Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 159

Sun, 11 Dec 2016

• 1. Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula (M Cohen)
• 2. Re: Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: 4 kingdoms (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: 4 kingdoms (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: 4 kingdoms (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Mayim Acharonim, Chova? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? (Professor L. Levine)
• 8. Re: Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos (Akiva Miller)
• 10. yom kippur thought (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: yom kippur thought (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: yom kippur thought (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos (Micha Berger)

For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag
aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest
in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula"

Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see
outline review below.

It is available online as a free download.

Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%2
0to%20the%
20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf

The First Flowering of our Redemption?
 
..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original
sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very
deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because
I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity
to ask her if she had written anything else.
 
She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of
the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was
difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What
she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned
that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive
dissonance for me as a religious Zionist.
 
After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small
book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well.
 
Here's the official promo: 
 
Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption"
physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons
behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel
the mystery of the State of Israel.
 
The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and
thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand
what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State
of Israel.

Mordechai cohen
mco...@touchlogic.com




=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240)
http://free.pctools.com/
=======

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote:
: For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag
: aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest
: in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula"

Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would
non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others.

RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the
turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and
Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews),
but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just"
needed purification.

But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the
biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the
post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in
the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and
of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is
half full.

Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah.
Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is
about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th
year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant
victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later.

Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah
from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah
than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For
that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption.
And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.]

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel
: should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically)
: outside of Israel....

Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried
to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah
(BY not being in the land) are different concepts.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried
> to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah
> (BY not being in the land) are different concepts.

Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today

Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that
galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a
secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews --
either way there is a level of hesteir Panim.

Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental
authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being
: machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably
: violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people.

Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis
she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC,
and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems.

This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY
vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim
acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we
stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim
acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also
about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic
approach, whereas Seph are more machmir.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi


Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh?


A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh.

  *   It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so,
  may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim
  explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten
  on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z.
  274:2).
  *   One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use
  as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten
  (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13).
  *   Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread
  (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or
  with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it
  may not be eaten at the meat meal.
  *   If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20161208/809ba944/attachment.html>

I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question:
using a teapot with a strainer on it.

According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to
the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though
okhel mitokh pesoles.

However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah
le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh
he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption.

According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila
le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using
a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of
soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im
#159)

And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away
soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant.
According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a
little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have
to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I
think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end,
appears to be more like the CI.)

So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even
for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea,
if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable
tea above the filter.



About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use
of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about
whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh
pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the
okhel.

Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work.

Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether
it's ALSO meraqeid.

The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods,
unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid.

The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer
happens at once.



Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up
and I thought it was worth sharing.

Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three:

1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with
   a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita
   filter.)

2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained
   kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining.

3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled
> to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even
> though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about
> boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.)

To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is
Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when
the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being
imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the
problem is M'raked.

This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get
married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong
minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated
against it.

> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that
> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples:
> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against
> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring.

Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179,
just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the
saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the
footnote 125 that you cited.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161208/1dcd6fb5/attachment-0001.htm>

<<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but
*consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is.  That would certainly
require teshuvah. >>

The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example
that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days
-) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161209/2bd44a69/attachment-0001.htm>

<<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but
*consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is.  That would certainly require teshuvah. >>

The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example
that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days
-) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts
------------------------------------
Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with.
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/20161209/03134f07/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
>:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but
>:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would
>:> certainly require teshuvah.

>: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the
>: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in
>: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts

: Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that
: this mashal resonates with.

First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that
culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held
culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE
the moment.

Mussar, with a capital M.

(Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability,
that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase
their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change
how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater,
than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I
bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.)

To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's
bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate
to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the
bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some
negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone
to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is
: Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when
: the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being
: imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the
: problem is M'raked.

But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made.

To repeat:
> ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah
> (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira)
> of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel.

> Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work.

> Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether
> it's ALSO meraqeid.

> The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods,
> unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid.

> The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer
> happens at once.

I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas
the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah
of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may
also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados).

In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language
loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit
any of them.

:> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that
:> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples:
:> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against
:> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring.

: Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179,
: just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the
: saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the
: footnote 125 that you cited.

Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more
authoritative. See also fn 159.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.


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



_______________________________________________
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.)