Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 70

Fri, 22 Jun 2012

• 1. Re: clarification//bitter waters and //// the internet...... (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Translation of "Yayyin" (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: whats a city (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Berachot in the Course of a Meal (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Berachot in the Course of a Meal (Gershon Dubin)
• 6. Re: Berachot in the Course of a Meal (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Berachot in the Course of a Meal (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Translation of Makos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Kivrey Avos (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Berachot in the Course of a Meal (Gershon Dubin)
• 11. Re: Translation of "Yayyin" (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Translation of Makos (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Kivrey Avos (Zev Sero)
• 14. Korachs Proof That the Entire Congregation is Holy (Meir Rabi)
• 15. Re: Drops of wine (was: Translation of "Yayyin") (Lisa Liel)
• 16. tosefta incorporations?? (Harvey Benton)

On 21/06/2012 1:04 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> thanks......
> when you say no need for a beis din, what do you mean???
> he can just retract and that isit??

Yes.

> what if he later denies retracting it??

Why would he do that, when he can just warn her again?


> doesn't it have to at least be in front of witnesses??

No.


-- 
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 Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:19:07PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> 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

Reposting it on Avodah was my idea. I just lifted the post from the
Areivim discussion and repeated it here.

>                                                      that this is a
> the plagues that happened to the Mitzrim!   All it says is that we
> pour the makos out to waste, rather than keeping them.

If the loss of a drop of wine is a makkah, then ibud hamakkos is to
NOT spill the wine, or at least to return them to the cup, and thus not
lose any.

And then the translation would be:
    And we are accustomed to spill IN ORDER TO LOSE THE LOSS OF WINE,
    and we do not drink them....

OTOH, if you mean that the wine is the symbol of a makkah, then you've
got:
    And we are accustomed to spill IN ORDER TO LOSE THE SYMBOL OF THE
    PLAGUE, and we do not drink them....

In which case, we're saying the drop of wine is removed because it
is something to be lost. Which to my mind wouldn't fit a symbol of
"etzba E-lokim".

So I don't get you.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:22:58AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: 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...                                            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)....

If you're going to walls at some historical point in the past, what
would be the sevara for an alternative to those at the time of kibush
haaretz under Yehoshua bin Nun?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:04:27PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
:> 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.

Well, these are dinim derabbanan, they /are/ artificial.

The problem is that those of us who didn't grow up in traditional
Edot haMizrach or Teimani homes don't relate to the eating style
chazal assumed when they passed these laws. See the July 2006 thread,
"historical contingency and brachos" <http://j.mp/Ma1Adq>.

At a Middle Eastern meal, everything else is eaten on bread. I would say
bread is your cutlery, but it's more like your meat is embellishing your
bread. The se'udah is to this very day viewed as eating bread with other
things. And if you want more cubes of grilled meat, tear off a piece of
flat bread, scoop some out, and enjoy!

So, it's artificial, and based around a different eating style than ours.
Something for the next Sanhedrin to deal with.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas HaOlam

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:14:24 -0400
> The problem is that those of us who didn't grow up in traditional
> Edot haMizrach or Teimani homes don't relate to the eating style
> chazal assumed when they passed these laws...

> At a Middle Eastern meal, everything else is eaten on bread. I would say
> bread is your cutlery, but it's more like your meat is embellishing your
> bread....

> So, it's artificial, and based around a different eating style than ours.
> Something for the next Sanhedrin to deal with.

Clearly the Mechaber in 177:2 says that it does in fact depend on the
eating style prevalent at that time and place. Since "we" never stop
eating pas (the style you refer to) it's always lelafes. Same would
work in the other direction; in the USA in 2012 nobody (who doesn't
have a berachos cheshbon) would ever eat bread with their dessert.
So the dessert is NOT lelafes and requires a beracha.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:00PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Clearly the Mechaber in 177:2 says that it does in fact depend on the
: eating style prevalent at that time and place. Since "we" never stop
: eating pas (the style you refer to) it's always lelafes. Same would
: work in the other direction; in the USA in 2012 nobody (who doesn't
: have a berachos cheshbon) would ever eat bread with their dessert.
: So the dessert is NOT lelafes and requires a beracha.

There is a gap between the Mechaber's "we" and how we eat in the US
today, even before dessert. The Mechaber is saying it's normal to eat
lelefes, and in his (and chazal's) milieu, it would be abnormal not to
eat everything together with bread. We would not find it abnormal. Yes, we
wouldn't find it strange to have bread with the meal (up to dessert). But
we wouldn't find it strange to omit the bread either.

Hilkhos berakhos appear to assume it is not only be a socially acceptible
option to eat with bread, but strange not to. Which is why the berakhah
on the bread subsumes foods normally eating to accompany it. We don't
make a meal by accompanying bread with other things; it's not the way
we think about meals.

Ironically, except perhaps a meal of pizza.

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

 
 
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
>>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. 

.... It is  totally illogical. 
 


>>>>>
 
The reasoning is something like this:
 
Bread IS the meal and the reason you don't have to make brachos on  
everything else is that everything else comes to accompany the bread.
 
Fruit is dessert and dessert is not part of the meal, so requires a  
separate bracha.  Unless you are still eating bread, in which case the  fruit /is/ 
part of the meal and doesn't need a separate bracha.
 
 

--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120621/607e3f5a/attachment-0001.htm>

In the thread "Translation of Yayyin", R' Zev Sero wrote:

> "Hamakos" refers to the drops of wine, not to
> the plagues that happened to the Mitzrim!

Where do you get this?

From what I see, we have the word "makos" when we count the words in "b'yad
chazaka", in the line "aylu eser makos she'hayvee HKBH al a mitzrim
b'mitzrayim", which explicitly refers to what happened to the Mitzrim.

We also have it several times, in the three paragraphs about R' Yosi
Haglili, R' Eliezer, and R' Akiva, where it refers to both the makos in
Mitzrayim, and at the Yam Suf.

Where do you have "makos" referring to the spilled wine?

To be clear, I'm not really disagreeing. It sounds like a cute little vort,
possibly originating with an alternate pronunciation of "mee-kos" -- "from
the cup". I just never heard it before, and I'm wondering both where you
got it, and in what context you'd use it.

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fe37c3ded0688b7293st02vuc

 

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>

>>  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. <<



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





>>>>>
 
[1] What about the idea that those who have passed away come back and  go 
to the simchas of their relatives and descendants?  They must know about  the 
weddings at least!  Or do you have to explicitly invite them if you  want 
them to come?
 
[2] What do you think of the Chabad idea that the Rebbe is everywhere and  
knows everything, including the thoughts of his chassidim?  I don't know  
whether this is a mainstream or fringe Chabad belief but it's certainly out  
there.
 
 
 

--Toby  Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120621/d4eb8baa/attachment-0001.htm>

<<We would not find it abnormal. Yes, we
wouldn't find it strange to have bread with the meal (up to dessert). But
we wouldn't find it strange to omit the bread either.>> Strangest of
all is the guy with the bread in hand eating his ice cream or other
dessert.  Not seen anywhere except in "frummy" circles.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fe38161533821610cdest51vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120621/f50c77ba/attachment-0001.htm>

On 21/06/2012 2:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:19:07PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> 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...."


>>                                                       that this is a
>> the plagues that happened to the Mitzrim!   All it says is that we
>> pour the makos out to waste, rather than keeping them.

> If the loss of a drop of wine is a makkah

NO!  Where are you getting this?  I didn't say anything about a loss!
The "makkos" here refers to *the spilled drops of wine*.


>, then ibud hamakkos is to

There is no "ibud hamakos".  It's "shofchin le'ibud, hamakos".  We
pour the makos down the drain (or in the midden, before modern plumbing).
This is poshut and obvious.


> OTOH, if you mean that the wine is the symbol of a makkah, then you've
> got:
>      And we are accustomed to spill IN ORDER TO LOSE THE SYMBOL OF THE
>      PLAGUE, and we do not drink them....

"Le'abed" does not mean "to lose", it means "to destroy".  Contrary
to what parents like to tell their children, "hame'abed mah shenosnin lo"
doesn't mean one who loses what he is given, but one who destroys it.
"Le'ibud" means "to destruction", or "to waste".  We spill the wine out
and waste it, rather than drinking it ch"v.



> In which case, we're saying the drop of wine is removed because it
> is something to be lost. Which to my mind wouldn't fit a symbol of
> "etzba E-lokim".

I don't understand you; why would you *want* to drink Hashem's punishment?
"Lo asim alecha"!  It's bad.  Poison.  Send it to the klipos where it
belongs.  (Some people used to have a custom to give it to a nochri
to drink...)


-- 
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 3:54 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> In the thread "Translation of Yayyin", R' Zev Sero wrote:
>
>> "Hamakos" refers to the drops of wine, not to
>> the plagues that happened to the Mitzrim!
>
> Where do you get this?

It is simply how we refer to what we do -- we "pour the makos", and
thus we refer to that which is poured as "makos".  And "shofchin
le'ibud" very plainly means "spill out and waste".  The mistranslation
comes from misparsing the Hebrew, and thinking it's giving a reason
rather than merely an instruction.


> Where do you have "makos" referring to the spilled wine?

Common idiom.


> To be clear, I'm not really disagreeing. It sounds like a cute little
> vort, possibly originating with an alternate pronunciation of "mee-kos"
> -- "from the cup".

No, nothing to do with that.  The name simply transferred from what
is said while pouring to that which is poured.


-- 
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 3:42 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> [1] What about the idea that those who have passed away come back and
> go to the simchas of their relatives and descendants?  They must know
> about the weddings at least!  Or do you have to explicitly invite them
> if you want them to come?

The common minhag is to go to the graves and invite them.  Do they not do
that in your family?  (What if the graves are not accessible, or they
never came to kever yisroel?  Does that mean they don't come?  I don't
know.  Maybe if you invite those whose graves you can access, they will
inform the others?)


> [2] What do you think of the Chabad idea that the Rebbe is everywhere
> and knows everything, including the thoughts of his chassidim?  I don't
> know whether this is a mainstream or fringe Chabad belief but it's
> certainly out there.

It's reasonably mainstream, based on the Zohar quoted in Tanya that
"a tzadik who passes away is present in all the worlds more than when
he was alive", because when he was alive he was confined to and limited
by a body.  But this is contradicted by a *lot* of material (including
a scary story about the Mitteler Rebbe) showing the opposite.  I haven't
seen anything directly addressing this apparent contradiction.


-- 
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

Rashi [16:3]  "You, Moses and Aharon, were not the only ones to hear Gd say
?I am the Lord your Gd ?? argues Korach

This seems to be a proof for Moshe Rs superiority, and cause to accept his
nomination of Aharon. How is this understood?

The Nachalas YaAkov suggests that it is said only about Aharon. But that is
not how rashi reads, Lo Attem LeVadChem ShamU ... is in the plural.
besides even if said in the singular and referring to Aharon alone, it
would still backfire since it would point to Moshe Rs superiority.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120622/703e7d5c/attachment-0001.htm>

The words are very clear, and R' Zev is obviously correct.

V'nohagim she-shofchim l'ibud ha-makkot, v'ein shotin otam.

The word "otam" clearly refers to the drops of wine.  Unless someone 
wants to argue that the line is saying "And we are accustomed to spill 
away the plagues and not to drink them."  R' Micha, you can't have it 
both ways.  If the seifa is talking about the drops, then so is the reisha.

Shofchim l'ibud means to waste them.  Like "holchim l'ibud" means going 
to waste.  The idea that "ibud ha-makkot" is a phrase meaning the losses 
caused by the plagues is utterly foreign to the Hebrew.  It would leave 
"shofchim" dangling in a way that simply isn't done.  Nor is the lamed 
before "ibud" properly translated as "for" or "out of consideration 
for".  That's an English phrasing that doesn't exist in Hebrew (though 
it may have gotten into Modern Hebrew by now).

I realize that this is simply an extension of the long running dispute 
between R' Micha on the one hand, and R' Zev and myself on the other as 
to whether we're supposed to rejoice over the downfall of our non-Jewish 
enemies.  This line does not support either position, however much R' 
Micha might wish otherwise.

Lisa

On 6/21/2012 5:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 21/06/2012 2:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:19:07PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> 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...."
>
>
>>>                                                       that this is a
>>> the plagues that happened to the Mitzrim!   All it says is that we
>>> pour the makos out to waste, rather than keeping them.
>
>> If the loss of a drop of wine is a makkah
>
> NO!  Where are you getting this?  I didn't say anything about a loss!
> The "makkos" here refers to *the spilled drops of wine*.
>
>
>> , then ibud hamakkos is to
>
> There is no "ibud hamakos".  It's "shofchin le'ibud, hamakos".  We
> pour the makos down the drain (or in the midden, before modern plumbing).
> This is poshut and obvious.
>
>
>> OTOH, if you mean that the wine is the symbol of a makkah, then you've
>> got:
>>      And we are accustomed to spill IN ORDER TO LOSE THE SYMBOL OF THE
>>      PLAGUE, and we do not drink them....
>
> "Le'abed" does not mean "to lose", it means "to destroy".  Contrary
> to what parents like to tell their children, "hame'abed mah shenosnin lo"
> doesn't mean one who loses what he is given, but one who destroys it.
> "Le'ibud" means "to destruction", or "to waste".  We spill the wine out
> and waste it, rather than drinking it ch"v.
>
>
>
>> In which case, we're saying the drop of wine is removed because it
>> is something to be lost. Which to my mind wouldn't fit a symbol of
>> "etzba E-lokim".
>
> I don't understand you; why would you *want* to drink Hashem's 
> punishment?
> "Lo asim alecha"!  It's bad.  Poison.  Send it to the klipos where it
> belongs.  (Some people used to have a custom to give it to a nochri
> to drink...)
>
>

why were some beraitos available and 

incorporated into the gemmarra, while
others were incorporated into the 

toseftas ???

?
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120622/7abd6f8c/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 70
**************************************

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..."