Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 153

Tue, 27 Aug 2013

• 1. Re: kibud av ve-em (Samuel Svarc)
• 2. vidui ma'aser (saul newman)
• 3. Re: kibud av ve-em (Ben Waxman)
• 4. kibud av ve-am (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Fwd: Tefillin d'Rabbenu Tam (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 6. Re: kibud av ve-em (Daniel M. Israel)
• 7. Abortion and Halakha (Lisa Liel)
• 8. One of the most significant mitzvot you will ever perform (Richie)
• 9. The Compelling Contrast (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 10. Rambam on False Messiahs (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 11. Re: Rambam on False Messiahs (Zev Sero)
• 12. self defense against rape or assault / stand your ground (M Cohen)
• 13. Re: Rambam on False Messiahs (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Even veAven (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Of Elul, L'David, and Golems (Micha Berger)

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was recently learning hilchot kibud av ve-em in our weekly halacha shiur.
> It seems theo me that at least it my circles it is virtually impossible
> for any modern teenager to keep these halachot
> some examples
>
> <SNIP>
> Any ideas for a modern family with teenagers?
> We have discussed many times on this list teenagers going OTD. These
> halachot might be an extra wedge for kids already having problems. It seems
> the situation is even worse when the father is a TC. In many cases mechila
> doesnt seem to help.
>

Whoever heard of this or practiced this? The main thing by chinuch is to
bind the kid with cords of love to oneself. Here are the words of RSRH
(Soncino edition page 414), "In those years, parents, become friends to
your children; let the son and the daughter have no greater or closer
friend than father and mother - parents, too, have no greater or more
natural friends than their children when grown up. As in their childhood
years, son and daughter must go on living their lives openly and trustfully
under your eyes, they must pour their heart into yours, and should heaven
and earth abandon them they must ever find loyal support, at once kindly
and stern, in father and mother. And will you thrust from you this boon of
friendship, the fairest flower of the relationship between parents and
children? It will certainly blossom for you if you yourselves do not crush
it out of sheer ignorance, if you do not insist on seeing in the young man
and young woman nothing more than a mere boy and girl, if you do not forget
that as they grow older they must be treated differently and you must
become friends to them in order that they may become friends to you."

IMHO, this is why a parent can be mochel on things that others can't. No
one wants that parents to be doormats and that won't have the desired
effect, but neither will a 'kaptonus' on kavod. I saw a quote years ago
(from a non-Jewish actress regarding her husband), who when hearing the key
in the door would think, "Goody! The party is about to start."

Human relationships have ups and downs, but if the general feeling in a
relationship is a feeling of comfort and happiness, if a child views his
home as a place of "good" (security, friendship, happiness) then the parent
has a basis to pull the kid to Torah, to mitzvos. Otherwise, chinuch is
nigh impossible.

One should have a Rav who knows them and their situation. This way, if one
fears that a child asking for food is a breach of halacha, one can inquire
by their Rav.

A final thought. The Minchas Elozor travelled to EY to meet the Grash
Alfandri. Once there, the Minchos Elozor davened at Kever Rochel, where he
saw the Alfandri eating. He inquired as to why the Alfandri would eat at
Kever Rochel and was told that the Alfandri recalls his mothers love and
concern for him when she gave him food to eat; when he eats at Kever Rochel
he feels echoes of that love and he therefore likes to eat there. A parent
feeds a child with love and concern. That a child shouldn't be allowed to
ask for food is bizarre.

KT,
MSS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130823/28526926/attachment.htm>

see r frand's take...  http://torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5767/kisavo.html

so why in fact does RBSO mandate one to 'boast' before him?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130823/89cd90ca/attachment.htm>

I wonder when these practices were ever kept. Granted having a 
supermarket with 20,000 items is new, but a son wanting another piece of 
challah, which happens to be sitting next to his abba?

Ben

On 8/24/2013 12:06 AM, Samuel Svarc wrote:

 >
 > Whoever heard of this or practiced this? The main thing by chinuch is 
to bind the kid with cords of love to oneself. Here are the words of 
RSRH (Soncino edition page 414), gi/avodah-aishdas.org

To be clear the parents can volunteer to do anything for the kids.
So the mother can certainly cook etc and the father can do many things.

The problem is the kids asking for something from the parents that makes
them into a "shaliach"
i.e. pass the salt or for an Israeli "bring us something from the States"

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130825/90cfc202/attachment.htm>

In this shiur: http://www.yutorah.org/lectur
es/lecture.cfm/796382/Shay_Schachter/Kissing_the_Mezuza-_Tefillin-_Tzizis_a
nd_More-_ 
Rabbi Shay Schachter discusses, among other things, the Gemora (Brachos 14b) that 
one who recites Shema without wearing tefillin is an eid sheker. 

He goes on to discuss that people who put on Rabbenu Tam tefillin are careful to say 
Shema and vHaya im Shemoa when they put them on. He also relates a story (which acc. 
to him may not be true) that the Chasam Sofer davka did NOT say Shema when he put on 
Rabbenu Tam tefillin. (All of this is under the assumption that you put on the Rabbenu 
Tam tefillin after you've already removed the Rashi tefillin, not at the same time). 

I have some questions about this. Under the first minhag: Although the gemora says 
don't say shema without tefillin, that's not the same as don't wear tefillin without shema. 
So, what is the need for saying shema when you put on Rabbenu Tam tefillin. 

The second minhag (i.e., the Chasam Sofer's supposedly being careful not to say Shema while 
wearing Rabbenu Tam tefillin) initially made sense to me: Since we hold that Rashi tefillin 
are right, then when we put on the Rabbenu Tam tefillin, if we say shema, we are 
saying shema without tefillin (the Rabbenu Tam tefillin aren't really tefillin). 

But, the more I thought about it, it made less sense. Those who put on Rabbenu Tam tefillin 
presumably do so because there is a safek about which is right. (This seems to be implied in 
the Mishna Berurah 34(8): "ECHAD mehem pasul" -- but we don't know which, and therefore 
when we put on both we aren't over bal tosif). Therefore, if you put on Rashi when you are 
saying the Shema initially, and then put on Rabbenu Tam later, you may have said the Shema without 
tefillin the first time -- and presumably we are all doing that every day. Would it be 
better to 'make up' for that by saying Shema while wearing the Rabbenu Tam tefillin -- or, 
is it better to not risk ANOTHER violation... i.e., as I said above, it doesn't seem we have 
to say Shema whenever we wear tefillin. So, if we put on the Rabbenu Tam tefillin, and they 
are the real tefillin, then we don't need to say Shema; and moreover, if they AREN'T really tefillin, 
then if we say the Shema we are eidim shekirim. 

(R'SS mentions in passing that "we are only putting on Rabbenu Tam tefillin for the kavod of Rabbenu Tam. 
But, if that were the case -- and it wasn't because of a safek -- then the MB, as cited above, would imply 
that we ARE over bal tosif). 

Something just doesn't seem right to me about all this.... 

Number 2 below I can hear (not that I would be makpid on in with my child).

As far as the others, I would presume these need to be weighed against
other halachic considerations, so I can't see how often they would come up.
 For example, if the result of not asking the parent to cook would be the
child has to cook a separate meal, this could greatly inconvenience the
mother.  Same with a child needing to make a separate trip to the store. 
Doesn't the child have to ask whether that is really how the parent want
the child spending his time?  Wouldn't the parent be happier if the child
did some more helpful household chore, or spent the time learning?

Even passing the salt- what should the child do?  Reach around rudely, get
up from the table and walk around, or not enjoy the food his mother worked
so hard on?

On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:43 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was recently learning hilchot kibud av ve-em in our weekly halacha shiur.
> It seems theo me that at least it my circles it is virtually impossible for any modern teenager to keep these halachot
> some examples
> 
> ROY (Yabea Ober)
> One cannot ask ones mother or father to cook food for them or to bring in food or drink even after asking mechila
> 
> R Kareliz (Chut Shani)
> 1, If the parents are going to a store the child cannot ask them to
> buy things for them unless there is no way for the child to buy it
> themselves. The child can hint as long as the father is not a talmod
> chacham
> 2. One cannot ask ones parents to turn off the lights in the room or to bring a book (again it is allowed by hinting as long as the father is not a TC)
> 3. One cannot ask ones parents to pass the salt - only hint by asking "Is there salt at the end of the table?"

Fascinating article today on Torah Musings:

http://torahmusings.com/2013/08/abortions-that-are-kosher/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130825/9a048e1f/attachment.htm>

[From http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/alport/archives/vayechi70.htm , among
other places, Parshas Vayechi - Vol. 5, Issue 12 "compiled by Oizer Alport"
-micha]

...
> The Alter of Slabodka once gave a discourse on the topic of greeting
> others kindly and showing an interest in their welfare. He noted that
> if a person stood next to the synagogue door and poured a glass of milk
> for each person who passed by, everybody would rightfully declare him
> to be a person who does great acts of kindness. However, the Gemara,
> (Ketubot 111b) derives from Bereshis (49:12) that showing another person
> the white of one's teeth with a warm smile is an even greater act of
> kindness than giving him milk.

> So often, we pass somebody who looks like he could use a kind word,
> a warm smile, and a little extra attention, yet the evil inclination
> discourages us from stopping to waste our valuable time on such
> inconsequential matters. The next time this happens, which very well
> may be today, we should remember the lesson of Yosef, that nothing that
> a person does is ever minor, and one has no idea what cosmic chain of
> events one could set in motion with just a few "trivial" words.

The question has been asked why in the sh'ma,  the word "l'vovcho" is spelled with two "baises." The correct spelling would be with one "bais." 
The brilliant explanation is that we serve G-d with both the yetzer tov and the yetzer (ha)ra. Recently, on a Chabad Discussion group the question
was asked why many talleisim have black stripes on a white garment.  A compelling answer is: As with the "l'vovcho:, the black on the tallit is symbolic 
of the yetzer hara and the white is symbolic of the yetzer tov. When we
look at the tallit prior to putting it on, we are reminded to serve G-d
with both "yetzers." 
To carry this concept further, we conquer our "yetzer hara" by bringing it right into the shul where it hopefully loses its power. 

Today's neglected children will be tomorrow's lost adults.   
rw

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130826/5907dcfb/attachment.htm>

In Mishneh Torah Melachim uMilchamot 11, the Rambam writes that if a ruler arises and 
he isn't successful in building the mikdash and gathering the exiles, or he dies, then he 
isn't the Moshiach, and "HKB"H caused him to arise only to test the many". 

But what, according to Rambam, is passing the test? Do we pass the test if we don't 
follow the Moshiach while he is alive, or if we do? That is, following him while he is alive 
and trying to build the Mikdash, etc -- assuming he appears to have the qualities of Moshiach -- 
could be a sign that we believe in Moshiach, and that we are trying to make the conditions right 
to usher in the Messianic era. 

On the other hand, maybe passing the test is NOT being 'fooled' by a false messiah. (Although 
Rambam seems to imply that many people could be the Messiah, and we should believe until 
we get proof otherwise -- by failure or death). 

A third possibility: The test only refers to what happens when the supposed messiah fails or dies. 
Then, obviously, we should not believe he was the messiah, and shouldn't follow him. 

Thanks for your insight. 

Steve 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130827/79b8e807/attachment.htm>

On 27/08/2013 12:08 AM, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
> In Mishneh Torah Melachim uMilchamot 11, the Rambam writes that if a ruler arises and
> he isn't successful in building the mikdash and gathering the exiles, or he dies, then he
> isn't the Moshiach, and "HKB"H caused him to arise only to test the many".
>
> But what, according to Rambam, is passing the test?  Do we pass the test if we don't
> follow the Moshiach while he is alive, or if we do?

I think the Rambam's meaning is clear -- we pass the test by following him,
and showing that we continue to seriously expect Moshiach.  Subjecting him
to excessive skepticism, rejecting his claim without adequate evidence against
it, would indicate that we don't really expect a Moshiach at all, and we would
have treated the real one the same way.

The Rambam's model for all this is Bar Kochva.  He paskens like the version in
the gemara that BK remained a tzadik, and was killed because the people's sins
meant they didn't yet deserve the geulah, as opposed to the version that has
him killed for his own sins.  He also rejects the story that the chachamim
abandoned BK for not being able to judge by literally smelling guilt and
innocence; he explicitly paskens that Moshiach need not perform any miracles
or display any supernatural powers.  As far as the Rambam is concerned, if the
day after BK's defeat an identical claimant had risen the Jews would have been
required to follow him just as strongly as they did the first one.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

I was asked if one halachically allowed to kill an attacker to save yourself
from being raped or beaten?

(rape question is where the victim is not married and the posukim of na'arah
m'orasah don't apply)

 

Rape vs assault / Attacker is J vs nJ / Bah b'machteres

 

nJewish attacker

If the attacker is a nJ and actually strikes, then it would appear they are
chayav misah and one could kill them (because nJ who hits a Jew is chayav
misah)

Also, if they may kill you then it would appear that one could kill them
because it is no worse than Bah b'machteres

My question is one allowed to preemptively kill to save yourself where it's
a clear case of only rape or assault?

 

Jewish attacker

If the attacker is a Jew and they may kill, you then it would appear that
one could kill them because it is no worse than Bah b'machteres

My question is one allowed (preemptively or even after the assault has
begun) to kill them to save yourself where it's a clear case of only rape or
assault?

 

Perhaps this is only theoretical because practically (except for father on
child) one can assume that they may try to kill as per Bah b'machteres?

 

Mordechai cohen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130827/06c27118/attachment.htm>

On 8/27/2013 6:36 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 27/08/2013 12:08 AM, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
>> In Mishneh Torah Melachim uMilchamot 11, the Rambam writes that if a 
>> ruler arises and
>> he isn't successful in building the mikdash and gathering the exiles, 
>> or he dies, then he
>> isn't the Moshiach, and "HKB"H caused him to arise only to test the 
>> many".
>>
>> But what, according to Rambam, is passing the test?  Do we pass the 
>> test if we don't
>> follow the Moshiach while he is alive, or if we do?
>
> I think the Rambam's meaning is clear -- we pass the test by following 
> him,
> and showing that we continue to seriously expect Moshiach.  Subjecting 
> him
> to excessive skepticism, rejecting his claim without adequate evidence 
> against
> it, would indicate that we don't really expect a Moshiach at all, and 
> we would
> have treated the real one the same way.

I think that's going too far.  I don't think there's anything here about 
a "claim".  A leader of the Jews is supposed to do certain things.  If 
he does the first part of those things, *we*, rather than he, determine 
that those actions made him presumptive Mashiach.  If we don't make that 
determination, or if we try and prevent him, we fail the test.  He might 
still continue and succeed in doing the remaining things.  Our failure 
doesn't mean everything ends.

I don't think there's any evidence that Bar Kochva himself claimed to be 
Mashiach.  Maybe he did, but we have no record of it.

Lisa

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:31:33PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: If I'm reading it correctly, Choshen Mishpat 231:18 says not to measure
: land at certain times, because the weather may cause the measuring
: rope to stretch or contract. This seems to answer that question quite
: explicitly..

That isn't even va'aven which is a problem with owning a cheftzah. The
case you give is a warning against accidental geneivah. The rope isn't
at fault, no one is saying it's assur to own a rope of a whole number
of amos in length once it gets wet.

: Another intangible unit might be currency...

Money isn't measured, it's counted. Where it was measured, as in the kesef
silver/money of the world of Tanakh or Chazal, we typically use weight.

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

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:26:01PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> See http://new.ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4886

But it should be noted that in none of the sources prior to Chemdas
Yamim was the particular practice of saying LeDavid twice a day as part
of davening every day of Elul.

The oft-sited Keser Shem Tov recommends a whole tet of tefillos, with
the 13 Middos haRachamim, like selichos, to be said after Shemoneh Esrei
in Shacharis Mon and Thu. Among those tefillos is LeDavid. That's very
different than what we do today, and I think considering it an earlier
source without that caveat is a stretch.

I would think the Chida (Moreh beEtzba #37) is a closer fit. He tells
us to say it every day in Shacharis after Shemoneh Esrei. But the
Chida makes a point of saying that if not every day, at least between
RC Ellul and HR. That's closest, at least for Shacharis. Especially
for the Ukainian version of the minhag, where it's right after Tachanan
(which can be viewed as part of the greater Tefillah with Shemoneh Esrei)
rather than along with Shir shel Yom. But also not twice a day. The
problem is that R' Chaim Yosef David Azulai was all of 8 when Chemdas
Yamim was first published. He isn't likely an earlier source, for all
his brilliance.

And no one questions the linkage between pereq 27 and the season, it's
in Vayiqra Rabba ("ori" = RH, "yish'i" = YK, and then later "besukko")
and the Minhagei Yisrael Torah counts the 13 sheimos in the pereq and
notes their parallel to the 13 Middos. One doesn't need qabbalah --
real or Sabbatean -- to connect the two.

So the fact that earlier Elul minhagim exist that include saying LeDavid
doesn't really prove much WRT the origin of this version of the minhag.
OTOH, it does show that regardless of source, it's unlikely this
particular practice has a Sabbatean thumbprint on it.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 153
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)