Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 1

Fri, 16 Mar 2012

• 1. eulogies/hespedim [was: Dead-Letter Halakhoth] (Freda B Birnbaum)
• 2. Re: Parshas Ki Sisa: Rav Shimon Schwab - Mordechai's Brings Real Freedom For His Nation (Micha Berger)
• 3. Were the Nesiim generous or not? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Ambiguous Proofs (Micha Berger)
• 5. Barukh Dayan haEmes: RYZ zt"l! (Micha Berger)
• 6. dead-letter halakhot (Jonathan Baker)
• 7. Re: Since When Do Ashkenazim Daven Sephard? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Rav Moshe Shternbuch - Garlic & Sharp Foods on Pesach (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Rav Moshe Shternbuch - Garlic & Sharp Foods on Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Dead-Letter Halakhoth (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Dead-Letter Halakhoth (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Weird Exceptions (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: drinking and getting married on Purim (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: drinking and getting married on Purim (Zev Sero)
• 15. Admin: Digest Number (Micha Berger)

Zev Sero notes:

> I only remember going to one chol hamoed funeral, my great-aunt 
> Shirley's, and there were no hespedim.  I can't speak for your 
> experience. Note, though, that divrei kivushim are not hespedim, even if 
> said at a funeral.

and Rav Teitz replies:

> Finally, he cites eulogizing on Chol Hamoeid.  This is not a blanket 
> prohibition; it is permitted for a chacham b'fanav.  But more than that, 
> it is not "eulogy" which is prohibited, but "hespeid."  This refers to 
> the arousing of sadness and tears.  Such eulogies are indeed prohibited. 
> Not included, however, are remarks designed not to elicit sorrow, but to 
> call attention to the lessons that can be derived by the living from the 
> deeds of the departed, and indeed, at every occasion in which I have 
> attended a funeral on those days when hesped is prohibited, the first 
> speaker usually points this out, and then proceeds to list, in that 
> vein, the noteworthy praises of the departed.

I am sorry to report that I have attended two funerals in my neighborhood 
where absolutely nothing was said about the deceased.  At one of them, the 
presiding rabbi said, clearly in some distress, that it was a shame that 
such a good man as the deceased could not have eulogies.

It is extremely distressing to the survivors (whether family or friends) 
to hear nothing at all about their loved one.

One rabbi at the scene of one of these did say to me later, it's really 
about hired mourners and weeping and wailing, it's not about speaking 
about the person.  But apparently this community does not "hold" that way.

Freda Birnbaum

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 05:29:58AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 9:03 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> The only true freedom is breaking free from the pressures around us to  
>> serve Hashem with purity. This freedom can be achieved anytime and  
>> anywhere under any circumstances.

> What does this mean? When was this true?

It is always true. A person is "enslaved" to his desires, which often push
him to preconsciously pick without any conscious or rational thought. And
with non-spiritual desires, mi sheyeish lo maneh, rotzeh masayim.

The only freedom a person really has is when a person commits to doing
what they were made to do.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Many divrei Torah on Vayakhel comment on the way the Nesiim donated to the
Mishkan: They pledged to cover whatever shortfall might remain afterward,
and Chazal take them to task for this lack of eagerness. For example, Rashi
(pasuk 35:27) seems to be bothered by how the Nesiim were the first to
contribute to the Mizbe'ach, but here they were the last to contribute to
the Mishkan.

It seems to me that the Nesiim may have been guilty of something worse than
a mere lack of eagerness: Their offer to cover the shortfall sounds
magnanimous, but it includes a presumption that there will *BE* a
shortfall. It is almost lashon hara of a sort, or perhaps a "dan l'kaf
chov."

As it turned out, there was no shortfall at all, but that's not part of my
argument, as there's no way the nesiim could have known that in advance.
But it seems to me that they ought to have considered the possibility that
there *might* not be a shortfall.

And indeed, perhaps they *did* consider the possibility that there might
not be a shortfall, in which case their offer - which sounded so generous -
was actually quite stingy.

Does anyone know of any perushim which might suggest or refute these ideas?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f5d463731e0210b8b6st01vuc

There are a few cases where I have heard someone build lomdus, or a
darsha take the same basic structure and in difference instances use it
to make opposite points:

1- Machloqes and Hava Amina

Do we look at the assumption behind a rejected opinion and ask why
would we have thought A and B were related? Or do we use the rejection
as proof that they are not?

The rejected opinion could either be a shitah we do not hold like or
a hava amina. The same logical ambiguity exists.

2- Silence

When we figure out some detail that the Torah or Chazal were silent over,
do we then use that point as the basis of a derashah, or do we use the
silence as proof that the point isn't to be treated as signficant?

How did Chazal learn that zeman Matan Toraseinu was something to bring
to the forefront of Shavuos, rather than

The example that got me started:

Do we explain Purim in relation to the return to EY, Ezra's revival of
Torah or the two stages of binyan Bayis Sheini? Do we explain the evil of
attending Achashveirosh's party in light of the wars with the Shomeronim
(who were against Jewish sovereignty and a temple in Y-m) going on in EY
at the time? Or do we say that if that were a major point, the megillah
or at least Mes Megillah would have mentioned it?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

It is with huge sadness -- more accuately: downtright depression! --
that I share with the chevrah the news of the passing of haRav Yitzchok
Zirkind zt"l.

According to http://shmais.com/chabad-news/latest/item/boruch-dayan
-haemes-rabbi-yitzchok-zirkind-obm
or <http://bit.ly/xTw4TX>, levayah arrangements haven't yet been
made.

You can also check <http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=42267>
for news updates.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RZS:
> > And as long as we are talking about funerals, consider the halakha
> > that you're not allowed to deliver a eulogy on, e.g., Xol HaMo'ed. ?I
> > have never seen anyone behave as if this halakha existed. ?There is a
 
> Really?  I only remember going to one chol hamoed funeral, my great-aunt
> Shirley's, and there were no hespedim.  I can't speak for your experience.
> Note, though, that divrei kivushim are not hespedim, even if said at a funeral.

Did you go to Debbie's father's funeral?  It was Isru Chag Simchas Torah
in 1999, and R Hecht said something about not saying hesped because it was 
Isru Chag.  And then everybody gave eulogies.

I just took it as another example of the Jewish Disclaimer - as long as
we acknowledge that we're not supposed to do this, it's acceptable (if not
truly OK) to do it.  Similarly we say "Shabbos/YT hee miliz'ok" while calling
out for Divine aid for those who are ill.

Regarding suicides - when it happened to someone I knew, the family asked
the LOR, who said it was temporary insanity.  I gather this is the usual
excuse.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:17:49AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> The following is from an article titled "Reaching New Heights with  
> Siddur Avodas Hashem" that appears in the Hamodia Showcase Judaica  
> Supplement, Adar 5772.
...
>> Sephardic nusach with the kavanos of the Arizal. In the early years of 
>> the Chassidic movement, only the tzaddikim would daven Nusach Sephard,
>> while the chassidim, who lacked a profound understanding of Kabbalah,
>> would daven Nusach Ashkenaz. However, around the period of the Rebbe,
>> Harav Elimelech of Lizhensk, zy" a, (1717-1787), chassidim began  
>> davening together with their Rebbes- in the Rebbe's nusach...

I don't understand this portrayal that chassidus originally reserved
changing the nusach for only those who actually understood enough to
gain new kavanos, and only later the masses switch.

The Besh"t was niftar in 1760, during the lifetime of R' Elimelekh. Which
means what, that it took a couple to a few decades for the switch in
nusach to catch on? How fast do we expect a change of this magnitude
to occur?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I present this without comment.

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=5219

There is a minhag not to eat garlic on Pesach. Rav Moshe Shternbuch
(5:127:10) say that for dry garlic there is grounds to be machmir. He
explains that most people have fillings, crowns, and other dental
implants in their mouths that absorb chometz all year. In order to make
sure they do not make the food we chometz one should not eat hot food
for 24 hours before Pesach. This would render any taste emanating from
the pre absorbed chometz spoiled (Nosein Ta'am Lifgam) and would not
make the food we eat on Pesach chometz.

This however does not help for sharp foods which can become chometz even
from things absorbed over 24 hours prior. Additionally the pressure of
the tooth cutting the food (Duchka D'Sakina) also negates the heter of
Nosein Ta'am Lifgam. Because of this says Rav Shternbuch it is wise to
refrain from eating any sharp foods the entire Pesach.

[Email #2. -micha]

In response to what I sent out [above] a couple of people have asked me,
"What does he do for maror on Pesach given that he suggests that on
not eat sharp foods the entire Pesach. I have to presume that he uses
Romaine lettuce.

I asked, what does he propose one does when Shabbos is Erev Pesach given
that it is a "mitzvah" to eat hot food on Shabbos day, and he says one
should not eat hot food Erev Pesach.

YL

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:36:46AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: I present this without comment.
: 
:  From http://revach.net/article.php?id=5219
: 
: There is a minhag not to eat garlic on Pesach. Rav Moshe Shternbuch
: (5:127:10) say that for dry garlic there is grounds to be machmir...

This minhag is quite old, not "chumerah of the month club". The Peri
Megadim mentions it (Eishel Avraham 464:1), as does the MA (447:20) who
assurs bemashehu.

Garlic is no longer packed in flour, and if we buy it precut, we can
do so with certification that the knives weren't chameitz-dik, so the
minhag is at this point outliving its cause. But then, we aren't even
sure what the cause of the minhag of not eating qitniyos of Pesach was,
none of the candidates still apply, and I still keep that.

Presuming, therefore, there are people who won't be eating garlic this
Pesach no mater what RMS writes or doesn't write, why shouldn't he give
them some impetus to fulfilling their minhag?

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

RJFS:
> The question relates to a larger phenomenon, halakhoth that everyone 
> knows (this is a crucial component of the phenomenon, because if a 
> halakha is obscure, then there is a simpler explanation for why no one 
> observes it) and yet which are, de facto, dead letters.

cf. Hagahaos Mayymoniyos SK 2 on H. Melachim 5:7.

With respect to obscure halachos both the Vilna Gaon and R. Yisrael
Salanter were known for reviving old halachos that people ignored,
and this was considered "Hasidus". Judaism is a mimetic tradition,
and we presume that if a community ignores a halacha it is because they
have inherited a good reason to do so (and hence the Gaon and RYS were
viewed as going lifnim meshuras hadin).

> ... when Jews ignore the halakha that you can't live in a city that 
> has no mikveh. There were plenty of otherwise religious Jews who lived 
> in Skokie, Illinois, long before there was a mikveh there.

Like RZS I'm unfamiliar with this halacha.  I also don't understand why 
the lake isn't a kosher mikvah.

> Consider another halakha that has, de facto, been defined out of 
> existence, the halakha that you aren't allowed to mourn for a suicide.

The poskim discuss this case in some detail: they require extremely 
strict evidence to conclude that someone is a suicide.




My favorite example of this isn't exactly a halacha. The gemara says
that a person prefers to sell his daughter into slavery rather than to
borrow money at interest. I know many Jews with mortgages, but none
who have sold their daughters into slavery to avoid getting a mortgage.

David Riceman

On Tue, Mar 13 at 8:45pm EDT, David Riceman wrote:
>> Consider another halakha that has, de facto, been defined out of  
>> existence, the halakha that you aren't allowed to mourn for a suicide.

> The poskim discuss this case in some detail: they require extremely  
> strict evidence to conclude that someone is a suicide.

This is arguably a change in metzius. Families today are more likely to
be hurt by judging the niftar as guilty rather than sick. Therefore, we
require more proof before risking that hurt.

But in any case, as REMT notes, the assumption is wrong. There is no
such issur; it's a lack of chiyuv.

A similar issue was the death of the *minhag* of mourning someone who
r"l intermarried. This was minhag, not din. I understand it was to make
the issur clear and socially inviolate. But as baavonoseinu harabim,
intermarriage becomes more thinkable, it scared off fewer and fewer
potential intermarriages. And we have more or more children of women
who intermarried, or people who may yet return (divorce, geirus of the
spouse). And so the calculus changed; letting the minhag lapse could
save *more* Jews overall. New umdenua, new minhag.

I think those two factors cover the entire inital list: either the din
wasn't what RJS assumed (REMT's answer), or the original din really
depended on umdena, and the new ruling is appropiate for the new umdenia.

On Fri, Mar 9 at 12:20pm, Lisa wrote:
> Back in biblical times, bamot were the classic example of the kind of
> dead letter halakhot you're talking about.

I think this thread blurs two topics: laws we ignore despite the fact
that no one says we should, and laws we take a different approach to,
and therefore do something very different than in the past.

AIUI Lisa is just mentioning a common sin whose popularity persisted
throughout bayis rishon. This is a different topic than RDR's and what
I thought was the initial discussion -- dinim we somehow wrote off the
books and do not consider binding even in theory.


(Bamos were mutar before bayis rishon, during galus Bavel, and if one
would say -- as they did in Alexandria and R' Yitzchaq holds on Taanis
20a -- "qedushah sheniyah lo qidshah le'asid lavo" bamos would have been
mutar today. Alexandria had Beis Chonyo, the Temple of Onias, a full
operating clone of bayis sheini. From Chonyo, son of Shim'on haTzadiq,
until churban bayis, it was more problematic.)

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 Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:28:46PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I think that today, Shushan Purim, is another example worth
: remembering. In my mind, the most logical rule would have been to observe
: Purim on the 15th in any city which had a wall in Esther's day. We could
: then make an exception to that rule, and give kavod to Yerushalayim...

: But that's NOT the rule Chazal chose to make. The actual rule is to
: observe Purim on the 15th in any city which had a wall in Yehoshua's
: day, which includes Yerushalayim, but *excludes* Shushan. So they made
: a logical exception to that rule, and set the 15th as Purim for Shushan...

: It seems to me that the answer is found in Gemara Megilla 3b, which
: brings a pasuk (regarding redeeming one's land, Vayikra 25:29) to show
: that certain halachos d'Oraisa apply in a walled city, but not elsewhere,
: and therefore we must carefully define exactly what counts as a "walled
: city". I don't recall or see where that Gemara makes an explicit comment,
: but it seems simple to me that if the Torah is declaring a law about the
: walled cities of Eretz Yisrael, then that status ought to be established
: upon entering the Land.

It seems to my mind a parallel to RYBS's thesis that minhagim alway
imitate the forms of halakhah. (An idea I have voiced questions about
in the past.) Here, we see Chazal choosing to follow the categories
of deOraisos when creating a derabbanan when they were "close enough",
rather than creating new categories.

...
: The Torah is one entire system, and the parts cannot be separated...

I suggested that this is an inherant difference between Yefetic (Western)
and Semitic (including Jewish, our cousins, other Asian) thinking.

http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml

    Another difference can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle
    with that of Rav Yehudah haNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides
    a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until
    one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on
    reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller
    pieces, and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the
    Yefetic perspective....

    As opposed to the way Rav Yehudah haNasi redacted the first
    mishnah. The beginning of the mishnah could have said that the time
    for evening shema is from sunset until 1/3 the night. But instead it
    uses referents involving kehunah, taharah and ashmores. This is not to
    confuse the issue, but because from the Semitic perspective the key to
    understanding one mitzvah is from its connections to everything else.

I think this dovetails with what RAM is saying, "The Torah is one entire
system, and the parts cannot be separated."

Which could mean that when
Chazal choose a non-obvious rule in order to refer to something deOraisa,
it could well be because they see a connection between the new law and
that deOraisa that is eluding us.

Anyway, to continue explaining what I mean about not trying to understand
Torah -- or anything -- by reducing it to its parts:

    Yefes is reductionist, believing the world can be understood as
    the sum of its smallest pieces. Sheim is holistic, looking at the
    interconnections between those pieces, and the pieces only gaining
    meaning from the relationships in which they partake.

    ...

    (Even look at the difference between Western and Eastern idolatry:
    Semitic idolatry is not about polytheistic people-gods, reducing
    godhood to an easily understandable super-powerful "person" like
    Zeus. It's about notions that seem to us far blurrier. Buddha nature
    in which everything is godly, but just isn't aware of it. Hinduism's
    single Divine that has 3.3 million expressions called "gods". One
    fact, many perspectives. Is it avodah zarah or isn't it? The cases in
    the gemara become difficult to apply. Christianity started on this
    road when it adopted trinitarianism, but at some point the church
    got too Westernized...)

    There is also a likelihood this issue played a role in the Maimonidian
    Controversy. For all his ties to mesorah, the Rambam's project was
    from what we identified as a Yefetic perspective. Unlike the mishnah,
    his Mishneh Torah categories, divides and subdivides in Aristotilian
    style, with some connections overlaid, and far more often simply
    left implied.

        While there is a historic debate whether there are 13 principles
        or three, I really don't know what difference this makes except in
        semantics. Furthermore, according to the qabbalists there is no such
        thing a foundation principle in the Torah because every aspect of
        the Torah is a foundation principle without distinction one part from
        another...
                - Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 2:356; tr. R' Daniel Eidensohn

    The Rambam tried to establish basics, from which everything flows. The
    Chasam Sofer presents the opposing qabbalistic camp, in which any
    Torah idea can be seen as an equally place to start exploring a
    complex network of truths. The issue was never articulated, but
    perhaps because "perspective" is something so primary that it's
    difficult to establish a common dialogue across its borders.

    Des Cartes famously said, "Cogito ergo sum -- I think therefore I
    am." A true skeptic can't be sure of much.... The only thing one can
    be sure of is that there is an "I" doing the thinking, being sure....

    But even the Cogito is subject to this distinction. Are we
    individuals who interact, or only defined as individuals by the
    set of interactions we have with others? Moshe Rabbeinu lacked
    his full prophetic gift from the time of the Golden Calf until the
    rise of the next generation. The Or haChaim explains that this is
    because "Kol Yisrael areivim zeh bazeh" (Shevu'os 39a), which is
    usually translated "All Jews are guarantors one for another". That's
    consistent with another version of the quote, which ends "lazeh" (for
    this). However, "ba-", in, implies a different meaning of the word
    "areivim", mixture. All Jews are mixed, one into the other. Moshe's
    soul did not stand alone, it is connected and overlaps those of
    the rest of the nation. When they lowered themselves with the calf,
    Moshe's soul was diminished.

    Even the "I" is not reductionist, but defined by its connections.

Weirdly, I didn't invoke R' Shimon Skop's "im ein ani li" on this
last point.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:22:41PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I also remember another couple, around the same time, who got married
: early Erev Shabbos afternoon, and the seudah was the regular Shabbos
: dinner at the yeshiva that evening. I remember hearing that that was
: done specifically because they could not afford anything bigger...

This was minhag Ashkenaz, from at least the early Tosafists through
the Rama, and for the same reason. Making a chasunah meant saving the
cost of Fri night dinner for everyone in town. Se'udah was on Shabbos,
and sometimes they hired nakhri musicians.

As RAZZ writes <http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/9224>:
    Fear of Shabbat desecration led to a debate regarding Friday weddings
    (SA EH 64:3), and Rambam (Hilchot Ishut 10:14) forbids all Friday
    and Sunday weddings. But he is in a distinct minority. Tosafot
    (Ketubot 7a, s.v., vehilchato) says that in practice there is no
    concern about Shabbat desecration as regards a Friday wedding,
    and Rif, Rosh and Tur all concur (EH 64; Beit Yosef EH 64). Even
    though this concern is mentioned in the Talmud, Friday afternoon
    weddings became the norm in Eastern Europe throughout much of
    the last millennium because it allowed one to combine the wedding
    feast with a Shabbat meal, thus obviating the need for a separate,
    elaborate wedding banquet (Beit Yosef, EH 64; Drisha EH 64:2). [10]
    This practice was obviously beneficial to the poor. Explaining the
    custom practiced in his time, the Aruch Hashulchan (EH 64:11) states
    that in the time of the Gemara, it was the chatan's responsibility to
    prepare for the wedding, while in his time it was the kallah's. The
    Talmud was concerned that a chatan might inadvertently desecrate
    Shabbat while being overly zealous in his efforts to prepare for the
    wedding, in an attempt to please his kallah, who may be particular
    about these matters. Nowadays, writes the Aruch Hashulchan, when
    the kallah takes responsibility for the preparations, we are less
    concerned about chillul Shabbat since she is aware that in general
    a chatan is not that particular about these matters.

    There are also midrashic and kabbalistic sources in favor of Friday
    weddings, such as the Arizal's claim that Yaakov Avinu's weddings
    took place on Friday, and the observation of the Yafeh Lalev that
    the world's first wedding, that of Adam and Chavah, occurred on
    a Friday. Rema notes that the primary reason for permitting Friday
    weddings is due to the rampant poverty that Jews experience in exile,
    which prevents many from making weddings on other days. Rema's
    reasoning would probably not apply in most cases today, and thus
    Friday weddings are no longer popular.

    ...
    [10] See, however, Ramban's general hesitations regarding Friday
    weddings (Beit Yosef EH 64) and Mishnah Berurah 339:19), and of
    the Aruch Hashulchan (EH 64:11) regarding weddings on short winter
    Fridays. According to the biography written by their children and
    grandchildren (Iggerot Moshe 8 (5756), 39), Rav Moshe and Rebbetzin
    Sima Feinstein were married on erev Shabbat, parashat Naso, Sivan
    13, 5682 (June 9, 1922). They parenthetically note that erev Shabbat
    weddings were the norm and that there were three weddings in their
    grandparents' small town that Friday since it was the first Friday
    after Shavuot.

In fact, one time a yesomah's wedding ran late and it was nightfall before
everyone was there. The Rama (Shu"t 125 [some have it as 124], OC 339:4)
permitted a Shabbos wedding under these circumstances, or in the common
case of a man who hasn't yet been married nor fulfilled pirya verivya.
And so the Rama was mesader qiddushin at that wedding on Shabbos. This
became a cause celebre, and as a result of the debate, the Krakow
rabbinate banned Fri weddings so as to avoid this running late problem.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On 14/03/2012 1:12 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> There are also midrashic and kabbalistic sources in favor of Friday
> weddings, such as the Arizal's claim that Yaakov Avinu's weddings
> took place on Friday, and the observation of the Yafeh Lalev that
> the world's first wedding, that of Adam and Chavah, occurred on
> a Friday.

My uncle and aunt got married on a Friday, about 43 years ago, and
the LR told them that he wished others would follow their example.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

I rushed a few Areivim digests out in order to get news about RYZ and
info about the levayah in a timely manner. Along the way I (1) upped the
Areivim digest number to 30, and (2) learned the software has no way to
reset it.

Since I think the two lists ought to be kept in sync, I made this vol30n1.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 1
*************************************

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..."