Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 69

Thu, 21 Jun 2012

• 1. Re: Bug Checker Magnifying Lamp - Cool Light (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Kivrey Avos (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: What's a city? (Zev Sero)
• 4. Berachot in the Course of a Meal (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 5. Re: Kivrey Avos (Rich, Joel)
• 6. whats a city (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Kivrey Avos (Daniel M. Israel)
• 8. Re: Bug Checker Magnifying Lamp - Cool Light (Daniel M. Israel)
• 9. Translation of "Yayyin" (Zvi Lampel)
• 10. Re: Translation of "Yayyin" (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Translation of "Yayyin" (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Kivrey Avos (Zev Sero)
• 13. Tal Law And Jewish Law ? Is There A Conflict? (Dorron Katzin)
• 14. Re: clarification//bitter waters and //// the internet...... (Harvey Benton)

On 20/06/2012 3:32 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I was under the impression that whatever "creatures" can be seen by
> someone with normal vision are of concern, and that if one cannot see
> them without magnification, then one need not be concerned about them.
>
> Have things changed? YL

No, nothing has changed, and *nobody* claims that bugs invisible to
the naked eye are a problem. The big problem in bedikas tola'im is
(and has always been) bugs that *are* visible to the naked eye, but that
are very hard to see. Without magnification one may either not notice
them, or mistake them for dirt, or just get eye strain and headaches.
Thus such devices, which make things easier. As the blurb you quoted
says, "Easily look at small objects without straining your eyes".
Not invisible objects but small visible ones.

The same applies to the use of magnifying glasses or jewelers' loupes
in checking tefillin and mezuzos. If a defect is not visible to the
naked eye it's kosher, but the magnifying glass helps find defects that
*are* visible. After one finds a defect with the glass, one looks at
it without the glass to see whether it's still visible, and if it isn't
then it doesn't need fixing.


On 20/06/2012 4:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> (That said, my rav said the light box wasn't necessary. I'm just
> advocating the other tzad in an eilu va'eilu spirit.)

I don't think anyone says it's *necessary*; it just makes things easier.

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

On 19/06/2012 6:37 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> Actually the record is mixed on whether meitim yodim or not.
> Maareh Mkomot available upon request.

The machlokes in Brachos 18a-19a is about whether they know what's
going on *outside* the cemetery.  R Yonoson is the only one who thought
they were completely unaware, and he retracted his opinion.  There is
certainly a lot of material indicating that they are unaware of what's
happening in the outside world, and therefore if one wants them to know
one must go to their graves and inform them; hence Yirmiyahu going to
Mearas Hamachpela and Har Nevo, because without that the Avos and Moshe
would not have heard of the churban.


On 20/06/2012 3:16 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> /It's an explicit gemara that the nefashos of the dead are aware                      when someone comes to their graves./
> But only for 12 months when the soul hovers over the body. After
> that time period, the nefashos are no longer hovering.
> This is not the only interpretation.

The gemara in Brachos is definitely talking about after 12 months.


On 20/06/2012 3:45 PM, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
> While there are
> some commentators that consider this history, and therefore proof that the
> dead are aware of the living, many others hold that it is not history, and
> that the dead know nothing at all

Who are these?

> (which was King David's position on this,
> which is reflected in our tachanun).

Where?

> As for the Zohar, well, that's a different discussion.

No, it isn't.  The Zohar is an authoritative source for Jewish hashkafa,
just as much as the gemara.
  
> I cannot find anywhere in Nach where it says that Yirmiyahu specifically
> went to between Nebo and Chevron to enlist the aid of the deceased.

Everything has to be explicit in Nach?!

> Unless
> it's a commentary that cites another source and ties them together. Could
> you cite that source for me? Thanks!

"Az bahaloch Yirmiyahu al kever Avos".

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

On 20/06/2012 4:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:35:14PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Lich'ora, if the property is fenced (and thus a reshut hayachid) one
>> counts the 70 2/3 amot from the fence, not from the house.
>
> Eiruvin 53a and 55b discuss the use use of shuls, warehouses, two and
> three walled structures, unrooved structures (full, 2- or 3- walled),
> a place of AZ, a houseboat, a migrant's shack... The ibbur of a city is
> a corner of a house that juts out, not its yard. If a fenced in reshus
> hayachid were enough, much of that discussion would be moot.

None of those are attached to houses.  A fenced-in yard is part of the
house.


> The focus appears to be on structure, not reshus. The textbook case
> is a "beis dirah". So, the gemara discusses semi-batim and batim that
> aren't diros.

"Dirah" in terms of eruvin doesn't mean residence, it means regular human
use.  Thus a park is "mukaf ledirah" lechol hade'os.  Indeed I believe the
word "dirah" in this context comes not from "ladur", but from "hakones tzon
ladir".


-- 
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

There is an interesting exception, however. If such 
foods are eaten together with bread they will not require their own 
blessing. So although fruit eaten as a dessert requires its own 
blessing one would not recite a blessing on the fruit if one eats the 
fruit with bread in every bite.


I recall this and even as a child, it seemed to be artificial.
To say that you have to make the brocho on fruit 
and that the motzi didn't cover it, but as long as you
have the bread with the fruit, then you are exempted 
from making the brocho begs the question. It almost
appears to be some type of fabrication. 

After all, if having made the motzi doesn't exempt one from making 
the brocho on the fruit, then logically how would the VERY 
BREAD that you made the motzi over (and doesn't cover
the fruit) -- how does eating that very bread WITH the fruit
then exempt you from the brocho over the fruit. It is totally
illogical. If the motzi over the bread doesn't exempt the brocho
over the fruit, then it is a paradox to say it DOES exempt the fruit
if you eat that bread (that didn't exempt you) with the fruit. If you
want to say that it is a chok d'Oraita, I can accept that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120620/b309b1b7/attachment-0001.htm>

The machlokes in Brachos 18a-19a is about whether they know what's
going on *outside* the cemetery.  R Yonoson is the only one who thought
they were completely unaware, and he retracted his opinion.  There is
certainly a lot of material indicating that they are unaware of what's
happening in the outside world, and therefore if one wants them to know
one must go to their graves and inform them; hence Yirmiyahu going to
Mearas Hamachpela and Har Nevo, because without that the Avos and Moshe
would not have heard of the churban.

=================================
See tosfot sotah 34b D"H avotai  as well as michtav meliyahu -yamim noraim
where he posits those of high ruchanit stature know nothing of this world
once they leave 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.

On a slightly different topic there is an article in the latest Journal of
Halacha and Contemporary Society about the saying Megillah on the 14th or
15th of Adar. Part of the discussion revolves about what is included in a
city (in particular Jerusalem). He says that in general if there are no
gaps of more than 141 amot between neighborhoods it is considered part of
the city.  Also samuch is limited 2000 amot from the city. There is one
opinion that the 2000 amot are measured from the original walls of
Jerusalem (he wasnt sure if this was from Bayit rishon - certainly not the
Turkish wall). In that case msot of the new city would be outside these
limits.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120621/5bd44650/attachment-0001.htm>

On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> And of course the whole concept is not relevant when one is directly
> addressing the niftar, asking him or her to intercede for us.


Assuming one holds that this is permitted in the first place.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120621/4f85cb8d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Jun 20, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> The same applies to the use of magnifying glasses or jewelers' loupes
> in checking tefillin and mezuzos. If a defect is not visible to the
> naked eye it's kosher, but the magnifying glass helps find defects that
> *are* visible. After one finds a defect with the glass, one looks at
> it without the glass to see whether it's still visible, and if it isn't
> then it doesn't need fixing.


Is that really commonly done in practice?  My sense is that the opposite
approach is true, one looks for defects with the naked eye *first* and then
if one sees something that is safek, one uses the glass to confirm.  The
risk in the method you describe is (a) once one knows a defect is there, it
is hard to not have that influence one's judgement of "is it visible" and
(b) even if one decides it is not visible, how many of us would feel
completely comfortable relying on "well it is vadai there, because I saw
it, but it is too small to count?"

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120620/21289198/attachment-0001.htm>

 On 6/3/2012 11:58 PM, Daniel Israel wrote [on Areivim]:
> ...(I note also that in the English edition of RDFeinstein's Kol Dodi,
> this notion [about sorrow over the loss of wicked enemies' lives] is
> given as an explanation as to why we don't drink the wine that has
> been removed.  I thought the original Hebrew was slightly more
> ambiguous, but maybe I'm misreading it.  I note that list chaver R'
> Zvi Lampel is credited as original translator, I wonder if he has
> anything he might contribute?)

Actually, I thought the translation preserves the ambiguity. The
Hebrew reads, "v'no-hagim sheh-shofchim L'EE-BUDE HA-MAKKOS v'ein
sho-sin o-som..... The translaton reads: "Traditionally, we do not
partake of the poured wine, out of consideration for the losses caused
by the plagues...." (But I do note that the translation switches the
"loss consideration" from what may be more literally associated with
the spilling alone, and not the partaking of the yayyin alone.) I do
not know offhand whether the expression "l'ee-bude ha-makkos" is the
one used by the Abudraham, etc. And I cannot be certain whether the
"losses caused by the plagues" are necessarily referring to the loss of
Egyptian lives. I did not ask Rav Dovid Feinstein about this.

However, getting somewhat off topic, and probably into Avodah territory,
I would like to mention something that I did ask Reb Dovid about. My
rebbi held (as others) that grape juice is perfectly fine for arba
kosos. In fact, he preferred it, for purposes of keeping alert during
the seder. Aware of that, I asked Reb Dovid about Rav Moshe's apparent
insistence (reflected in the "Kol Dodi Haggada") on wine versus grape
juice, and the maximum amount of grape juice one may bi-di'eved mix into
the wine. I raised the issue that I've seen many people neglect drinking
the shiur because it is hard for them to have so much wine. Reb Dovid
shrugged and said, "If they can't drink wine, let them drink grape juice"!

One of the Kol Dodi Haggada's proof that grape juice is inferior is from
the Rashbam, who explains "ta'am yayyin" means "yayyin ha-mesha-kare." I
so wanted to put it in those terms -- that Rashbam holds that the "taste
of yayyin" means the power to intoxicate, from which Rav Moshe deduced
that one should use wine rather than grape juice. But my superiors at
Artscroll nixed that, and insisted that the translation reads, "What is
meant by 'the taste of wine?' And later continues, "Accordingly, wine
that does not intoxicate -- such as grape juice -- would not qualify as
most preferable." I maintained that translating "yayyin' as wine, rather
than leaving it transliterated, obfuscates the actual issue, which is
whether the word "yayyin" does in fact refer only to wine and not grape
juice. (My rebbi held that the power of intoxication is in 'yayyin'
itself -- not alcohol. And if we are not sensitive to that -- or if an
Amora happened to be super-sensitive to grape juice -- that does not
negate the fact.) And grape juice is not "wine that does not intoxicate."

Zvi Lampel

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 02:09:32PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
:                                                                   My
: rebbi held (as others) that grape juice is perfectly fine for arba
: kosos. In fact, he preferred it, for purposes of keeping alert during
: the seder. Aware of that, I asked Reb Dovid about Rav Moshe's apparent
: insistence (reflected in the "Kol Dodi Haggada") on wine versus grape
: juice, and the maximum amount of grape juice one may bi-di'eved mix into
: the wine. I raised the issue that I've seen many people neglect drinking
: the shiur because it is hard for them to have so much wine. Reb Dovid
: shrugged and said, "If they can't drink wine, let them drink grape juice"!

I am not sure I would use "bedi'eved" this way. RMF held one may be
yotzei with grape juice if wine would injur one's health, and possibly
even hold as you write besheim RDF. See IM OC 1:172.

The IM's maqor is R' Yonah's suffering until Shavuos from the after effects
of the 4 kosos, and R Yudah b"R Ilai didn't recover until Sukkos! (Y-mi
Pesachim 10:1, 69a)

The problem RYBS (and on-list, RSMandel) raised with RMF's raayah is
that these amoraim had no choice. Refrigerators weren't invented yet.
Grapes are picked in the fall. By spring, you either had wine, vinegar
or rotten grape juice. R' Genack checked with R' Feivish Herzog (of
Kedem Winery), who agreed with this assessment of the metzi'us. One
can't derive anything from R' Yonah and RYbRI avoiding grape juice --
there was simply none around to use or to avoid.

: One of the Kol Dodi Haggada's proof that grape juice is inferior is from
: the Rashbam, who explains "ta'am yayyin" means "yayyin ha-mesha-kare." I
: so wanted to put it in those terms -- that Rashbam holds that the "taste
: of yayyin" means the power to intoxicate...

RYBS insists that chashivus of yayin is subjective, citing the same
Rashbam (see RHS's summary, Nefesh haRav pg 185.) The Rashbam (Pesacim
108b "yedei yeyin") doesn't say "intoxicate", he says "mesameiach"; so
if grape juice makes the person suffer or not enjoy 4 cups of wine,
grape juice has preference.

Side-issue: Go find non-mevushal grape juice! Therefore RYBS would not
use grape juice for qiddush. Not mishum a lack of alcohol, but because
he holds like the Rambam doesn't allow yayin mevushal for qiddush.

So it all revolves around translating "mesameiach".

R ZP Frank holds the way RMF later did, explicitly saying only alcohol is
mesameiach, and brings two raayos:

1- Taanis 30a allows drinking grape juice in the seudah hamafseqes 
hilkhos erev 9 beAv.
2- Rashi (BM 66b "lepaquchei") explicitly says that wine is special
because its alcohol is mesameiach.

In any case, just to be clear that RYBS isn't a daas yachid, R' Chaim
Kanievsky says that the CI held the same.

And the problem is that there is no way to "just be machmir". One
side says grape juice is inferior, the other says that for someone who
doesn't enjoy that much alcohol, wine is inferior. For such a person,
each side's chumerah is the other's qulah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 6/06/2012 2:09 PM, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> Actually, I thought the translation preserves the ambiguity. The
> Hebrew reads, "v'no-hagim sheh-shofchim L'EE-BUDE HA-MAKKOS v'ein
> sho-sin o-som..... The translaton reads: "Traditionally, we do not
> partake of the poured wine, out of consideration for the losses caused
> by the plagues...."

I wrote a while ago, the first time you posted this, that this is a
gross mistranslation.    "Hamakos" refers to the drops of wine, not to
the plagues that happened to the Mitzrim!   All it says is that we
pour the makos out to waste, rather than keeping them.

-- 
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

On 21/06/2012 2:39 AM, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> And of course the whole concept is not relevant when one is directly
>> addressing the niftar, asking him or her to intercede for us.
>
> Assuming one holds that this is permitted in the first place.

The Zohar explicitly endorses it, and says "vedoresh el hameisim"
means resha'im.  (Just as the Gemara says that "vehameisim einam yod'im
me'uma" means resha'im.)

-- 
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

"In February, Israel?s Supreme Court ruled the Tal Law discriminatory and
unconstitutional in a vote of six to three. The law, which provides
exemptions for young men studying in yeshiva full time, has been the
subject of much criticism and controversy.

"Advocates of maintaining the status quo argue that those studying Torah
provide a spiritual protection to the state of Israel. They also believe
Jewish Law requires exemptions for yeshiva students.

"But what does Jewish law really require?"

Full text:
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinion
s/tal-law-and-jewish-law-is-there-a-conflict/2012/06/20/0/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120621/d1c472ef/attachment-0001.htm>

thanks......
when you say no? need for a beis din, 

what do you mean???
he can just retract and that isit??
what if he later denies retracting it??
doesn't it have to at least be in front 

of witnesses??

?
hb






if a warning given, is there a way to take it back (eg in front

> of a bes din?

No need for a beis din -- but it only works before she violated it.
Once she violates it there's no way to retract it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120621/953fed03/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 69
**************************************

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..."