Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 112

Sat, 25 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Wearing Red Clothing (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Minhag Yisrael (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Minhag Yisrael (Micha Berger)
• 6. Taking Midrashim Literally (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Baruch She'amar (Zev Sero)
• 8. Defining someone as frum (Michael Feldstein)
• 9. Baruch She'amar (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Baruch She'amar (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Baruch She'amar (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Joel C. Salomon)
• 13. Re: Minhag Yisrael (Zev Sero)
• 14. alenu (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Re: What should you wear for davening? (Joel C. Salomon)
• 16. Re: What should you wear for davening? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 17. Ehrlechkeit, not Frumkeit (Prof. Levine)
• 18. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Zev Sero)

On 24/06/2011 8:56 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> The color red is not permitted to be worn by a woman since it is a
> sign of /pritzos. 36/
>
> 36. Rama YD. 178:1,  Shach 3,

The Ramo says nothing about women.  Nor does he say this *is* forbidden;
he gives it as an example of something that *would* be forbidden *if* the
local goyim happen to have a custom to wear red for the sake of pritzus.
Nor does the Shach say anything about women, or that such a custom (and
therefore such a prohibition) actually exists; he just explains why such
a custom *might* exist in some hypothetical place.  But then he cites the
Maharik that our people have a tradition not to wear red; again no
distinction between men and women.

> Chochmas Adorn 89:1

He doesn't even mention red!  This is essentially a recap and expansion
of the Ramo above, but *without* the hypothetical example of red clothes;
what the compiler of this footnote thought he saw here I don't know.


> Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 3:2

Again, no mention of a distinction between men and women, nor *any*
mention of a prohibition on red.  All he gives is the example from
the gemara about a hypothetical situation in which goyim wear red
shoelaces and Jews wear black ones.


> Be'er Moshe 4:147:13, Halichos Bas Yisroel 7:3. See Be'er Moshe 4: 140.

I haven't checked these.



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

On 24/06/2011 10:28 AM, Saul Guberman wrote:
> I am not sure how this footnote explanation is any more of a stretch than a piece of paper falling from heaven.

We start with the tradition that there was a piece of paper.  That's not
a stretch, that's what the Or Zarua says.  Then the Keter Shemtov comes
along with an explanation about how it doesn't really mean what it says,
and they really made a goral, but then they made up a story about a piece
of paper falling from heaven because they were so confident in the goral
that it was "as if" that had happened.  Come on, how is that *not* a
stretch, compared to taking the Or Zarua at his word?  What exactly is
difficult about believing that the Anshei Knesses Hagdolah saw a piece
of paper fall from heaven?  Again I come back to the basic question: are
we Jews or Protestants?  Do we believe that there is a Higher World and
there are miracles or not?  What kind of Jew believes such things to be
impossible?

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

On 24/06/2011 10:41 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:31:39AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> How?  How does such a tortuous "explanation" make *more* sense than the
>> plain meaning, that the Taz clearly understood it to mean?  Why would
>> any maamin have a problem with the plain meaning of this story?  If the
>> Taz had no problem with it, why should you?
>
> The Taz mentions the story?

Yes, he does.  Taz OC 51:1.  It's right there.


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

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:40:24PM -0500, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
: This time, you get the cognitive dissonance, as your original Ashkenazi
: minhag has been ignored in the drive to call something "minhag Yisrael".

I think this reverses cart and horse.

The first step is that a norm congeals in our new combined communities.
We then fail to see the alternatives, since no one we know (even among
those whose ancestors came from other places than ours) does otherwise.
THEN we call it "minhag Yisrael". Which does accelerate the process of
new minhag formation.

But my pony in this race is the idea that we are supposed to be seeing
knew minhagei hamaqom emerging for these new remixes of population in
our new meqomos.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 08:57:22AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Anyone know of a universally held minhag?

4 of the 5 megillos. The parashah schedule we use and Simchas Torah.
Reading the kesuvah to break between eirusin and nissuin.

I also thought of two that are so old and so widely accepted, I don't
know if they formally became derabbanan: maariv/arvis and shiv'ah
neqi'im.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

At 10:15 AM 6/24/2011, Richard Wolberg wrote:
>> ...certainly one who refuses ever to believe the literal meaning 
>> of a medrash is a kofer in the whole torah.

>     Upon what source do you base this statement?

>Certainly you are aware there are rationalist meforshim who 
>interpret the incident of Bilaam's talking donkey
>in a NON-LITERAL manner. Rambam sees it occurring in a dream. The 
>Ramchal suggests that the donkey
>brayed plaintively and Bilaam intuited what it was trying to convey. 
>And this is not a medrah; this is from the
>Torah. Are they also kofrim? In addition, the Midrash lists Bilaam's 
>donkey as one of the 10 miracles created
>by God in the last hours of Creation. So does that make Rambam a 
>kofer because he didn't take it literally?

Whenever I hear someone called a kofer I recall that the followers of
Shabbatai Tzvi were called Maaminim and those opposed to him Kofrim.
 From this I deduce that there are times when it is not bad to be a
kofer! >:-}



At 10:46 AM 6/24/2011, R. Zev Sero wrote:
>The bottom line is that Judaism is not Protestantism.

Of course it is not!  As I have pointed out from the writings of RSRH 
more than once, Judaism is not a religion whereas Protestantism is a 
religion.  How could anyone make any analogies between religion and 
Judaism?

YL

On 24/06/2011 10:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The bit about the pasqa nafal meirqia' dates back to the siddur of R'
> Yaaqov Emden.

The Or Zarua is older than that



On 24/06/2011 10:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But in any case, I still fail to see the relevence to our initial topic.
> We're discussing the idea of using a heavenly source to pasqen.

No, we're discussing the idea of instituting and changing minhagim based
on information that comes from Above, whether through nevuah, ruach
hakodesh, dreams, giluy Eliyahu, or papers falling from heaven.  And
these examples and more clearly show that this is legitimate.

Here are a few more examples:

* Kaddish yasom based on a dead person's message to R Akiva.

* Being careful not to speak during Vayechulu and the Bracha Me'ein Sheva,
  based on a message a dead person gave to someone in a dream.

* Not davening "achorei beis haknesses" without turning ones face to it
(I'm really not sure what exactly this means), based on giluy Eliyahu.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

How can an Orthodox person sometimes sin?  well duh, it just kind of
happens....maybe you've heard of such cases.  Or maybe you live in an
idealized
world in which every Orthodox Jew is a perfect tzaddik.
According to YOU, when a person sins, he is not Orthodox?  According  to
/your/ definition, when you speak loshon hara, you are no longer Orthodox,
no
longer an observant Jew?
----------------------------------------


sinful when it comes to
mitzvos bein adam l'makom, and some are more sinful when it comes to mitzvos
bein adam l'chaveiro.
I read the post you are referring to as a criticism of those who believe
that what
defines you as frum are only the mitzvos bein adam l'makom.

-- 
Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/05a82d39/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:46 AM 6/24/2011, R. Micha wrote:
>Beiurei Tefila, in this case
><http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Origin_of_Baruch_Sh_Amar.pdf>,
>is a great resource!

>And the Birkei Yoseif (OC 51 s"q 1) answers that since it was mentioned
>in the Zohar it obviously (to him) predates the ge'onim. He also notes
>that the Tur quotes seifer Heichalos that BsH contains 87 words (gematria
>"rosho kesem PAZ") -- and seifer Heikhalos is attributed to R' Yishmael.

You wrote "the Zohar ... obviously (to him) predates the Ge'onim."
I see you chose your words very carefully! >:-}

As I have posted in the past,   R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos 
Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when 
the Zohar was actually written.  His conclusions are based on when 
the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of 
Shemini Atzeres. See

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf

and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30.

YL

 




On 24/06/2011 10:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But in any case, I still fail to see the relevence to our initial topic.
> We're discussing the idea of using a heavenly source to pasqen.

No, we're discussing the idea of instituting and changing minhagim based on
information that comes from Above, whether through nevuah, ruach hakodesh,
dreams, giluy Eliyahu, or papers falling from heaven.  And these examples
and more clearly show that this is legitimate.

Here are a few more examples:

* Kaddish yasom based on a dead person's message to R Akiva.

* Being careful not to speak during Vayechulu and the Bracha Me'ein Sheva,
  based on a message a dead person gave to someone in a dream.

* Not davening "achorei beis haknesses" without turning ones face to it (I'm really not sure what exactly this means), based on giluy Eliyahu.

--
Zev Sero
_______________________________________________

May be getting into dangerous territory but could it be the difference
between siba/siman (prescriptive/descriptive) meaning that sometimes a
change was decided upon for whatever reason (e.g kaddish due to massive
"chillul hashem of deaths during crusades-iirc per r'ybs) and a "reason"
given (* Kaddish yasom based on a dead person's message to R Akiva.) which
is used to strengthen the practice  (and assumes an oral transmission of a
R' Akiva story which only appears in writing much later in the or zarua)
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.

RZS wrote:
: On 24/06/2011 10:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
:> But in any case, I still fail to see the relevence to our initial topic.
:> We're discussing the idea of using a heavenly source to pasqen.

: No, we're discussing the idea of instituting and changing minhagim
: based on information that comes from Above, whether through nevuah,
: ruach hakodesh, dreams, giluy Eliyahu, or papers falling from heaven.
: And these examples and more clearly show that this is legitimate.

I don't think so. Although the word "pasqen" was misplaced, because I
thought "lo bashamayim hi" generalized the conversation, my distinction
stands.

There is a difference between the source of the text, and the source of
the practice of saying it.

: Here are a few more examples:

: * Kaddish yasom based on a dead person's message to R Akiva.

Etc...

Which was about Barekhu. Again, the dead person didn't say "and so,
everyone should do the same too."

The concept of "lo bashamayim hi", whether or not it *CAN* be applied
to minhag, it isn't in any of these cases.

Unlike the Ari telling people that Eliyahu haNavi said things ought to
be done a particular way.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On 06/24/2011 12:45 AM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> From: Joel C. Salomon <mailto:joelcsalo...@gmail.com>
>> Put it this way:  Our /nevi?im/ have prophesied about the
>> re-establishment of /malchus beis dovid/ and the coming of Eliyahu
>> haNavi.  We also have a very obscure /masora/ about someone called
>> ?Mashiach ben Yosef?.  Rambam gives the rules for identifying a
>> /navi/ and Mashiach ben David, but how would you /possibly/
>> positively identify Mashiach ben Yosef, and what halachic
>> significance would this identification have?
> 
> To tie this discussion with another, this is exactly my point. We have
> an obscure midrash about MbY. The Rambam is clear about taking midrashim
> literally (he doesn't). So take that idea, his silence in Hilchot
> Milachim regarding MbY, and I come to the conclusion that the Rambam
> doesn't hold that one has to believe that this person will ever come.

No, no, I was disagreeing with you.  Here?s the gist of what I meant to say:

Assume (for the purpose of argument) that Rambam held that there would
*definitely* be a ?Mashiach ben Yosef?.  What could he possibly have
said on the subject of identifying such a person, or what this person
would do, or any halachic ramifications of this fact?  I can think of
nothing, beyond a vague, ?such a character will appear on the world
stage, do unspecified things, and possibly get himself killed.?

If you think Rambam should have said that (I don?t), only then is his
silence on the matter telling.

--Chesky

On 24/06/2011 3:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 08:57:22AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
>> Anyone know of a universally held minhag?
>
> 4 of the 5 megillos.

Only Eicha.  The other three are far from universal.


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

<<
: In fact malchiyot was composed by Rav and there is no indication that
: he incorporated an earlier prayer from Yeshoshua.

The indication, for however strong it is, is the rashei teivos of the
first three words of the second paragraph. Al kein neqaveh - Akhan.
And so, Aleinu is attributed to the teshuvah period after Akhan's theft
from the spoils of Ai led to national tragedy.>>

I believe the Kol Bo himself brings a different remeze that the name
"hoshea" is found
in backward order. This is even stranger as one can find almost
anything one wants.

Again there is no early source for such a claim. I quotes several
pesukim from Yeshayahu

Finally it is not clear if the second paragraph begins "al ken" or "ve-al ken"
If it begins "ve-al ken" it doesnt start with an ayin. If there is no
vav then the two paragraphs are independent.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On 06/24/2011 11:06 AM, Harry Maryles wrote:
> The bottom line is that if you wear pants there is absolutely no
> Halachic reason to put on a Gartel today other then to perpetuate the
> Minhag.

The /bigdei kehuna/ might provide an additional reason beyond the
Halachic necessity.

--Chesky

We were recently discussing the dearth of Hilchos Tznius for men, despite
our understanding that men do have a responsibility to dress modestly, even
if men express that modesty differently than women.

Somehow, questions got raised about proper dress for davening, and I would
just like to point out that these are two different issues. It is possible
to be dressed quite modestly in the sense of not drawing improper attention
to oneself (whatever that might mean), and still not be dressed in a manner
befitting one who stands before the Melech Malchei Ham'lachim, HKBH.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e050ddc7d4bf4bc34st06vuc

At 02:58 PM 6/24/2011, Rn T. Katz wrote:


>According to me they are frum but not ehrlech.
>
>
>--Toby Katz
>================

But you wrote earlier, "Frum is basically observant of ALL 
mitzvos.  I'm just defining the  normal,
traditional use of the word."

Stealing and participation in scams if not observant of ALL mitzvos, 
is it?  Is so, then how can you consider them frum.   YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/354c7ff5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 24/06/2011 2:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> It's like Zev's data point; another non-Litvak telling me to ignore the
> Litvaks I know.

Lubavs *are* Litvaks.  We're talking language here, not philosophy.
Dockshitz is Litta (Grand Duchy), while AFAIK Suvalk is Poland.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 112
***************************************

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..."