 
world9 , which is one of the primary purposes of creation. (See beginning 
of Otzrot Chaim)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110502/46bb10f5/attachment-0001.htm>

Do we ever read the haftorah of "hasishpot hasishpot es ir hadamim"?  Does anyone ever remember reading/hearing it?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
 R H Schachter discusses it here -  http://download.yutorah.org/2011/1025/760398/Parsha%20S
 hiur%20-%20Kedoshim%205771.MP3
It depends on minhag hamakom, he quotes R'YBS as saying in his hometown in Europe they never said it.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110502/fe5f5df1/attachment-0001.htm>

R Danny said: If they understood what they were saying when they said Kol
Chamiro
they would not be transgressing any Torah prohibition.
However, the Kitzur SA in 114:1 clearly says that even if you said Kol
Chamiro, if *your* Chometz was on *your* property during Pessach it
may no longer be used by anybody, ever after.

In response it may be said that - Chazal do not require a state of Chamets,
they require a state of mind, which in this case has been accomplished. The
question becomes Do we actually require a sale at all, it should suffice
that the owners of the Chamets believe that there was a sale.
The Torah requires that we make Bittul. However by Torah requirements, the
home may remain with Chamets, not only in sealed cabinets but even in the
pantry and wherever it is usually kept.
Chazal suspecting that a) we may inadvertently eat some of that Chamets and
b) may not really mean to make Bittul, required us to make Bedika and BiUr.
So of course merely SAYING Kol Chamira does not help, since that may satisfy
the Torah duty but does not satisfy the demands of Chazal.
In our case though there can be no Safek that the master of the Chamets has
indeed truly divested the Chamets and truly believes that there is no
Chamets which does not satisfy the requirements of Chazal.
In other words Chazal do not require a state of Chamets, they require a
state of mind, which in this case has been accomplished.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110503/d2c45ef5/attachment-0001.htm>

<<"Does anyone know if Lord Rabbi
Jacobovits attended the last big royal wedding in the 1980s?


Yes, and CR Lord Jakobovitz had been in church more than once and so has CR
Lord Sacks.>>

I note that we have received contradictory testimony wherher R. Jakobovitz
was at the
previous wedding or even invited.

Reminds of a recent conversation that I had on whether the testimony of
witnesses
is reliable. According to halacha that is the highest form of evidence.
However,
scientific experiments have shown that various people witnessing the
identical
event will report very different stories of what happened.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110503/f9cb8118/attachment-0001.htm>

Personally, I see the Be"H is often used as an alternate form of "Bli neder
when it terminates a sentence. I have, over time, learned to let it
pass...usually, although it still bugs me that, in that form, because it is
actually a way to avoid a commitment. 

A recent interaction with my dry cleaner (when I was not in the mood to let
it pass, but gave up):


Me: I really need this suit for Shabbat HaGagol. Will it be ready in 7 days
from now?
Him: [nodding] B'ezrat Hashem.
Me: No. I'm serious. I REALLY need this suit next week. Can I count on you?
Him: Certainly. [nodding] B'ezrat HaShem.
Me: Can you ask HIM for a commitment, or do I go to Migdal Oz?
Him: No, no! It will be here before next Friday for sure....bli neder.
[insert my internal scream here]

And yes, I did leave the suit with him, and yes, it was ready.

Baruch Hashem (the unseen Partner in our local dry cleaner)

Eliyahu Grossman
Efrat, Israel

----------------------[SNP]---------------------
RM: 

I would translate "im yitzeh H'" to "I want it to happen, and hope He does
to." However, "be'ezras Hashem" is a statement of intent -- "I am going to
try to do it, and I hope He allows me to succeed." There is a slight
difference between realizing the difference between hope and bitachon and
realiting the difference between hishtadlus and success.

E.g. Be"H we're going to the doctor tomorrow, iy"H they'll find a medicine
for him then.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:05:00 +1000
From: Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com>
To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org


"Whats the source for calling People for an Aliya to the T by their name ben
father's name
What is the earliest source and why do we do it?
I believe it is not a universal custom, in some places they just say YaAmod
and point"


From: Elozor Reich

Futher to to the discusion on this topic, I reproduce  below an extract from 
a letter I wrote
home (Manchester) in March 1954 from Chevron Yeshiva. The collection of my 
letters home from
that period are due to be published soon in book form by a Lakewood 
publisher.


"On Shabbos we had in the Yeshiva the aufruf of {R'] Moshe [Sternbuch]. 
Amongst the many visitors for the occasion was R' Yisroel Weltz Shlita, a 
well known Posek [and a sort of halachic patron of R'Moshe] who was ABD of 
Budapest pre-War. Amongst the many curious minhogim in Chevron (mostly from 
the legacy of the Alter of Slabodka) is one that a summons to an Aliyah does 
not include a patronym, i.e. the Gabbai just says " Yaamoid Hachoson (a 
universal title) Avrohom.) If there is more that one Avrohom, he signals the 
one he has chosen. So when Rav Weltz got Shishi, all the Gabbai said was 
"Yaamod Harav Yisroel". Rav Weltz was rather unhappy with this and shouted 
out, "Vus bin ich, A Shtuki?" [ Am I a foundling?] "



Elozor Reich

For more justification of "D'zabin", see
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13078&;st=&pgnum=101
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110503/acfd5bfa/attachment-0001.htm>

HaRav Sh Z Auerbach Paskens that Chamets that is not Battel during Pesach
(even in parts per thousand) IS in fact Battel when it is so dilute that it
can not be discerned by human tasting.
Does this not point towards a most remarkable observation - that if a non-K
food flavour is transferred to a Kosher food, if it is not at all
discernible by human tasting, then the food ought to be Kosher.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110504/7f26f7e2/attachment-0001.htm>

the argument has long  been made  in certain circles  that   standing at 
silent attention is not  a jewish minhag.   i wonder at what point  a 
minhag becomes a  'jewish'minhag, since  it is now  a minhag of 
approximately 4 million jews  on 2 specific days in a specific country for 
 a half  century ,and presumably will be the minhag  there ad biat hagoel.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110503/7d065d22/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:19:08AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: What makes you say that they are divested from their Chamets? It seems
: to me that they *planned* to divest themselves of it, but never followed
: through on it...

Bitul can be beleiv. Meaning, simplying thinking they don't have any
chameitz MIGHT actually qualify as following through.

RAM's argument reminded me of RMF's heter in the IM for not treating the
children of 2nd marriages of non-observant couples as mamzeirim. Usually,
ein adam oseh be'ilaso be'ilas zenus, so we can assume that there was
qiddushin bebi'ah. Causing problems since any 2nd marriage without a
formal get would produce mamzeirim. However, RMF argues, since they
thought they were already married through a ceremony, at no point would
they have thought to have bi'ah lesheim qiddushin -- they thought it
was done already.

Same too here: if they thought they sold it, would they ever have a
machashavah of bitul?

Or, IOW, even if machshavah alone is enough, does it have to be
machashavah actively, that I am now being mevateil, or is passive "it's
not mine" enough.

The Ran (beg of Pesachim) explains the gemara's reason for why we actually
bother to divest ourselves of chametz rather than rely on bitul as being
because the person might see and want the chameitz, and that desire alone
would undo the bitul. (Or the gemara could be understood as worrying
about the person who sees it, wants it, and caves to temptation. But
that's not the Ran's take.)

And why is daas alone sufficient? Because there is no baalus if there
is an issur hanaah. Chametz is (as the gemara says) a special case. And
from this faux baalus caused by bal yeira'eh bal yimatzei, one doesn't
need a gemar melakhah; thought alone is enough.

But the whole "chazar veni'ur"-like line of reasoning for why we don't
rely only on bitul MAY imply that machashavah that it isn't mine (or
that it is ke'afar) is enough, even without ever thinking that one is
performing bitul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?

Well, we battered this topic around Pesach through July 2007, then
again in Jan 2008. And a similar discussion in may 2004. And despite my
collecting an array of sources
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/compassion-for-our-enemies.shtml>
I didn't succeed in convincing those who entered the discussions
with the notion that feeling pained by the death of one's enemies
is liberal non-O "drivel". See the threads that begin "binfol"
at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=B#BINFOL%20OYIVCHA
>.

My conclusion as to how to resolve "binfol oyivkha" and "vesheim
resha'im yirqav" is to simply take them both literally. To repeat
what I wrote July 2007:
    It would seem that from the medrash, through Shibolei haLeqet, the
    Beis Yoseif, the Taz, the Kaf haChaim and in modern times to R' Aharon
    Kotler, RSZA and a yeish omeir of R' Elyashiv, the message is to
    rejoice in one's yeshu'ah even while feeling pain over the human cost
    necessary to bring it about. Simply -- feel both, even though they
    conflict.
Man is capable of ambivalence. There is no reason to believe that
pesuqim pose a paradox just because they prescribe conflicting
emotions.

Well, presumably in connection to current events (archive readers:
this was posted shortly after bin Laden y"sh's death) R' Shmuel Herzfeld
posted the following translation of the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16,
"hineih") on Kol haRav blog
http://kolharav.blogspot.com/2011/05/r-meir-simcha-of-dvinsk-o
n-celebrating.html

    When Passover was observed in Egypt [during the year of the Exodus]
    the prohibition of eating chametz was only for one day, and so too
    the full festival was not practiced.

    And in my opinion, the reason why nevertheless he now taught them
    something that would pertain to future generations was in order to
    teach them the wholesomeness of God's commandments, for other nation,
    with their sophisticated religions, turn the day of victory, the
    day of their enemy's downfall, into a holiday, a victory celebration.

    Not so in Israel. They do not rejoice at the downfall of their
    enemies. They do not joyously celebrate this, as it states (Proverbs
    24:17-18), "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls... lest God see and
    it will be bad in His eyes and He will turn His wrath upon him." Thus,
    a refined person should not rejoice in the downfall of his enemy,
    for such joy is bad in the eyes of God. And that which is bad in the
    eyes of Gd needs to be hated! Thus, with respect to Passover it does
    not state, "The Festival of Matzot, on account of God bringing Egypt
    to justice," but rather, "on account of God leading the Israelites
    out of Egypt."

    But regarding the downfall of enemies there is no festival and
    holiday for Israel.

    Thus regarding the holiday of Chanukah, the day instructs us
    only about the lighting of the olive oil and the dedication and
    purification of the Temple, and the Divine Providence of God over His
    people at a time when there was no prophet or seer in Israel. Thus,
    we light the candles to commemorate a little-known matter -- the
    lighting of the flames for 8 days in the Temple -- for the leaders
    and officers of the army were the great Kohanim, the Hasmoneans,
    and God was concerned lest people might say, "I did this through my
    own strength and power" and military strategy. Therefore, God showed
    His Providence in the Temple, which was known only to the Kohanim,
    so that they would understand that the hand of God did this, and
    that they were saved by a miraculous manner.

    So too, with respect to the holiday of Purim: they did not make a
    festival on the day that Haman died or on the day that they killed
    their enemies, as this not a cause for rejoicing among His people
    Israel. Instead, the holiday is only "on the days that they rested
    from their enemies" (Esther 9:22). It is as though, they needed to
    rest, and there were snakes on the path and the snakes were killed,
    is it appropriate to rejoice on the day that the snakes were
    killed? Their joy was from their relief.

    Thus, "Mordechai wrote...the days on which the Jews rested." For
    the rejoicing is only on account of their relief and not on the day
    that the enemies were killed. {Meshekh Chokhmah proceeds to prove
    this point at greater length}

    And indeed, in Egypt they drowned in the sea on the seventh day of
    Passover. If God would say that they should make the seventh day a
    festival, then it would seem to some that God was commanding them
    to make a festival on the day of the downfall of their enemies. And
    indeed, we know that the angels did not sing that day as it states,
    "and they did not come near each other" -- for God does not rejoice
    in the downfall of the wicked.

    Thus already in Egypt the Israelites were taught to make the seventh
    day into a festival: in order to demonstrate that the festival of
    the seventh day does not derive from the drowning of the Egyptians in
    the sea, as they were commanded about it before the Egyptians drowned!

    So too the Midrash teaches that for this reason the word "Simcha"
    (rejoicing) is not written with respect to the holiday of Passover
    and Hallel is not recited for the entire holiday, since "Do not
    rejoice when your enemy falls."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?

On 3/05/2011 5:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Well, presumably in connection to current events (archive readers:
> this was posted shortly after bin Laden y"sh's death) R' Shmuel Herzfeld
> posted the following translation of the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16,
> "hineih") on Kol haRav blog
> http://kolharav.blogspot.com/2011/05/r-meir-simcha-o
> f-dvinsk-on-celebrating.html

And against this we have an explicit gemara that attributes this view
to Haman Harasha, in a machlokes with Mordechai Hayehudi.  The same
gemara also explicitly says "hu eino sas aval acheirim meisis".  That's
a tough burden to overcome.

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

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 05:30:00PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> And against this we have an explicit gemara that attributes this view
> to Haman Harasha, in a machlokes with Mordechai Hayehudi.  The same
> gemara also explicitly says "hu eino sas aval acheirim meisis".  That's
> a tough burden to overcome.

That's what Lisa Liel wrote at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n027.shtml#04>
in the thread <http://bit.ly/iiWJRC> (shrunk from
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getind
ex.cgi?section=S#SPILLING%20OUT%20DROPS%20OF%20WINE%20AT%20THE%20SEDER&
gt;).

And, for that matter, I see RJFarkas paraphrases the Meshekh Chokhmah
in reply. Then he adds:
> The Yad L'Hakhmah [notes printed on the MH in the MH Hashaleim] quotes
> the Divrei Sha'ul [RYS Natanzon ZT"L] who asks on the Meshekh Hakhmah and
> on the aforementioned Yalqut from the Gemara in Megilah where Mordechai
> told Haman that Binfol Oyivkha was only for Yisrael, and replies that
> perhaps there is a difference between a Yisrael and a non-Yisrael, when
> it is an individual. Should it be a group, Binfol Oyivkha al Tismakh
> would still apply [this Teirutz is the Yad L'Hakhmah's -jf] .

And in another post he cites the Manos haLeivi (Esther 9:20, "vayikhtoc
Mordochai; 16th cent):
> He answers that we would not establish a Yom Tov on such a day, because
> ein HQBH Same'akh beMapalasan shel r'sha'im. And since he is not happy
> with their downfall, we too do not rejoice in this downfall. Rather we
> rejoice in our deliverance and on nothing else.

So, Bin Laden being neither Yisrael nor a group of nachriim, would
apparently not be within the Yad leChakhmah's parameters.

But my own bottom line is more abstract. Yes there is a problem, but the
Beis Yoseif, the Netziv, the Or Samayach, and everyone else mentioned
in support of the notion in previous threads saw that gemara. There are
various stabs at explaining how, but in any case there is obviously there
is more going on than it seems. One can't simply ignore the weight of
that many voices by understanding the gemara the way it seems from a
naive reading.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 71
**************************************

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..."