Avodah Mailing List

Volume 40: Number 42

Thu, 16 Jun 2022

• 1. Re: Circles Where It Is Not Done Today (Akiva Miller)
• 2. darkei emori (Joel Rich)
• 3. Re: darkei emori (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Re: darkei emori (Micha Berger)
• 5. How were they told Moshe's nevu'ah is unique? (Micha Berger)
• 6. It wasn't Matzah??? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: It wasn't Matzah??? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: darkei emori (Simon Montagu)

.
R' Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:

> Let us consider three generations of a family that you will not
> say was less Torah observant in previous generations than now.
> When Ahron Soloveichik ... married Ella Shurin, there was mixed
> seating at their wedding. There was separate seating at the
> weddings of their six children, but no mxitzoth. Mxitzoth began
> to appear in the third generation.  The same trend has occurred
> in other areas, as stated above. ...
> The most important question, however, has not yet been addressed.
> Why do we care?  Why do I have to correct misinformation of the
> sort that was quoted at the beginning of this article?

Yes, "Why do we care?" is indeed the most important question.

I can't speak for anyone else, but to ME, the reason I care is because I do
not know how to deal with this information. If I applaud the changes that
have happened, I must wonder why they weren't implemented earlier. If such
mxitzoth are a good thing, is it lashon hara to say that the previous
generation didn't bother? And if they aren't, then why do *we* bother?

My usual answer is that the generations are not identical, and what the
Torah requires of one generation is different from what it requires of
another. It seems entirely reasonable to say that previous generations were
less tznius-challenged than we are, and they were in genuinely less need of
the mxitzah than we are. So there's really no contradiction. They
didn't need it, but (arguably) we do.

(In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there was once a generation which did not
need a mxitzah even in the Beis Hamikdash itself, even at the height of the
Simchas Beis Hashoveiva celebrations. It was only later (I have no idea
when) that they saw the situation deteriorating, causing the mxitzah to be
installed there.)

But other situations aren't explained so easily. Just yesterday, someone
was kvetching to me about the Plag minyan that our shul has on Erev
Shabbos, enabling us to daven both mincha and maariv in the proper zman
according to R' Yehuda, with no Tartei D'sasrei. Such minyanim are common
nowadays, but in the community where this person grew up, there were many
"very frum" shuls and yeshivos, and almost all of them had a standard 7 PM
Mincha on Erev Shabbos for the whole summer. (Only 2 of them, he said,
davened only at the regular zman.)

I had no idea how to respond to this person. Dare I say that recognized
gedolim were less makpid than we are? I certainly don't want to say that,
but the alternative is to say that leaders have to pick their fights
carefully, raising their flocks here and there, only pushing those things
which the people are likely to accept. But that's perhaps even worse,
accusing those Shomrei Mitzvos of halfheartedness.

Another example is the frequent claim that very few women covered their
hair, even among wives of the gedolim.

"Why do we care?" We care because if we don't know where we've been, how
can we possibly know where we're going?

Akiva Miller

Postscript:

RJFYS also wrote:

> Obviously, there can be no hetter to attend your daughter's
> wedding while you are in mourning, if she cannot see you at
> her wedding, and cannot even know whether you are there.

I respectfully disagree. At the very least, you must distinguish between
the father's presence at the chupah (which his daughter will be VERY aware
of) and his presence at the seudah.

But even if she cannot see him at the seudah, she DOES know that he is
there. I would argue that his presence somewhere in the building DOES
enhance simcha for the kallah, and to a significant degree. Imagine, for a
moment: How much she would enjoy her seudah, knowing that her dear father
was sitting it out at home? V'ain kan makom l'haarich.

.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220612/8ca8afbf/attachment-0001.htm>

Any ideas why chazal chose the specific nation of the emoris to label
darchei haemori, which is a more general prohibition? (as in chukat haakum)

KT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220614/dc9defae/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 2:24 PM Joel Rich via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> Any ideas why chazal chose the specific nation of the emoris to label
> darchei haemori, which is a more general prohibition? (as in chukat haakum)
>
Maybe because they're specified in the pasuk "lo shalem avon haemori"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220615/9cd5f839/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:33:04PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote:
>> Any ideas why chazal chose the specific nation of the emoris to label
>> darchei haemori, which is a more general prohibition? (as in chukat haakum)

> Maybe because they're specified in the pasuk "lo shalem avon haemori"?

Bereishis 15:16, in which Hashem talks about our return to Israel being
timed to when the Emori will deserve to be thrown out.

Except that the primary source in the pasuq is Vayiqra 20:23, "Lo seilkhu
bechuqos hagoy asher Ani meshaleiach mipeneikhem..." Which also carries
the implied threat, "because if you do, you won't deserve to stay in
the Land of Israel any more than they did!"

So, while RSM's suggestion seems reasonable, it just shifts the question:
Why use an idiom from a pasuq other than where we actually count the issur
from? (In addition to the use of "chuqas haaku"m", which I assume is a
censorship doctored version of the idiom used in the actual source pasuq.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life isn't about finding yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Life is about creating yourself.
Author: Widen Your Tent               - George Bernard Shaw
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

Something about the end of this week's parashah bothered me when I
was maavir sedra.

HQBH tells Aharon and Miriam that Moshe's nevu'ah is unique, and
other nevi'im "bemar'eh eilav esvada, bachalom adabeir lo." (Bamidbar
12:6) Not so Moshe, who is peh pel peh, not dreams or riddles, etc...

But look how they get this nevu'ah itself! "Vayomer H' pit'om el Moshe
ve'el Aharon ve'el Miryam..." (v. 4) Aharon and Miriam were contacted
suddenly, no prep, no working themselves up to a state of getting a
vision. (Moshe too, but that's no surprise.) 

Then (v. 5) Hashem calls the two of them out of the Ohel Mo'eid,
and continues the conversation with them without Moshe. Is this in a
vision? If so, why did v. 4 give all three the same verb, with "ve'el"
connecting the three objects of that "vayomer"?

For that matter, every Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe ve'el Aharon... How was
Aharon included? Moshe spoke to Hashem panim el panim and Aharon got the
same idea via a vision? Did Hashem speak to Aharon via Moshe, and it's just
a variantof "daber el Aharon"? In which case, when does the pasuq use which?

Anyway, back in this week's parashah....

1- That "pit'om" is a problem for me given the Rambam's position on how
nevi'im got nevu'ah either way, since it says they didn't prepare for it.


2- It sounds like Hashem spoke to Aharon and Miriam 'Peh' el peh telling
team that only Moshe's nevu'ah is 'Peh' el peh. As I said, one verb is used
for all three. How would you read a mar'eh into this narrative?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
Author: Widen Your Tent      and helps us cope with adversity.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF       - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

When I was learning AhS Yomi (tomorrow's first se'if), this really
befuddled me.

OC 261:5 says that dough baked in the sun isn't called lechem, can't
be lechem oni, and thus not Matzah. Doesn't this rule out the batzeiq
that baked on the backs of our ancestors when rushing out of Egypt? Even
though this is one of the things Matzah commemorates?!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   isn't complete with being careful in the laws
Author: Widen Your Tent      of Passover. One must also be very careful in
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 15/6/22 13:35, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> OC 261:5 says that dough baked in the sun isn't called lechem, can't
> be lechem oni, and thus not Matzah. Doesn't this rule out the batzeiq
> that baked on the backs of our ancestors when rushing out of Egypt? Even
> though this is one of the things Matzah commemorates?!

Who says the dough was baked on their backs?  Where does this idea come 
from?  The pasuk says they baked it, not that it baked by itself. 
Obviously they baked it immediately before leaving, without having time 
to let it rise.

My question is why they had no time, since they left at high noon. 
"Be'etzem hayom".   What did they do all morning?  Were they all so busy 
"borrowing" their neighbors' valuables that they couldn't prepare a 
dough first so it could rise while they were out collecting?

-- 
Zev Sero            ?Were we directed from Washington when to sow
z...@sero.name       and when to reap, we should soon want bread.?
                    ?Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 8:14 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:33:04PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote:
> >> Any ideas why chazal chose the specific nation of the emoris to label
> >> darchei haemori, which is a more general prohibition? (as in chukat
> haakum)
>
> > Maybe because they're specified in the pasuk "lo shalem avon haemori"?
>
> <snip>

>
> So, while RSM's suggestion seems reasonable, it just shifts the question:
> Why use an idiom from a pasuq other than where we actually count the issur
> from?
>

I don't see this as a question at all. The fact is that the idiom *doesn't*
come from that pasuk, and plenty of Hazal's terms for things don't come
from the relevant pesukim: Avoda zara, for example.

But as Groucho Marx (?) said, if you don't like my theories I have others:
maybe when Hazal said "Emori" they expected us to hear "Romi". This would
fit well with R. Meir's examples in the Sifra: theatres and circuses and
stadiums
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220616/75c81f58/attachment-0001.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)