Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 94

Thu, 13 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: from a parsha sheet (Micha Berger)
• 2. Mashke of the Beit Mit'bechayah (Jonathan Baker)
• 3. from a parsha sheet (Jonathan Baker)
• 4. Re: from a parsha sheet (Zev Sero)
• 5. Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married? (Josh E.)
• 6. Men lighting Shabbat candles with a berakha (Simon Montagu)
• 7. Re: Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: from a parsha sheet (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: from a parsha sheet (Zev Sero)
• 10. Women Lighting menorahs (fwd) (Steven J Scher)
• 11. Re: Fables and Lies (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Apikores? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: The Chanukah Musings of a Mathematician (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: The Kuzari, vindicated (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Yekum Purkan (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Yekum Purkan (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Yekum Purkan (Micha Berger)

On Tue, December 11, 2007 3:45 pm, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
: Question of the week
: A minyan is required for many religious activities. Usually, ten male
: adult Jews qualify for a minyan.
: a. When can women or children be included in a minyan?

R"L when the question is dying al qiddush Hashem, the definition of
"berabbim" is 10 Jews of either gender since both are equally
mechuyavim.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

From: Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org>
 
> In Eduyos 8:4 (and Keilim 15:6, and Pesachim 16a, and Sanhedrin 37b) 
> we learn that the mashke of the Beis Mitbichayah is an exception to 
> the rule that the seven liquids are mekabel tumah.
 
> But I couldn't find any reasons.
 
> Any thoughts as to why?

From the Conservative's Mishnah Yomit program:

Section two:  The liquid which would be found on the floor of the slaughter-house of the Temple, which is assumedly a mixture of blood and water, is pure and cannot become impure.  One explanation of this is that the concept of the impurity of liquids is a Rabbinic innovation (derabanan).  The Rabbis did not include in this innovation the liquids found in the Temple, so as not to increase the impurity of things found in the Temple.  

http://mishnahyomit.org/eduyoth/Eduyoth%208-4.doc

From Kehati (Torah Community Connections site):

And that liquid in the slaughterhouse - The blood which runs out of the slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard from the sacrifices which have been slaughtered, as well as water used in the Temple courtyard, is clean - That it is completely clean and cannot become unclean, as the uncleanness of liquids is only by Rabbinic decree and is not Torah law. When the Sages enacted this decree they did not include the liquids in the Temple courtyard. Some add that this liquid, even if it falls on food, cannot make it susceptible to becoming unclean (Rambam). There are others, though, who hold that these liquids can become unclean by Torah law, and they interpret the testimony of R. Yose b. Yoezer to mean that the blood and water from the Temple courtyard cannot make anything else unclean, but they themselves can become unclean (Avodah Zarah 37b).

http://www.moreshet.net/oldsite/mishna/5762/28-04-02/friday.htm

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:

> > Question of the week
> > A minyan is required for many religious activities. Usually, ten male
> > adult Jews qualify for a minyan.
> > a. When can women or children be included in a minyan?
> > b. When must a minyan include two rabbis?
> > c. when must a minyan consist of ten Torah scholars?
 
> B is gomel.  I think A may be megilah, according to at least some
> opinions.  I'm still trying to puzzle out C.

If B is true, how did anyone ever say Gomel in our shul, where AFAIK
there's only one rabbi?

Isn't A kiddush hashem?  Other than exceptional cases like "12-year-old
boy with a chumash when you've been waiting two hours to get a minyan
and nobody is passing in the street".  Or it could be megillah, but that
inclusion of "children" seems odd. 

Oh, unless A is a leining where kvod tzibur permits, and it's not the
minyan of 10, but the minyan of 7 that ascend to the Torah.

C appears to be for mattiring a neder made in a dream (KSA 67:8):

http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha/classes/class252.html?print=1

(google is your friend)

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

Jonathan Baker wrote:
> From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>

>> B is gomel.  I think A may be megilah, according to at least some
>> opinions.  I'm still trying to puzzle out C.

> If B is true, how did anyone ever say Gomel in our shul, where AFAIK
> there's only one rabbi?

"Kehal am" is me'akev (I think), "moshav zekenim" is not.  But it's
still a lechatchila requirement.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Suppose a woman has several boyfriends, who she was
intimate with, prior to becoming a baalas teshuvah.
Now, there is a chazakah of "Ein adam oseh b'ilaso
bi'ilas zenus". If the chazakah applies to her, we
assume the biah was not for zenus but for kiddushin.
Therefore, does she effectively have married status
and must obtain a get (from all, or at least first, of
her boyfriends), if she wants to get married after
becoming religious?

You might say that the chazakah doesn't apply to her
because she was not observant. What if she was, but
just transgressed in this one particular area?

Josh


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

R. Aryeh Frimer wrote on Areivim that if a man lights his own Shabbat
Candles with a berakha, it's probably a *Berakha levatala.*
How is this? I would have expected (by symmetry with the case of a woman
taking lulav etc.) that it's permitted for Ashkenazim and a berakha levatala
for Sephardim.

And what circumstances are we considering? Does it make a difference if the
ba`alat habayit is not at home or not able to light? If that is the case,
and if there are adult unmarried daughters at home who don't have the custom
to light every week, is it better for them to light with a berakha or the
ba`al habayit without?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071211/f4437421/attachment.html 

Josh E. wrote:
> Suppose a woman has several boyfriends, who she was intimate with,
> prior to becoming a baalas teshuvah.   Now, there is a chazakah of
> "Ein adam oseh b'ilaso bi'ilas zenus". If the chazakah applies to
> her, we assume the biah was not for zenus but for kiddushin.
> Therefore, does she effectively have married status and must obtain
> a get (from all, or at least first, of her boyfriends), if she wants
> to get married after becoming religious?
> 
> You might say that the chazakah doesn't apply to her because she was
> not observant. What if she was, but just transgressed in this one
> particular area?


The chazakah would have to apply to both.  Both would have had to
be acting leshem kiddushin.  How likely is that, in our situation?
And then there's still the question of witnesses.  AIUI the witnesses
are supplied by their living together openly and notoriously, which
makes everyone who knows them a witness.  But this depends on their
social circle being not only kosher eidim, but also themselves assuming
that since "ein adam..." the couple must have been married.

Nowadays when we see a couple together we don't automatically assume
they're married, so there go the eidim.  And they themselves don't
think they need to be married, because they don't think be'ilat zenut
is anything to be concerned about.  It's "naaseh keheter".  So the
whole chazaka falls away.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Reb Saul Z Newman wrote:
> > Question of the week
> > A minyan is required for many religious activities. Usually, ten male
> > adult Jews qualify for a minyan.
> > a. When can women or children be included in a minyan?
> > b. When must a minyan include two rabbis?
> > c. when must a minyan consist of ten Torah scholars?

RZS answered:
> B is gomel. ?I think A may be megilah, according to at least some
> opinions. ?I'm still trying to puzzle out C.

A is probably also regarding qidush & 'hilul haShem. C is for 'halitzah IIRC.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Arie Folger wrote:

>>> c. when must a minyan consist of ten Torah scholars?

> C is for 'halitzah IIRC.

Nope.  Even two of the five dayanim for chalitza can be amei ha'aretz,
and the five spectators don't have any requirements at all.



-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                      	                          - Clarence Thomas

[Forwarded to Avodah at the suggestion of the Areivim moderators]

On Areivim, someone asked whether or not the female members lit their own 
menorahs.  Toby Katz reminded us that this had been discussed before, and 
that whether or not a woman lit a menorah broke down along the expected 
lines.  She added:

Rn TK:
> re the question you asked, about arvm rebbetzens -- I of course do not
> light the menorah, but I do get to polish it and clean it up.


I'll start by saying that (a) my wife does light her own menorah, and (b)
if any polishing (of menorahs, shabbos candlesticks, shabbos
silverware etc) gets done in our house, I'm the one who does it.

But, on a more serious note, I don't really understand Rn Katz's "of
course"

The sources are clear that a woman is equally chayav the menorah on
Hannukah (just as she is chayav megillah on Purim; OC 675:3; Rambam Hil.
Chanuka 3:4; Hil. Megilla 1:1), and that she CAN light
her own menorah (unlike megillah, according to the Mishna Berurah; MB 7 
on OC689:2).  In fact, she can be motzi her husband (although the MB 
recommends against this if he is actually in the house).

Now, we know that the mehadrin approach is for there to be a candle for
every member of the house (or 1/night for each member to be mehadrin min
hamehadrin).

It seems there are several interpretations about what happens in the Katz
home (not at all equally likely in my mind), and I am serious when I want
to know which of these (or, one I'm missing) that Toby and other women
who don't light for themselves is following:

1) R'MK lights a menorah for himself, and a second one for his wife
(and additional ones for their daughters?)

2) The mehadrin approach only means a candle for each MALE member of the
household.

3) The Katz' don't hold by, or don't choose to follow, the mehadrin
position.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Thanks.

steve

Continuing the thread about the Ten Martyrs, I'd like to share what I just saw this morning, in Rabbi Frand's parsha sheet on Vayigash from last year.

Rabbi Frand got these ideas from the Sfas Emes. His point seems to be that the kaparos suffered by the Ten Martyrs could have been avoided, if Yosef would have given his brothers their full due. But "Yosef could not endure it any longer", and he revealed himself sooner than he could have, leaving a bit more to be taken care of at some future date.

The full original can be read at http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5767/vayigash.html

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to recieve credit card help and get out of debt fast.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m2DRiHhR4QWdOXcH1wc5ZWI72Fn8kdrS62EGcjUnacv7qV0/

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 10:34:49AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: > However, another finding of the last century does make it difficult
: > for hashgachah to be anything but all-or-nothing. This has to do with
: > something called Chaos Theory. Cool topic, worth a Google. But the
: > relevant point is that real-world systems have feedback loops, so that
: > an immeasurably small difference in the start condition could have
: > huge differences in final state.

: Only some systems are chaotic.  Avalanche-prone mountains are, but 
: pitched baseballs aren't.

Closed systems don't exist in a real world. However, we're talking about
life, not avalanches or baseballs. And of all the things that interact
to create the events of your life story, the system is quite large, and
quite chaotic.

...
: Let's consider the case of a person condemned to pick cotton his entire 
: life, brutally beaten by cruel taskmasters, underfed and overworked and 
: ... (I'm sure you remember Uncle Tom's Cabin).  In the passage I cited 
: (Michtav Me'Eliyahu, vol. 4, pp. 98-102) Rabbi Dessler says that this 
: can be, not punishment, but part of the incomprehensible Divine Plan.  
: How then, can it also represent perfect justice?
: 
: The rishonim generally take the pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die approach; 
: God's justice applies not to each individual event, but to the sum total 
: of olam hazeh and olam haba.  Rabbi Dessler takes the soul's 
: perspective.  The soul doesn't care about all the tribulations it 
: encounters, it views them all as opportunities to get closer to God.  So 
: that, for the soul, being a slave in horrendous conditions isn't unjust, 
: it's an opportunity.

I didn't read REED like that.

Say a child was blind, but a surgeon found a way to repair his sight.
The parents take him in for surgery. Would you consider the parents
and surgeon to be unjust for imposing such pain on the child? Or does
eventual reward offset the pain?

IOW, the justice isn't in the fact that the soul doesn't consider it
unjust, but that from an objective position, we would know the balance
rests otherwise.

: I'm (to put it mildly) not thrilled with this attitude (though I find it 
: a plausible reading of Rabbi Dessler) and as a contrast I cited Rabbi 
: Lipkin's opinion that tending to other peoples needs in gashmiyus takes 
: precedence over tending to their needs in ruhniyus.

That's our duty to another. Not Hashem's. I fail to see how one reflects
on the other. IOW, Hashem could decide that the spiritual reward in the
world to come outweighs temporary pain in the here-and-now. But for man
to do so opens the door to the Inquisition.

Despite "mah Ani ... af atah ..." our moral choices differ. Hashem banned
murder even though He takes lives regularly.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:40:20AM +0300, Dov Bloom wrote:
: The GR"A wrote a sefer on Hebrew Grammar known as Dikduk Eliyahu. It
: is all based on psukim, and not stuctured like a "normal" grammar
: book. This unusual style and structure for a grammar book was because
: the GR"A wanted the learning of Hebrew Grammar to be a kiyum of Talmud
: Torah. He accomplished this by quoting explaining and utilizing psukim
: continually.

I would have thought that leshon Tanakh is itself Torah, and doesn't
need to be connected to pesuqim artificially to be a qiyum of talmud
Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 05:52:47PM -0500, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: And AFAIK Rambam requires Jews to encourage non-Jews to observe the 7
: mitzvos but not to encourage them to do more. AISI, the ONLY reason for a
: non-Jew to do more is to be part of a national covenant.

Or to serve as a kohein to the masses.

A nazir pursues a higher qedushah without being in a "nazir" startion in
the national structure.

: If Judaism were a a requirement for "salvation" then we would be selfish or
: miserly in discouraging converts.

I fail to see the connection.

But since you speak of redemption.... If Judaism is about national
redemption, does the pious individual of a sinful generation or nation
not get redeemed?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

1- Prof Agus's theory isn't scientific, as it's not falsifiable. It
might be true, but a theory in which data that conforms is considered
confirmation and data that defies is considered acceptable rarity simply
can't be disproven by experiment.

2- Yequm Purqan sounds like Babylonian Aramaic to my untrained ear. It
has all those words with trailing vowels one finds in the language of
people called "rabi" as opposed to that of "rav".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

Micha Berger wrote:

> 2- Yequm Purqan sounds like Babylonian Aramaic to my untrained ear. It
> has all those words with trailing vowels one finds in the language of
> people called "rabi" as opposed to that of "rav".

But Rabbi was used in EY, and Rav in Bavel...

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Thu, December 13, 2007 12:45 am, Zev Sero wrote:
:> 2- Yequm Purqan sounds like Babylonian Aramaic to my untrained ear.
:> It
:> has all those words with trailing vowels one finds in the language
:> of
:> people called "rabi" as opposed to that of "rav".

: But Rabbi was used in EY, and Rav in Bavel...

Yes. And obviously "Rabbi Aqiva" and "Rabbi Shim'on bar Yochai" just
leapt to mind. Nu, time for a nap.

In any case, this would seem to prove RRW's first point, that Yequm
Purqan is Israeli.

Which would make it contrary to Agus's theory about Ashkenazi practice
showing more heritage of Israeli mesorah. Not a counter-proof, as I
still stand by the other part of that post (pending review) that
Agus's theory is simply unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
(Whether or not the theory is in line with actual migration patterns
as already known in more solid ways, and thus true anyway.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 94
**************************************

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..."