Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 133

Sun, 30 Oct 2016

• 1. Hallel with a recorded singer (Eli Turkel)
• 2. ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries (Arie Folger)
• 3. tannaitic transmission? (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Gan Eden (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Gan Eden (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Gan Eden (Simon Montagu)
• 7. Re: Gan Eden (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Kima (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Its measure is longer than the earth (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? (Zev Sero)
• 12. R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks (Marty Bluke)

> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play
> a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while
> he is reciting his Hallel?

In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one
day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band

Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit  (they finish
about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha
and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot
sheniot with a singer/electronic piano
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161026/72117282/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbosai,

Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the
likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the
siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the
controversies included in the article, too)?

Yasher koach,


-- 
Arie Folger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161027/7ae62b4f/attachment-0001.htm>

The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a
Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the
memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term
in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using
the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo
kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the
future with the same term.
 I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be
 simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see
 cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply
 concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source.
 My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it
 reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the
 endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case
 and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case
 unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the
 adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161028/32081bdf/attachment-0001.htm>

How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical
place get transformed to a place for the sould after death?

At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the
garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH
and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d
didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than
keeping it so nobody can get there?

Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash.
Some of the questions
where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story
implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where
were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live
forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were
they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then
until now is too immense for the globe etc.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161028/84a72105/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical
: place get transformed to a place for the sould after death?

Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside)
Y-m?

Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan
eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice.

However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of
gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical.
The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we
experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah",
pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time
is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113.

Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are
being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame.


...
: Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash.

And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh.

Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to
pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim
are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze,
more comparisons to learn from.

I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to
understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of
questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to
> pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim
> are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze,
> more comparisons to learn from.
>

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit
are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed
problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the
sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep
messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's
what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161028/29acbfdd/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote:
> This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of
> Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed
> problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the
> sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep
> messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's
> what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths.

No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading
without the disclaimers.

That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal
the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text
on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take
away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which
means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human
description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is.

Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the
rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific
precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't
aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the
technical sense).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org <
http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>:

> But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine
> Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option
> is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without
> carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry
> the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of
> carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15).

> 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1.

R' Zev Sero commented:

> This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote
> 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this
> claim at all.   I believe that the writer never bothered looking his
> alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect
> chapter number *eight times*.)
>
> Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use
> it. ... ...

The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be
"518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but
this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf"
into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be
off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy
to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or
more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number
of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does
the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.)

Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan
Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on
Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but
not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him
all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not
when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise.
It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one
may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it.

It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne
Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that
avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant
carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether
theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom
Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the
square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the
objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is
assur according to all opinions."

In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home
that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he
*does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an
eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne
Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any
heter to carry the housekey.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161028/d185fa6e/attachment-0001.htm>

Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov 
(and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades.  But I can't find any 
source that explains how that identification was made.  Does anyone know 
why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades?

Lisa

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Iyov 11:9 reads:
    Arukah mei'eretz midahh     - Its measure is longer than the earth
    urchavah minni yam          - and broader than the sea.

(The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.)

Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the
body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96).

We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging
from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel.
(c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b)

However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up
with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring,
as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be
an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz
midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second
clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of.

Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns
Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can
learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So,
Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth,
and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound
familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that
are the primary knowledge, it's Torah.

Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan
> Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer
> on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink,
> but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife
> with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be
> cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would
> definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources
> for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into
> the house without it.

Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the 
extreme assertion in the article.  In both these cases the question is 
simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get 
along without it.  If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov 
use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe.  And 
one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without 
cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is.  It's only 
when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, 
or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, 
that one may not carry it.



> It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be
> Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav,
> saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough
> tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a
> machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify
> m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point,
> and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation
> where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is
> at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions."

Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never 
be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov.  There is nothing in 
the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put 
anything there on yomtov.  The only reason one is carrying the key is so 
that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says 
that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is 
a yomtov use.


> In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his
> home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying
> that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area
> without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of
> this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I
> didn't see any heter to carry the housekey.

And yet you carry the key.  Why don't you leave it at home, both on 
shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in?   Obviously you 
have a reason, and thus a use for the key.  Therefore there is not even 
a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov.


-- 
Zev Sero                Wishing everyone a good aquittal
z...@sero.name

Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in
Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html).

This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't
leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport.

If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't
understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The
plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number
of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of
them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long
Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that
the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say
sefeka d'raysa l'chumra.

I have a few questions related to this.
Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh
cemetery (close to takeoff)?
Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of
planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20161030/045c6209/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)