Volume 33: Number 57
Tue, 14 Apr 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 08:37:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] "kesod siach sarfei kodesh"
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:59:14PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
: > Sod means conclave?
:
: Yes, as in "besodam al tavo nafshi" in birkat Yaakov (Bereshit 49:6), where
: it's parallel to "kehalam", or more directly connected to kedusha Ps 89:8
: "sod kedoshim".
To clarify: "Sod" *here* means conclave?
I suggested an alternative, which I think fits the sentence better,
as it makes "sod siach" a phrase, rather than trying to explain the
interruption of "siach" in "sod ... sarfei".
: I couldn't say whether "conclave" is the original sense and "secret" a
: derived meaning, or vice versa
Very different implications hashkafically, whether yesod would then be
related to secrets (as foundations are in the ground) or a gathering of
people (people as founders?).
:-)||ii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 4th day
mi...@aishdas.org in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an
Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others?
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:58:05 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] tefillas haderech
Just saw a halacha that to me was a chiddush
That one cannot (or should not) be yotzeh someone else for tefiilat
haderech but everyone should say for them self.
Those agreeing (at least lechatchila) include
R Aviner
R Nebenzahl
R C Kanevsky
R Tuvia Goldstein (who said he convinced RMF)
R Belsky
Not what I have seen in practice.
Anyone know any opinion that does allow it
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150412/557a0316/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 15:55:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] tefillas haderech
R' Eli Turkel asked:
> Just saw a halacha that to me was a chiddush
> That one cannot (or should not) be yotzeh someone else for
> tefiilat haderech but everyone should say for them self.
> Those agreeing (at least lechatchila) include
> R Aviner
> R Nebenzahl
> R C Kanevsky
> R Tuvia Goldstein (who said he convinced RMF)
> R Belsky
> Not what I have seen in practice.
> Anyone know any opinion that does allow it
Chidush to me too. I don't where to begin my comments.
There's a GIGANTIC difference between "cannot" and "should not".
"agreeing (at least lechatchila)" also allows a too-wide variety.
And without some sort of reasoning, how can we throw out what we already
know? Is there something special about Tefilas Haderech, or is this merely
an example of how we have so little kavana nowadays that being motzi others
is just too risky?
I'm sure there are other sources I could quote, but for now, I will simply
quote from "Halachically Speaking", vol 1, pg 75, by Rabbi Moishe Dovid
Lebovits, published by Israel Bookshop.
> One person can say the tefillah for everyone, as long as he has
> everyone in mind and the others concentrate on the words.(20)
> Horav Yisroel Belsky shlita maintains that every individual
> should try to say tefillas haderech if he can.(21) If this is
> not possible, one person can say it for everyone.(22)
> 20) Kinyan Torah 2:119, Bais Avi 5:55, Opinion of Horav
> Elyashiv shlita quoted in Darchei Ori page 279:2,
> U'velechticha Baderech 2:footnote 26 quoting the opinion of
> Horav Chaim Kanievesky shlita, see Darchei Ori page 259:1. It
> is questionable whether someone who has already said tefilalas
> haderech can repeat it for someone else. (Halichos Shlomo
> Tefilah 21:5:footnote 9).
>
> 21) See Emes L'Yaakov page 65.
>
> 22) See Eishel Avraham Butchtach, Rivevos Ephraim 6:32:2,
> Halichos Shlomo Tefilah page 245:5, Divrei Chachamim page
> 76:192.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:33:50 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Davening Outdoors
I am moving this to Avodah. YL
At 12:43 AM 4/12/2015, R. Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
>R' YL:
>Another person wrote to me
>
>"Chazal say that one is not allowed to daven outside (probably because of
>kavana); <SNIP>
>--------------------
>Does anyone have a mareh makom for this?
>
>KT,
>MYG
From http://www.dinonline.org/2012/07/11/davening-outdoors/
Is it problematic to daven outdoors?
Thanks.
Answer:
One should not daven in an open area outdoors,
and should daven in a closed building, or a sheltered area.
Sources:
The Gemara (Berachos 34b) writes that it is wrong
(arrogant ? chatzuf) to daven in an open field.
Rashi explains that in an open field, one doesn?t
feel fear of the King, and one doesn?t pray with
a broken heart. Tosafos, however, understands
that the concern is for passers-by, who are
liable to disturb a person?s davening.
The Magen Avraham (90:6) rules that the problem
is that davening outside makes a haughty
statement: ?Even though there are passers-by,
they will not disturb my intent in davening!? This is arrogant and wrong.
The Shulchan Aruch (90:5) rules that one should
not daven in an open place, and the Mishnah
Berurah (11) adds that those who are always
travelling should can daven in an open place, but
should try to daven by a tree.
Therefore, although it is not forbidden to daven
outdoors, it is wrong to daven in an open area,
and one should seek a sheltered place.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150412/33f23029/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:54:45 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] reviit
In the sefer of Rav Aviner he brings many examples of gedolim who used a
kiddush cup the size of the shiur of R Chaim Naeh (86 CC) and not CI.
He says he heard from RSZA that when RCN published his sefer on shiurim the
rabbis of Yerushalayim were astounded at his chumra !!
1) cup if Chafetz Chaim (from his grandson R Hillel Zaks)
2) cup of GRA (baal eyanim le-mishpat who got it as an inheritance)
3) cup someone got from Ohr Sameach (mesoros she-avdu)
4) Rebbe of Gur - Pnei Menachem stated about the cup of his father Baal
Imre Ha-emes
5) cup of R Salanter (Shut Teshuvot Vehanhagot)
6) Rav Dessler used a small cup that belonged to his wife's family. After
she passed away he used a larger cup
7) cup of the father of the CI
8) Brother of CI used a cup he got from his father-in-law (Cheshek Shlomo
of Vilna) and also had shiur RCN
9) R Elyashiv used a cup the size of CI but explained that he did so in
honor of CI not because that is the halacha
10) In the sefer Meged Givat Olam second volume p34) someone showed RMF a
cup holding about 88cc and RMF remarked that it was kosher lechatchila (not
not the shiur published in his name)
11) In Divrei Yoel the Satmar rebbe is quoted as saying the shiur of reviit
is 75 gram (!?)
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150412/3a770035/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 15:01:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] reviit
On 04/12/2015 12:54 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> 11) In Divrei Yoel the Satmar rebbe is quoted as saying the shiur of reviit is 75 gram (!?)
>
RACN assumed that the Rambam's dirham was the same as the Ottoman dirham
used in his day, which was 3.1 g. But there's significant evidence that
the Egyptian dirham of the Rambam's day was slightly smaller, about 2.8 g,
which gives a revi'it of about 75 ml.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:15:15 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah and
R' Ari Kahn posted a transcript of that famous talk that people remember
for RYBS's statement about tav lemeisiv.
http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-
torah-and.html
As a teaser, here is all RYBS said on tev lemeis tan du:
Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos
but also the chazakos [19] which chachmei chazal have introduced
are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos,
but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke
rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon
permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the
human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which
is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example
the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan
du mil'meisiv armalo [20] has absolutely nothing to do with the
social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is
based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis
-- harba arbeh itz'voneich v'heironeich b'etzev teildi vanim v'el
isheich t'shukaseich v'hu yimshal bach -- "I will greatly multiply
thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children,
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
[21]. It is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine personality
-- she suffers incomparably more that the male who is in solitude.
Solitude to the male is not as terrible an experience, as horrifying
an experience, as is solitude to the woman. And this will never
change, mayid shamayim vaaretz [22]. This is not a psychological
fact; it is an existential fact, which is due not to the inferior
status of the woman, but rather to the difference, the basic
distinction, between the female personality and the male personality.
Loneliness frightens the woman, and an old spinster's life is much
more miserable and tragic than the life of an old bachelor. This was
true in antiquity; it is still true, and it will be true a thousand
years from now. So, to say that tan du mil'meisiv armalo was or
is due to the inferior political or social status of the woman
is simply misinterpreting the chazaka tan du mil'meisiv armalo.
No legislation can alleviate the pain of the single woman, and no
legislation can change this role. She was burdened by the Almighty,
after she violated the first [law]. Let me ask you a question --
ribono shel olam, G-d Almighty, if you should start modifying and
reassessing the chazakos upon which a multitude of halachos rest,
you will destroy yehadus. So instead of philosophizing, let us
rather light a match and set fire to the beis yisrael, and get rid
of our problems.
What I think is more typical of the general thesis of this portion of
his talk was the immediately prior statement:
V'chen hakofer b'perusha v'hu torah she b'al peh v'hamach'chish
magideha; he who denies the perfection and the truthfulness of
chachmei chazal -- not of the Torah, but of the chachmei chazal
as personalities, as real persona as far as their character, their
philosophy, or their outlook on the world is concerned -- is a kofer.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate?
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:27:43 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah
What I think is more typical of the general thesis of this portion of
his talk was the immediately prior statement:
V'chen hakofer b'perusha v'hu torah she b'al peh v'hamach'chish
magideha; he who denies the perfection and the truthfulness of
chachmei chazal -- not of the Torah, but of the chachmei chazal
as personalities, as real persona as far as their character, their
philosophy, or their outlook on the world is concerned -- is a kofer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole piece is worth hearing (even more than reading) - it seems to me that the debate echoes here:
https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2015/0
4/12/rabbi-ysoscher-katz-and-rabbi-ozer-glickman-rounds-one-and-two/
I do wonder whether one can avoid self awareness with a modern education.
Another challenge is how to deal with recent "Chachmei Hamesorah" who don't seem to meet the perfection definition.
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.
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: saul newman
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:56:37 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] support obligations
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193853#.VSwsUo6ZPAG
interesting question . while in theory the ketuba and consequently the
terms of marriage , mandate the husband support a wife , in practice that
is not true in the kollel years [which in israel could last a prolonged
time ]. here , a kollel man divorcing claims no income , and that the wife
should support the children by getting a job .
apart from secular courts, is there a positive chiyuv for a husband to
leave 'torato umnato' to support his children ? does a get terminate his
financial obligations halachically?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150413/d3548706/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:23:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Philosophy and practice of shmita
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:09:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: What is the earliest source that ties shmita to the farmers using the
: time to learn Torah?...
I don't know about first, but the Seforno (Vayiqra 25:4, d"h "shabbos
Lashem") writes:
So that also those who work the earth, when they rest for this year,
yis'oreru lidrosh es H' be'ofen mah.
This is then quoted verbatum by R' Yaaqov Tzevi Mecklengburg (HaKesav
behaQabbalah, early or mid-19th cent), who sites both the Sefornu and and
"Raba"ch" -- who is eluding me. I didn't see it in Rabbeinu Bechayei,
nor the Chizquni.
Nor am I sure that "liderosh es H'" means learning.
More recent is the Ari (as recorded by R' Shemu'el Vital, Shaar haPesuqim)
based on the Zohar (vol II 20b). Haro'eh baShoshanim -- "Shoshanim"
refers to the 6 shins in "usefarta lekha SHeva SHabasos SHanim, SHeva
SHanim SHeva pe'amim". And from there haro'eh bashoshanim becomes: the
one who dedicates the 7th year to learning finds G-d in all the 6 years
of labor as well.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate?
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:28:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Of Gebrokts and Kitniyos
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 04:47:45AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: Does not the SA say that a person who has trouble chewing matzah can
: soak it in water and then eat it? If so, then I fail to see why
: eating gebrokts should be a problem for anyone.
:
The SA lived in the wrong qehillah for the minhag to be relevant.
He would allow you to eat qitniyos too.
And if we accept the SA haRav's explanation of gebrochts over the MB's,
the Rama lived before we counted kneading time toward the 18 min,
and gebrochts wasn't necessary yet. And since according to the SAhR's
teshuvah, the minhag caught on after the Besh"t, meaning during the
lifetime of its author and his readers, I am inclined to believe his
version of the timing over someone who is reconstructing older history.
: Also, were not the matzos that were used in the time of the SA
: thicker than ours?
Again, MB vs the SAhR as to whether that's at issue.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate?
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:33:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] support obligations
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 01:56:37PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: apart from secular courts, is there a positive chiyuv for a husband to
: leave 'torato umnato' to support his children ? does a get terminate his
: financial obligations halachically?
Assuming she didn't agree to the arrangement. Ortherwise, the wife
willingly waved her claim to his income, and took on the obligation of
self- and child-support.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 03:54:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] support obligations
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Assuming she didn't agree to the arrangement. Ortherwise, the wife
> willingly waved her claim to his income, and took on the obligation
> of self- and child-support.
I would argue that she accepted the financial responsibilities only in
exchange for the s'char she gets from enabling her husband to learn Torah,
and that once he ceases to be her husband, that arrangement ends, and the
whole thing reverts to the usual. Phrased differently, once he stops giving
her the s'char of sharing in his learning, he has to give her a more
practical olam-hazeh sort of support.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/552c8fb420d2bfb30fdest04vuc
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 03:45:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah
[RAK gives credit to others in fn. 1. It is not his transcript. -micha]
R' Micha Berger posted R' Ari Kahn's transcript of Rav YB Soloveitchik:
> ... This is not a psychological
> fact; it is an existential fact, which is due not to the inferior
> status of the woman, but rather to the difference, the basic
> distinction, between the female personality and the male personality.
> Loneliness frightens the woman, and an old spinster's life is much
> more miserable and tragic than the life of an old bachelor. This was
> true in antiquity; it is still true, and it will be true a thousand
> years from now. So, to say that tan du mil'meisiv armalo was or
> is due to the inferior political or social status of the woman
> is simply misinterpreting the chazaka tan du mil'meisiv armalo. ...
From what I understand, the objection to hafkaas kiddushin comes from a
presumption that a woman would prefer to stay with her husband, even if
he seems to be a terrible person, and even if she tells us that in *her*
opinion he is a terrible person -- and we have this presumption because
of the chazaka of tan du.
But I do not see Rav Soloveitchik making that case here. All he is saying
is that "an old spinster's life is much more miserable and tragic than
the life of an old bachelor."
He does say that this relative perspective on singlehood is a "permanent
ontological principle[s] rooted in the very depth of the human
personality," and that it will never change, and that this information
is Revealed in the words of Bereishis. But this refers ONLY to the misery
and tragedy of a single woman as opposed to a single man.
And that's NOT that argument against hafkaas kiddushin, at least not
how I've heard it. The argument that I've heard -- that is to say, the
supposed translation of "tav l'meisiv tan du" -- is that a woman would
prefer living with ANY man rather than to be alone.
I can easily understand opposition to Hafkaas Kiddushin on the grounds
that widespread use would give *all* marriages a sort of "tentative"
status. But that's not what people are referring to here, right? When
they invoke "tan du" against Hafkaas Kidushin, they're saying that despite
the wife's protestations, the wife would actually prefer to stay married,
and that's why they're unable to annul the marriage. Or am I mistaken?
Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:26:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah
On 04/13/2015 11:45 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> From what I understand, the objection to hafkaas kiddushin comes from a
> presumption that a woman would prefer to stay with her husband, even if
> he seems to be a terrible person, and even if she tells us that in*her*
> opinion he is a terrible person -- and we have this presumption because
> of the chazaka of tan du.
What she prefers is irrelevant. Obviously she wants to leave her husband;
she is openly telling us so, and it's ridiculous to suppose she is not
telling the truth. And even if she weren't, if the marriage is invalid
then it's invalid, no matter what she wants.
You're looking at the whole thing from the wrong direction. No objection
is needed to annulling a marriage; what's needed is grounds *for* annulling
it. The alleged grounds are that it has now become clear that this man
was always such a bad person that had the woman known this when he proposed
marriage she would have refused, and throughout the subsequent marriage
there was never a point at which she was so happy that had she found out
the truth she would have consented to stay with him.
Now if the husband is bad enough (and it can be proved that he always was so),
*and* the woman is such a catch that there was never a point at which she
could not have found another husband, then this makes sense. Obviously she
has always preferred a good husband to a bad one, and only married this man
because she thought he was a good one. But what if refusing to marry him,
or leaving him at some point during the marriage, were to expose her to the
risk of remaining single forever? Would she still have turned him down or
left him? The proponents of annulment say yes, of course she would, just
as she has left him now. But, RYBS says, Chazal tell us that it's female
nature to prefer a bad husband to none at all, so perhaps even if she had
known the truth about this man she would have consented to marry him rather
than risk remaining single; or perhaps there was a point after the event at
which, had she learned the truth, she would have stayed with him rather than
face a single future.
> But I do not see Rav Soloveitchik making that case here. All he is saying
> is that "an old spinster's life is much more miserable and tragic than
> the life of an old bachelor."
Yes, and therefore while a man might prefer to be single rather than live with
a bad wife, a similarly situated woman will not. That this woman *now* tells
us she would, doesn't prove that she always would have.
> He does say that this relative perspective on singlehood is a "permanent
> ontological principle[s] rooted in the very depth of the human
> personality," and that it will never change, and that this information
> is Revealed in the words of Bereishis. But this refers ONLY to the misery
> and tragedy of a single woman as opposed to a single man.
>
> And that's NOT that argument against hafkaas kiddushin, at least not
> how I've heard it. The argument that I've heard -- that is to say, the
> supposed translation of "tav l'meisiv tan du" -- is that a woman would
> prefer living with ANY man rather than to be alone.
Yes. How is that not the same thing? Spinsterhood is terrible for women,
so terrible that they'd prefer living with a bad man to it.
> When they invoke "tan du" against Hafkaas Kidushin, they're saying that despite
> the wife's protestations, the wife would actually prefer to stay married,
> and that's why they're unable to annul the marriage. Or am I mistaken?
Not that she'd prefer it now, but that she did prefer it earlier, when she
was faced with the risk of never finding anyone else.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
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.)