Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 239

Mon, 28 Nov 2011

• 1. order of the mishnayot (Eli Turkel)
• 2. ceremonies in halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 3. davening on airplanes (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Chabad and Putting on Tefillin on Chol Moed (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: order of mishnayot (Mandel, Seth)
• 6. Re: Chabad and Putting on Tefillin on Chol Moed (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: ceremonies in halacha (Micha Berger)
• 8. Speaking in a Beis Avel (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: ceremonies in halacha (Saul Guberman)
• 11. Halachic guidlines for kashrut (martin brody)
• 12. Re: Chabad and Putting on Tefillin on Chol Moed (Zev Sero)
• 13. jewish new testament (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that there is an entire perek
which seems to have been moved from one part of the masechta to another
part? That if the sequence in the Mishna is "apple orange grape fig", then
in the Gemara it is "apple grape orange fig", or some other sequence? There
we're not merely talking about the dividing lines between one and the next,
but also of their relative positions?

If so, could you give an example? This is big news to me.  >>

In the standard Mishna the 10th chapter of Mesechet Sanhedrin is " Kol
Yisrael Yesh Lehem Chelek" and the 11th chapter is "Kol Hanechnakim". In
the gemara the order is reversed

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/61a1429b/attachment-0001.htm>

<<But a short while back, I encountered what appears to me to be a direct
contradiction to RYBS's position in the Y-mi. Yuma 2:1 (10b) we are told
that they held 4 separate lotteries to divide the avodah, "kedei laasos
pumpei bedavar", and again at 2:4 (13b), we are told that extra kohanim
were used to carry the ayil up the kevesh for the same reason.

Opening up http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pomp we learn that
the English "pomp" is from the Greek meaning "solemn procession,
display".

So, "kedei laasos pumpei bedeavar" means that these things were
NOT halachic, and in fact practices done in the BHMQ only for their
ceremonial value.>>

We also have the ceremony of cutting the Omer done to show up the Saducees.

However, more generally there are many ceremonies in Judaism. When many
people do it we call it a minhag rather than a ceremony.
One example is lighting the chanikyah in shul which even has a bracha
though the origin is not very clear and even for those who do not recite a
blessing on minhagim.

Though RYBS would disagree the Chabad custom of lighting a menorah in
public places is certainly ceremonial.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/e03e3a06/attachment-0001.htm>

I am confused by the whole issue of davening on airplanes. RMF, RSZA and
many other poskim state clearly that one should not stand in the aisles and
in any way inconvenience other passengers going to the bathrooms etc for
the sake of tefillah. We seem to have a situation in which all major poskim
agree one way and the "world" does the opposite in order to be more frum.
I completely agree with Chana that at the root we have the demand to
(assumely) daven more properly
ve many prohibitions bein adam le-chavero, safek pikuach nefesh, less
kavanah staying in the back etc and somehow this all gets trumped by
standing for the Amidah and having a minyan against the poskim

Eli Turkel

<<Yes, but here again we have a situation where underlying the chillul
HaShem
there is a basic averah - in this case ignoring pikuach nefesh, which
includes even safek pikuach nefesh or even reasonably remote safek pikuach
nefesh.  The captain doesn't turn on the seatbelt sign for the fun of it,
but  because there are serious risks if a person gets thrown around due to
turbulence.  There is no question, once people frame it that way, that
everybody would agree that if the choice is between making up a minyan and
safek pikuach nefesh, one does not make, and indeed breaks, the minyan.  The
problem is that people do not take safek pikuach nefesh - not to mention
care for other's property, kovod habriyos and various other of these bein
adam l'chavero mitzvos seriously enough, thereby inappropriately and wrongly
prioritising the bein adam l'makom mitzvos.  But making the wrong call when
faced with eg davening versus pikuach nefesh (or some of the other cases
where it may be less stark and harder to do) is still wrong- and doing so
publically and wilfully thus still constitutes a chillul HaShem.>>

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/2f36d599/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:52 AM 11/28/2011, Zev Sero wrote:


>Do you really wonder?  How is it not absolutely obvious to you that he
>did not?  The first and most obvious proof is the fact that L chassidim
>don't.  If the AR wore tefillin on CHM then so would his chassidim,
>regardless of what other chassidim do.  The second and equally obvious
>proof is from the fact that his rebbe, the Mezritcher Maggid, and his
>rebbe's rebbe, the Baal Shem Tov, did not.  It's inconceivable that he
>would wear tefillin when they did not.

A friend of mine told me that the Chabad Library in Crown Heights has 
a siddur that the Baal Shem Tov used.  It is hand written.  He told 
me that he saw it and that it is *Nusach Ashkenaz*!!!!!    I know 
this fellow and have no reason to doubt what he told me.  Based on 
this I conclude that the Baal Shem Tov davened Nusach Ashkenaz, yet 
his followers of later generations did not.  So, it is also possible 
that the Baal Shem Tov did put on tefillin during Chol Moed, and the 
Mezritcher Maggid and even the AR and yet their followers of later 
generation did not follow what they did.  I have no proof of this, 
but I just wanted to point out that your argument does not seem to be 
on a solid footing.   YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/433e6c82/attachment-0001.htm>

There is also a machlokes about the order of the third and fourth pereq of
M'gilla.  And, of course, the 4th pereq of Bikkurim and the 6th pereq of
Avot are later additions to the Mishnayot.

> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:19:16PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>
> : Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that there is an entire
> : perek which seems to have been moved from one part of the masechta to
> : another part? ...
>
> Pereq Cheileq ("Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq le'OhB...") is pereq 10 or 11 of Sanhedrin, depending.
>
> As for why, see the second half of <http:/
> /www.dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/insites/sn-dt-084.htm>for a survey
> of rishonim's explanations for their preferred order.
>
> Is there another example?
>

>Not exactly the same, but the Rosh flips around the order of the 6th and 7th perakim of Gittin.  Tosefos on 62b (DH HaOmer) defends our order.

Seth Mandel

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:38:58AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
> A friend of mine told me that the Chabad Library in Crown Heights has a 
> siddur that the Baal Shem Tov used.  It is hand written.  He told me that 
> he saw it and that it is *Nusach Ashkenaz*!!!!! ...

That's mistaber. Nusach Ari was compiled by R' SZ of Liadi -- why
would he do so if Nusach "Sfard" was already coined by the Besh"t? The
diversity among the various chassidic attempts to fuse Lurianic kavanos
with something as close to Nusach Ashkenaz as they could manage post-date
Chassidus having a single unified leadership.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:33:48PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> So, "kedei laasos pumpei bedeavar" means that these things were
:> NOT halachic, and in fact practices done in the BHMQ only for their
:> ceremonial value.

: We also have the ceremony of cutting the Omer done to show up the Saducees.

Is that ceremony? I think RYBS is talking about things done just for pomp
and circumstance (to use words that hit on the Y-mi's "laasos pumpei"
again), IOW actions designed for "touchy feely" reasons that impact on
an emotional level without invoking intellect or reason. Like thinking
Shabbos is about white tablecloths and silver candelabras.

: However, more generally there are many ceremonies in Judaism. When many
: people do it we call it a minhag rather than a ceremony.

I mentioned how RYBS links his shitah about ceremonies to minhagim -- he
holds that every minhag must follow the matbeia of a mitzvah. Otherwise,
the minhag would be "ceremony", and leshitaso Judaism doesn't have those.

: One example is lighting the chanikyah in shul which even has a bracha
: though the origin is not very clear and even for those who do not recite a
: blessing on minhagim.

RYBS's position stands in my mind in contrast to the Brisker Rav.
RYZS ("R' Velvel") holds that when Ashkenazim perform minhagim with
such matbeios, eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul, they do make a
berakhah; and when performing ones that do not, eg Chatzi Hallel. I do
not claim to know how the BR defines a close enough imitation to qualify
as having the same matbeia.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:55:52AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote to Areivim:
> Is it not the minhag that one does not say anything to the person  
> sitting Shiva unless s/he speaks to you first?

YD 376 is named "Minhag haMenachanim veDin Meis sheEin Lo Menachamim". It
opens, "Ein hamenachamim resha'im liftoach, ad sheyiftach ha'avel
techilah."

So, is this one rule minhag? Is the whole concept of nichum aveilim
"only" minhag? And if either, why does se'if 4 begin "achshav nohagim"
if the prior 3 se'ifim are also minhag?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:40pm GMT, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
:> But I think you're arguing in the wrong direction to make your own
:> point.

:> Noach was told that everything under shamayim would be destroyed. That
:> includes all of earth no matter which homonym is intended by "shamayim"
:> here. Your ability to raise problems is tangential, unless you can prove
:> that "shamayim" has yet another meaning that is yet smaller.

: The position I have been consistently arguing is that kol haaretz and kol
: hashamayim are terms that are most logically to be understood in the way
: that Noach and the other members of the dor hamabul would have understood
: them (and did understand them, or refused to believe them). That excludes
: anything completely out of their ken, like planets and galaxies from either
: definition, but also Australia and England and other places that to them did
: not exist. If you asked the dor hamabul for a definition of kol haaretz, you
: would not get any references to Australia...

I don't know why non-quotes in the Torah would be specific to the
protagonist in the story rather than dor hamidbar. Not that it makes
much difference here.

When HQBH promises not to flood the world again, does that rule out
flooding "just" all of the region inhabited in Noach's day? In a sense,
HQBH is speaking very specifically to subsequent generations as well.

: You (and others) in contrast argue that kol haaretz has to be understood to
: mean and include land that was unknown to the dor hamabul, like Australia,
: ie you are insisting on *our* definition and understanding of what is
: included in kol haaretz being read into the words in the Torah...

Leshitaseikh, "mitachos kol hashamayim" therefore couldn't speak of
Australia -- neither to include nor to exclude it specifically.

I was positing that the significance of "everywhere" were more important,
and Hashem said "everywhere" knowing they were unaware of just how vast
that was. Why would everywhere on the planet be important? I don't know;
but there is "kol haaretz" and "mitachas kol hashamayim" which sounds
to my ear as forcing the point.

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:20am EDT, hankman wrote:
: Pangaea is totally irrelevant, since if it existed at all it was in a
: time frame far removed by hundreds (~250M) of millions and not relevant
: to our time frame circa a mere 4000 years ago.

: ...
:> Malbim understands this to mean that seasons didn't exist before the
:> mabul. The earth's axis was perpendicular to the ecliptic, so each
:> place's climate was steady. Rain fell every forty years, and the earth
:> produced enough food to last until the next rain.

: The 40 year rain cycle prior to Mabul you mention (quoting the Malbim)
: would raise difficulties in the science of dendrochronology where such
: a 40 year cycle would be quite apparent but is not noted anywhere in
: the literature that I have seen. Anchored chronologies go back to well
: before the Mabul...

Are you asking about how science interprets eras in which its assuptions
don't hold? If you wished to, then the presence of pre-Mabul and
pre-Migdal cultures also poses a problem. Believing in a global flood
requires believing that things happened that one cannot interpret
correctly scientificially.

I could see someone believing that the timing of pangea is itself one
of those misinterpretations.

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 02:43pm GMT, Chana Luntz wrote:
: But more deeply, the moral messages of Breishis and the mabul are different.
: I refer you back to Rashi and the Rambam:

: Here is Rashi on the subject - first Rashi on the Torah:
...
: The moral message of Breishis is - I am Hashem who created everything,
: including things well beyond your ken, so don't go objecting when I choose
: to give a small piece of land to the Jews.

According to the medrash Rashi cites, all of Bereishis and the first
chapters of Shemos is in order to make this point. Including maaseh
bereishis AND the story of the mabul (and the Nefilim, Migdal Bavel,
the avos, etc...)

: The moral message of the mabul is that of crime and punishment. If you make
: the punishment not fit the crime, indeed be disproportionate to the crime,
: then you are alleging a Judge who does not do justly. In an attempt to
: expand on the gadulus of Hashem, by saying he flooded the whole planet, in
: effect, it seems to me, people are diminishing the yashrus and tzidkus of
: Hashem...

Perhaps you are underestimating the role of man on the planet. I would
think that if Hashem made stars as furnaces for making the heavier
elements from which we were made, He could very well only have maintained
not-yet-inhabited continents for our benefit as well. What you consider
a lack of proportion, I would consider a way to make that statement.

Or maybe the entirety nature of "mitachas kol hashamayim" and "kol
haaretz" is significant for some other reason.

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 28, 2011 at 13:55, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Is that ceremony? I think RYBS is talking about things done just for pomp
> and circumstance (to use words that hit on the Y-mi's "laasos pumpei"
> again), IOW actions designed for "touchy feely" reasons that impact on
> an emotional level without invoking intellect or reason. Like thinking
> Shabbos is about white tablecloths and silver candelabras.
>

Would these qualify as pure ceremony?  Marching the sifrie torah around
before Kol Nidrie or holding the torah for various misheberachs & rosh
chodesh bentching.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/28d8c4fa/attachment-0001.htm>

"See the above URL for the rest of these articles.
 From this articles it should be clear why there
are differences between kashrus in the US and
Israel and the rest of the world and why one
should not extrapolate from the standards of one
organization in a given country to the situation in other countries.
YL"

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
A jar of Polish jam that is kosher in Sainsbury's, Golders Green, is just
as kosher in Trader Joes in Westwood, California.
That there are kashrut agences that have standards that are meta
halachic,(none of the majors permit batel, for example) and differ amongst
themselves in many cases, is irrelevant to the kashrut of a product,
including that lovely vegetable, Brussel sprouts that started this whole
thing off. Don't want to rely on those guidlines? Then don't, but please do
not suggest that the products are not kosher.
Kind regards,

Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/41a21977/attachment-0001.htm>

On 28/11/2011 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 10:52 AM 11/28/2011, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Do you really wonder? How is it not absolutely obvious to you that he
>> did not? The first and most obvious proof is the fact that L chassidim
>> don't. If the AR wore tefillin on CHM then so would his chassidim,
>> regardless of what other chassidim do. The second and equally obvious
>> proof is from the fact that his rebbe, the Mezritcher Maggid, and his
>> rebbe's rebbe, the Baal Shem Tov, did not. It's inconceivable that he
>> would wear tefillin when they did not.

> A friend of mine told me that the Chabad Library in Crown Heights has
> a siddur that the Baal Shem Tov used. It is hand written. He told me
> that he saw it and that it is *Nusach Ashkenaz*!!!!! I know this fellow
> and have no reason to doubt what he told me. Based on this I conclude
> that the Baal Shem Tov davened Nusach Ashkenaz, yet his followers of
> later generations did not. So, it is also possible that the Baal Shem
> Tov did put on tefillin during Chol Moed, and the Mezritcher Maggid and
> even the AR and yet their followers of later generation did not follow
> what they did. I have no proof of this, but I just wanted to point out
> that your argument does not seem to be on a solid footing. YL

I don't know on what basis your friend determined the exact nusach.
Perhaps he did so by noting that Baruch She'amar appears before Hodu
(twice, since the first section was pasted in from another siddur),
but see this article http://1v9.bm.sl.pt by R Yehoshua Mondshein.
Particularly these excerpts:

1. "It's impossible to know for certain who wrote the siddur, but the
many errors in the nusach hatefilah seem to indicate that they did not
emerge from the hands of a great man." [search for the word "gavra"]

2. "Note that before Baruch She'amar (in the first section) there is a
note that according to the nusach of the Ari Zal Baruch She'amar belongs
on the page before Mizmor Lesoda, as above, meaning as was explained in
the kavanos before Baruch She'amar, where it is explained that Baruch
She'amar continues from Hodu." [search for the word "tofa`a"]

3. "There is no basis for the assumption that the Baal Shem Tov davened
according to the nusach in this siddur; for it is certain that he did not
say Baruch She'amar before Hodu. And many tzadikim would look at a siddur
with kavanos, but would not read the nusach of their prayers from it."
[go to the bottom]


On 28/11/2011 1:39 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:38:58AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> A friend of mine told me that the Chabad Library in Crown Heights has a
>> siddur that the Baal Shem Tov used.  It is hand written.  He told me that
>> he saw it and that it is *Nusach Ashkenaz*!!!!! ...

> That's mistaber. Nusach Ari was compiled by R' SZ of Liadi -- why
> would he do so if Nusach "Sfard" was already coined by the Besh"t? The
> diversity among the various chassidic attempts to fuse Lurianic kavanos
> with something as close to Nusach Ashkenaz as they could manage post-date
> Chassidus having a single unified leadership.

This is true. Nevertheless, highly visible differences such as which
way around Baruch She'amar and Hodu go would have been known earlier.
I just sent a link to an article by R Yehoshua Mondshein, in which he
takes it for granted that it's inconceivable that the Baal Shem Tov said
B"Sh before Hodu.

In general, before the AR compiled his siddur, chassidim used to use
the siddur of the Shelah, making various changes to it according to oral
traditions they had received.

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

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111128/3555f9a7/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 239
***************************************

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..."