Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 75

Thu, 30 Apr 2009

• 1. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (Shlomo Pick)
• 2. mayim acharonim sundry replies and clarifications (Shlomo Pick)
• 3. Mayim acharonim (Simon Blum)
• 4. Ashkenazi Minhag (Gilad Field)
• 5. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (Michael Poppers)
• 6. sephira question (hankman)
• 7. The Forces Within Man (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. Onein and Sefirah (Micha Berger)
• 9. is mayim acharonim a chumra? responses (Shlomo Pick)
• 10. yosipon & BY girls (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Ken Tzipor and Peter Chamor (Yitzhak Grossman)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael Poppers 
  To: avodah aishdas list 
  Cc: Shlomo Pick 
  Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:18 AM
  Subject: Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra?


  In Avodah Digest V26#73, RSP noted:
  > In OH, 181:1 the mechaber states emphatically that mayim achronim is
  > an obligation....Chaza"l even pegged it to a verse in these
  > parshot of vayikra, that one should be holy, this is mayim
  > acharonim. At the end of this chapter, in no.10 the mechaber says
  > that there are some who do not practice (she'ein nohagim) to wash
  > mayim achronim, with the tosophot in berachot brought as the source.
  > <
  The Tur says what RSP noted, and, after quoting Tos'fos, he writes at the
  end of the siman, "V'ham'vareich nami [isn't noheig to wash mayim
  acharonim --MP], kivan she'ein anu osin k'mo she'amar hapasuq 'ki qadosh
  Ani'-zeh shemen areiv, gam bin'tilah lo nahagu. V'lo miqri l'didan
  'yadayim m'zuhamos' kivan she'ein anu r'gilin litol v'ein anu maqpidim
  b'kach...." In other words, the argument would be that not only, as per
  Tos'fos, is melach S'domis not found nowadays (going back to y'mei
  Tos'fos, many hundreds of years ago), but also our practices contradict
  important aspects of the d'rashah and of the concept of zuhama: (a) we're
  not fully following the d'rash of "v'hisqadishtem" re using shemen, and
  that d'rash isn't halfway, so it apparently doesn't apply l'halacha; and
  (b) since we're not particular to always wash our supposedly m'zuhamos
  hands after eating, we apparently don't have the condition which would
  mandate mayim acharonim in order to remove zuhama. (Re point (a),
  BTW, the counterpoint of BY 181:1 is worth the price of admission!)
  on point A, the tur implies (based on the tosaphot in hullin 105a and
  more upon the rosh at the end of the 8th chapter of berachot, that since
  shemen is not practiced it implies that the drasha is an asmachta, and
  also the custom (in northern germany and France) was not to wash mayim
  acharonim. that's all the tur says. i presume you would translate: and
  thus also the custom was not to... (and note the BY at the beginning of
  the siman as you have done).	point taken in the Tur, but i will note
  that the tur says nohagu and not nohagim. it may be just a copy of the
  tosophot, or it may be a reference to the past and not the present.

  i would point out here, that if anyone washes his hand after the meal for
  whatever reason, especially if he feels that his hands are greasy, then
  tur and the mechaber all state that he is obligated in mayim acharonim.
  thus anyone who washes his hands after a jelly sandwich, or herring, etc.
  would be obligated in mayim acharonim before benching.

  > Interestingly, the remah says nothing in either place, seemingly agreeing to the mechaber's view. <
  DM 181:1 is crystal clear: "Mihu haminhag k'divrei haTos'fos [sheheivi
  Rabbeinu b'sof hasiman -- Chidushei Hagahos]." As RRW has pointed out in
  the past, you really need to check out Tur SA -- SA is really an extract
  of BY and DM on Tur SA. I can't speak to why no extract (much less a
  quote) of RMA's words is in SA 181, but he certainly did write upon the
  subject. 

  oh, i know what the darkei moshe wrote, and is found at the end of the
  darkei moshe ha'aruch on the siman.  but just as he reacted to the BY in
  the darchei moshe and explicity stated that the minhag is like tosophot,
  why didn't he do that in the SA?  and that brings us to the issue of
  retraction. is his silence a retraction or not?

  > Finally the great forerunner of all minhag ashkenaz, the maharil,
  > also obligated mayim acharonim, see spitzer ed., p. 117, no. 41, and
  > especially note heh. <
  Could I bother you to quote the phraseology verbatim? Online, the words
  of the Lublin 1590 edition (http://hebrewbooks.org/11762 --
  see pp.160-161) don't tell me anything about a mandate for mayim
  acharonim but rather seem to relate to explaining an "over la'asiyasan"
  question brought by Tos'fos. Thanks. 
  see further post with attachment

  shlomo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090430/0c7b9efc/attachment-0001.htm>

1. concerning the source in the kabbalah, see zohar terumah, p. 154b, see the quotation in kaf hachayyim, 181:1 and the quote from the ari.
2. concerning women in mayyim acharanim. halichos bas yisrael, heb.ed. p.
58, simply writes that women are equally obligated as men. likewise,
halichot beisa by r. dovid auerbach, p. 92 heb ed. (12:2) states that women
are obligated and in brackets adds that some have the custom to be lenient.
both quote reb haym sonnenfeld (quoted also by r. dr. ari zivotofsky, who
added a few more. r.fuchs quoted r. shlomo zalman auerbach to this point
also.
3. which brings me to the only modern day poseq, shevet haleivei  vol 4,
orach chayim, no. 23, who says according to the strict letter of the law,
there is no difference between men and women. however according the posekim
at the end of OH 181 (i.e. 181:10), that mayim acharonim is applicable
nowadays (i presume he means the MB et al), but the custom is that women
don't wash mayim acharonim so much (kol kach) is based upon the SA ad loc
that nowadays mayim acharaonim does not apply at all, and people are just
stringent upon themselves, and women did not take [this upon themselves].
r. fuchs adds that he heard from rav yonah merzbach that in germany this
was the custom also, even in ultra orthodox homes [with regards to women's
mayim acharonim].
this reasoning is like the ra'avya on haseiba. today there is no haseiba,
and thus the posekim who say women don't do [see safire in a recent
language essy in ny times magazin concering this phrase] haseiba rely upon
this ra'avya [although the ra'avya say important women, i.e. all ashkanzic
women in his time, obligated in haseiba.
4. r. wosner does say the according to the shita (of tosaphot berachot)
suggested by SA OH 181:10, doing mayim acharonim is a chumra. according to
this shita women didn't accept this chumra in accordance with position.  he
did not say that this position is still viable today. in fact he cites
those posekem who say that nowadays the obligation of (chiyuv) of mayim
acharonim is also applicable (shayach).
yours
shlomo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090430/cba1d0e4/attachment-0001.htm>

Does anybody know why women generally don't wash mayim acaronim? This would point to the basic halacha being there is no need.

Shimon Blum

I was skimming through the Tashbetz  (not the Shutim by the Rashbatz -
the one authored by a talmid of Maharam Rutenberg and details the
minhagim of the Maharam, as well as other ashkenazic rishonim).  He
mentions a number of interesting things there (available on
hebrewbooks.org) , one of them is (siman 245) what point the shaliach
tzibur begins shachris.  the current minhag, that I am familiar with
is on shabbos he starts with "shochen ad" and yom tov he begins with
"hakayl b'samuos uzecha" and yamim noraim with "hamelech".

Apparently the earlier Ashkenazi Minhag  was to start a different
point for each yom tov, as follows:

shavuos - hakayl b'samuos uzecha
sukkos/shmini atzeres - hagadol b'chevod shemecha
pesach - hagibor lanetzach
rosh hashana/y.k - hamelech

I assume nobody continues this minhag today - please let me know if I am wrong.
What I would like to know, if someone has done any research into
Ashkenazi Minhagim, is why some minhagim are no longer practiced (in
general, but also this one specifically).

Are there any recommended sources on this topic?


Gilad

RSP replied:
> if anyone washes his hand after the meal for whatever reason, especially 
if he feels that his hands are greasy, then tur and the mechaber all state 
that he is obligated in mayim acharonim <
I think one needs to add the word "regularly" before "washes."  So, how 
many of us regularly wash our hands after eating a meal?

> oh, i know what the darkei moshe wrote, and is found at the end of the 
darkei moshe ha'aruch on the siman.  but just as he reacted to the BY in 
the darchei moshe and explicity stated that the minhag is like tosophot, 
why didn't he do that in the SA?  and that brings us to the issue of 
retraction. is his silence a retraction or not? <
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject can enlighten us on 
whether an argument from silence (in this case, the lack of a "hagahah" by 
RMA upon SA OC 181 when he explicitly commented upon what the BY wrote) is 
valid, here or, indeed, anywhere except when you witness the sh'siqah of a 
Rav and can truly say k'hoda'ah damya.

>>> Finally the great forerunner of all minhag ashkenaz, the maharil, also 
obligated mayim acharonim, see spitzer ed., p. 117, no. 41, and especially 
note heh. <<<
>> Could I bother you to quote the phraseology verbatim? Online, the words 
of the Lublin 1590 edition (http://hebrewbooks.org/11762 -- see 
pp.160-161) don't tell me anything about a mandate for mayim acharonim but 
rather seem to relate to explaining an "over la'asiyasan" question brought 
by Tos'fos. Thanks. <<
> see further post with attachment <
Thanks for sending me a scan of a seifer listing "seider haHagadah."  I 
would agree that the language of #41 (and of #40) tells us that mayim 
acharonim was perforce done by at least the "m'vareich" of Bircas haMazon 
(the one we would nowadays call the "leader" of BhM) after the eating of 
the afiqoman and that Shinui Nuschaos 41:5 adds (I don't know whether this 
is an actual nusach in a copy of Seifer MaHaRYL or comes from the author 
of SN, and the nafka mina is crucial!), "achein MaHaRYL, b'chal pa'am 
shenatal yadav, amar lab'churim [v'ham'subin] gam-kein litol."  I've 
previously seen MaHaRYL misquoted (e.g. re whether a bachur should not 
wear a talis until he's married), so I would very much like to know if 
that "achein" can be sourced.  Also, note the subfootnote 5, which 
elucidates, "Lichora, haMaHaRaSH s'vira leih...d'mayim acharonim tiqnu 
lim'vareich l'fi shemazkir es haSheim...ush'ar m'subin hu raq mip'nei 
hasakanah, v'savar haMaHaRaSH d'hayom ein sakanah v'lachein ein tzrichim 
litol y'deihem k'lal, v'chein heivi deiah zu b'Seifer haMinhagim 'Leil 
haSeider' 53:1."  The bottom line seems to be that mayim acharonim was 
l'chat'chilah done at the table of MaHaRYL at least during leil haSeider 
by at least whomever would actually be saying BhM.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090430/45107770/attachment-0001.htm>

This has bothered me for a while. The mitzva of sephira is to count two
time periods, both the days and the weeks of the omer. We count the days in
advance but the weeks in arrears, why?

We begin to count the days at the first moment of the first day, the
beginning of the period, but when we count the weeks, we wait until the
beginning of the seventh day before we count the weeks, this is near the
end of the period. (actually at the 6/7 point of the 1st week at the start
of the 7th day) Why the difference. We could start to count the weeks when
we start to count the days at the beginning of the  period, ie, something
like the following: hayom yom echod bashavuo rishona etc.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090430/d4268f54/attachment-0001.htm>

In his commentary on Vayikra 16: 10

But the he-goat that was designated by lot ?for 
Azazel? shall be left standing alive before God, 
to effect atonement upon it, to send it away, as Azazel?s, into the wilderness.

RSRH gives deep insights into the nature of man. 
In part of his commentary he writes:

Be ?Adam?; be a likeness of Me (cf. Commentary, Bereshis 1:26); be
a God in miniature, in and over the little world that I have assigned to
you along with your physical frame. I have granted you freedom of My
freedom; and I have given you power of My power to master the forces
of nature. Within your frame ? that part of you which is of the earthly
world ? powerful forces and impulses are at work, just as they prevail
in the rest of the elemental and organic world, from which your frame
derives. Left to themselves, these forces drive on the way that is innate
to their nature, and find satisfaction in so doing. But you are free, and
I have granted you freedom of My freedom; I have given you power of
My power to master the forces of nature; I have breathed into you a
spirit of My spirit to hear the laws of My will; and you are to use that
freedom and that power to master, with a strong hand, your own world
of inner drives and impulses, subordinating them all to the laws of My
will. Thus, when you subordinate to Me your drives and impulses, and
through them subordinate to Me your very self, you will be close to
Me and above all others, the one free being in a world of forces that
have no freedom of their own.

Implicit in the concept of freedom, however, is the possibility of
opposing God?s will. It is absurd to say that the ability to sin and the
temptations of the senses are only consequences of man?s degeneration.
For without the ability to sin and the alluring temptation of sensuality,
man ceases to be man. For man?s whole virtue is contingent upon his
ability to sin; and man?s whole dignity lies in his ability to disobey God?s
will. In the elemental and organic world there is no sin, but ? precisely
for this reason ? neither are there moral virtues. If sensuality were not
attractive to man; if man, too, were to find satisfaction only in using
his faculties in accordance with God?s will; if all evil were bitter to him,
and all good were sweet; if he could not resist God?s will, as he can
resist the urges of his senses; if he were not capable of becoming a sair
l'Azazel, as he is capable of becoming a sair l 'Shem? then, he, too, would
be subject to the compulsion of God?s law, like all the other created
things. For these never deviate from their assigned tasks; only the fulfillment
of God?s Will brings them satisfaction, and any deviation from
it is antithetical to their nature.

We all are faced with the decision between Ha Shem and Azazel. We all stand
at the Sanctuary entrance ? to choose between God and the power of
our senses. Inside, in the Holy of Holies, rests the Torah as the holiest
of holies. With our eyes on the Torah, we make our decision.

I have posted the entire commentary of Rav Hirsch 
on this posuk at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/vayikra_501_506.pdf

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090430/5bfcbc69/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW just informed me that his brother passed away. Barukh Dayan haemes.

Reading his email got me thinking of the dinim of onein and omer, and my
mind wandered over to this question: Say someone lost a family member,
and qevurah had to be delayed more than 24 hours. Does he not count omeir
that day, and thereby lose the entire year's count (if it is one chiyuv)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 21st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             factor in harmony?

RSP replied: 
> if anyone washes his hand after the meal for whatever reason, especially
if he feels that his hands are greasy, then tur and the mechaber all state
that he is obligated in mayim acharonim < 
MP: I think one needs to add the word "regularly" before "washes."  So, how
many of us regularly wash our hands after eating a meal? 
you're correct in that SA and Tur say Ragil which would be translated
regularly. But how does one define regularly? Every meal? I would say that
upon eating almost every sandwich people wash/wipe their hands and that
would then require mayim acharonim.  But perhaps this should be brought to a
poseq.


> oh, i know what the darkei moshe wrote, and is found at the end of the
darkei moshe ha'aruch on the siman.  but just as he reacted to the BY in the
darchei moshe and explicity stated that the minhag is like tosophot, why
didn't he do that in the SA?  and that brings us to the issue of retraction.
is his silence a retraction or not? < 
MP: Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject can enlighten us on
whether an argument from silence (in this case, the lack of a "hagahah" by
RMA upon SA OC 181 when he explicitly commented upon what the BY wrote) is
valid, here or, indeed, anywhere except when you witness the sh'siqah of a
Rav and can truly say k'hoda'ah damya. 
I asked some people and they couldn't answer me immediately, and so I did
some research myself and this is what I came up with.

1                    Look at chayei adam, klal 69 hilchot shabbos veyom tov,
nishmas adam aleph, last line of his comment: his proof is that the remah
did not respond at all in the SA although he had commented in Darchei Moshe,
thus he must have recanted.

2                    See SA OH, 364:2, MB 8. now look at sha'ar hazion, no.
9 where he writes, see DM but since he wrote nothing here, he must have
recanted.

3                    Even a Sephardi Poseq comes to the same conclusion, see
vayikra avraham (use responsa project for this one), chelek even haezer, no.
11, end of next to the last paragraph (s.v. vehinei harav hachida.

Accordingly, I can say similarly over, that if Remah did not comment on this
case, he recanted.


>>> Finally the great forerunner of all minhag ashkenaz, the maharil, also
obligated mayim acharonim, see spitzer ed., p. 117, no. 41, and especially
note heh. <<<
>> Could I bother you to quote the phraseology verbatim? Online, the words
of the Lublin 1590 edition (http://hebrewbooks.org/11762 -- see pp.160-161)
don't tell me anything about a mandate for mayim acharonim but rather seem
to relate to explaining an "over la'asiyasan" question brought by Tos'fos.
Thanks. <<
> see further post with attachment < 
MP: Thanks for sending me a scan of a seifer listing "seider haHagadah."  I
would agree that the language of #41 (and of #40) tells us that mayim
acharonim was perforce done by at least the "m'vareich" of Bircas haMazon
(the one we would nowadays call the "leader" of BhM) after the eating of the
afiqoman and that Shinui Nuschaos 41:5 adds (I don't know whether this is an
actual nusach in a copy of Seifer MaHaRYL or comes from the author of SN,
and the nafka mina is crucial!), "achein MaHaRYL, b'chal pa'am shenatal
yadav, amar lab'churim [v'ham'subin] gam-kein litol."  I've previously seen
MaHaRYL misquoted (e.g. re whether a bachur should not wear a talis until
he's married), so I would very much like to know if that "achein" can be
sourced.  Also, note the subfootnote 5, which elucidates, "Lichora,
haMaHaRaSH s'vira leih...d'mayim acharonim tiqnu lim'vareich l'fi shemazkir
es haSheim...ush'ar m'subin hu raq mip'nei hasakanah, v'savar haMaHaRaSH
d'hayom ein sakanah v'lachein ein tzrichim litol y'deihem k'lal, v'chein
heivi deiah zu b'Seifer haMinhagim 'Leil haSeider' 53:1."  The bottom line
seems to be that mayim acharonim was l'chat'chilah done at the table of
MaHaRYL at least during leil haSeider by at least whomever would actually be
saying BhM. 
r. shalom of neustadt (maharash), ed s. shpitzer (machon Jerusalem), p.108,
no.302:9 records that the mevarech washes his hands. However, R. Isaac
Tirnau brings a makhlokes whether everyone or just the mevarekh, p. 53
machon Jerusalem ed. r. avraham klausner records that all should wash hands,
and then adds that according to r. moshe hacohen (quoted from mordechai
berachot, no.191, agur 238) that the mevarech is the only one to make a
beracha on mayim acharonim, everyone else just washes. He bases it on the
drasha, and so is cholek on the tur and says the drasha is lehalakha and you
make a beracha.  I note that all these sources are the real sources of
minhag ashkenaz and for the most part ignore the tosaphot!

However, so far I can't confirm what it says in fn.heh anywhere in the
maharil, but unless proven wrong, there's no reason why not to accept. Could
be one year he said this, the next year, that.

In any case, there is certainly mayim acharonim according to many of the
founders of yekke minhagim. 
shomo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090501/c3f0fba9/attachment-0001.htm>

Some points from a shiur on Baba Batra

1. The last Rashi on Baba Batra 3b quotes the advice Buba Butra gave to Herod
as described later in the Gemara and also in Yosipon. If it is in the gemara why
does Rashi verify it from Yosipon

2. The Gemara discusses Miriame committing suicide rather than marrying
Herod. Dibros Moshe discusses whether she allowed to.
BTW it seems that Agripas was a descendant of Miriame casting doubt on
the explanation of the gemara.

3. The gemara asks a question on Buba Butra from R. Chisda who lived a few
hundred years later. The gemaras answer that one can rely on a king to carry
out his word is contradicted by the later gemara how Herod had to sneak around
to fool the Romans and finish building the bet hamikdash.
BTW Joesphus brings that the nation was indeed afraid that Herod would pull down
the Temple and not be able to rebuild it.

4. It seems that no sacrificies were brought during part of the time that Herod
rebuilt the entire foundation and floor of har habayit. In reality his
Temple was
completely new and was the 3rd bet hamikdash

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:27:13 EDT T6...@aol.com wrote [on Areivim,
redirected here with permission]:

...

> circumstantial din, that IF such and such happens, this is how you have to do  it.  What 
> about Shiluach Hakan?  Is there some positive mitzva in  looking for a nest 
> just so you can shoo the mother bird away, or is it just a  circumstantial 
> mitzva, that IF you should happen to desire eggs that you happen  to see, 
> this is what you have to do?  [That is an actual question, not a  rhetorical 
> question, BTW, so I would like to see how people answer it.]

No need for "people" to answer; Rishonim (Aharonim, in this case)
Ke'Malachim have already dealt with the question - see Resp. Hasam
Sofer (OH 100 s.v. ve'ayen Ramban, amnam).

> It strikes me that if you want the eggs, it is a midah of kindness or  
> rachmanus to shoo the mother away before taking her eggs, but if you don't  want 
> the eggs and you go looking for them davka, it is the opposite of kindness  
> to shoo her away and take her eggs.  It defeats the purpose of the mitzva!  
> (That is assuming of course that we actually know the purpose of the  
> mitzva -- maybe inculcating the midah of rachmanus has nothing to do with  it and 
> it is just a chok?)

Hasam Sofer says exactly that; insofar as the root of the Mizvah is
compassion, then if one doesn't actually want the chicks, not only is
there no obligation to perform the Mizvah, but it is actually cruelty
to do so!  He does subsequently cite Havos Yair who cites Zohar that
the reason for the Mizvah is to arouse the crying of the Celestial
Mother over her children, and if so, there's no problem of cruelty, but
he concludes that Bavli disagrees, and "it is known that when there is
disagreement between the Revealed [Torah] and the Hidden, we have no
involvement with the Hidden, and the Revealed are for us and for our
children."  I recommend reading this fascinating responsum.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 75
**************************************

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..."