Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 109

Fri, 24 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: eye pains on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Beth & David Cohen)
• 4. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Joel C. Salomon)
• 7. Re: Taking Midrashim Literally (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: What should you wear for davening? (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Minhag Yisrael (Poppers, Michael)
• 10. Re: Taking Midrashim Literally (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Zev Sero)
• 12. Taking Midrashim Literally (Richard Wolberg)
• 13. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Simon Montagu)
• 15. Re: Minhag Yisrael (Ben Waxman)
• 16. Re: Tznius for Men (Simon Montagu)
• 17. Re: What should you wear for davening? (T6...@aol.com)
• 18. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 04:31:13PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> But those are not his arguments. His argument is only that all or most  
> people cannot discern a difference in taste between mevushal and not  
> mevushal.

... in today's wine.

How do you know he's saying that it's the people who changed? Perhaps it
was the change in wine that made the change in taste less pronounced?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

And yet the Rambam felt the need to list the requirements for Moshiach ben 
David, and that one must believe that he is coming. Therefore his silence on 
Moshiach ben Yosef is quite loud.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> Mashiach ben Yosef is discussed on Sanhedrin 98b. So if the Rambam
> doesn't include it on his list of rabbinic speculations that may or
> may not be born out le'asid lavo, does that mean the Rambam considered it:
>    - so far out he didn't need to list it,
>    - so mesoretic it's not speculation, or
>    - the list simply isn't an attempt to be complete?
> 

"Translation:  An observant Jew should be honest -- should be ethical,
should have integrity, should be principled -- and should /also/ be  refined
in
his dress, speech and manners.

If he keeps Shabbos, keeps kosher, keeps the mitzvos -- he is frum.   It is
not a /bad/ thing to be frum, it's just not enough for a fully-developed
Torah Jew.


--Toby Katz"

I always thought that it is a mitzva to be ethical, honest and have
integrity. "V'asita hatov v'hayashar" for starters. So how can it be that
being honest and ethical is outside the definition of being "frum" if you
define frum as "keeping the mitzvos"?

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/355a3003/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 


>>My blog entry was partly about where this shift came from --  how did a
word that in the Lithuanian Yeshiva was considered derogatory come  to mean
something entirely different in today's modern Yiddish and Yinglish?  <<
-- 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         


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


>>>>>>>
 
I unequivocally reject your premise that the word "frum" was  ever used as 
a derogatory term in the Litvishe Yehiva world,  except when used 
sarcastically. It's like saying about someone who did something  stupid, "Oh that was 
really /brilliant/" and then people start thinking that  "brilliant" is a 
general term of opprobrium.  
 
 
It is a perversion of the language and of our culture (i.e., the Torah  
world) to use the word "frum" as an insult, unless you are saying it  
sarcastically, to put down someone who is either ostentatiously, sanctimoniously  
pious or is in some way hypocritical, someone whose piety is not genuine.  
 
Unless there is a specific context to indicate otherwise, the word "frum"  
by itself is /not/ a derogatory word and never was used that way in previous 
 generations.  As you yourself noted, "Fruma" has been and still is used as 
 a girl's name.  Do you know anyone who would name their daughter  
"Hypocrite"?
 
The answer to your question is another question:  When did the word  "frum" 
stop meaning "Torah observant" and start meaning "sanctimonious,  
hypocritical, concerned with externals but not tocho kabaro"?  I would  suggest that 
that change came about when a certain subset of observant Jews  stopped 
being genuinely frum in their kishkas and started being more concerned  with 
externals than internals.  Around 1975.  Could be there was an  advance storm 
front already a little before that.  But even so, the  sarcastic use of the 
term "frum" is its secondary and not its primary  meaning.
 

--Toby Katz
================




_____________________

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/20598568/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:11:49PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I unequivocally reject your premise that the word "frum" was  ever used as 
: a derogatory term in the Litvishe Yehiva world...

Do you have a source for contradicting R' Wolbe and my grandma?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:

>  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
>>
>> Mashiach ben Yosef is discussed on Sanhedrin 98b. So if the Rambam
>> doesn't include it on his list of rabbinic speculations that may or
>> may not be born out le'asid lavo, does that mean the Rambam considered it:
>>   - so far out he didn't need to list it,
>>   - so mesoretic it's not speculation, or
>>   - the list simply isn't an attempt to be complete?
>>
>

 And yet the Rambam felt the need to list the requirements for Moshiach ben
> David, and that one must believe that he is coming. Therefore his silence on
> Moshiach ben Yosef is quite loud.
>

 Loud, maybe; clear, no.

Put it this way:  Our *nevi?im* have prophesied about the re-establishment
of *malchus beis dovid* and the coming of Eliyahu haNavi.  We also have a
very obscure *masora* about someone called ?Mashiach ben Yosef?.  Rambam
gives the rules for identifying a *navi* and Mashiach ben David, but how
would you *possibly* positively identify Mashiach ben Yosef, and what
halachic significance would this identification have?

--Chesky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/7354f9b4/attachment-0001.htm>

R"n Lisa Liel wrote:

> Pirkei Avot mentions 10 things that were created erev shabbat
> bein hashemashot.  All of them are miracles that don't fit in
> nature.  Short of a literal statement in Tanakh, I assume this
> means that everything else God does in the world is derekh
> ha-teva.

How do you understand the story of the Burning Bush? That seems to be a literal statement in Tanakh, and in the Torah in fact.

One might want to interpret the "burning" as poetic, referring to bright
colors or something, but then one would have to explain Moshe's surprise
that the bush was not being consumed. Whatever was happening, it seems
clear to me that Moshe did NOT consider it to be derech hateva. But the
Burning Bush is not included in that list (Avos 5:8 in the siddur, 5:6 in
Mishnayos) of supernatural miracles.

Come to think of it, this question is not specifically directed to RLL, but
to that Mishna. If that Mishna is an all-inclusive list of things which
*had* to be created during Bereishis because there's no way to pull off
those miracles within teva, then what is the natural explanation for the
Bush?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e03d60b775b01b278st02vuc

After I wrote that I remembered something else the Lamaze instructor/shiur  
lady said:  she said if you were stuck and wanted to make a bracha and  you 
were wearing something with no waist, like just a hospital gown or a  
nightgown, you could hold your arm across your waist as a separation between  
your upper and lower body.
 

--Toby Katz
================




_____________________  

 


The  shiur-lady, who IIRC was my LaMaze instructor, said if you're in the 
hospital  after you just had a baby, and you want to make a bracha, you 
should have  on a houserobe with a belt or a skirt or a half-slip or even 
underwear  with a band at the waist.  [--old  TK]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/834540a7/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V28n108, RKB replied to RDrYL:
>> I do not say the entire nusach of the kedushah. I follow the
>> original Nusach Ashkenaz minhag. Please see h
>> ttp://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/kedusah.pdf 
>> Nusach HaGRA also does not follow the ARI. There is a shul not far from where my oldest son lives that follows the original Ashkenaz minhag. <<
> So I'll point out here that "minhag Yisrael" seems to be a very misused
term, or at least a very misunderstood term. Usually Sepharadim get the
cognative dissonance of someone saying a particular Askhenazi minhag is "minhag yisrael" even though Sepharadim don't follow that minhag at all.
> I seem to recall pointing this out back when we discussed how it was
"minhag Yisrael" to change melodies in Lecha Dodi at "lo tevoshi," despite the fact that many Sephardic minhagim (I singled out Jersualem
in particular) have traditional melodies for Lecha Dodi and do not change at "lo tevoshi."
> This time, you get the cognitive dissonance, as your original Ashkenazi
minhag has been ignored in the drive to call something "minhag Yisrael". <
RDrYL, at least in what was quoted, used the term Minhag Ashk'naz, not
"minhag Yisrael."  Granted there's a difference when someone means "b'nei
Yisrael" (rather than, say, "sheivet Yisrael") by the latter term. 

BTW, it's certainly not the custom of everyone whose maqom says/sings
"L'cha Dodi" as part of Qabbalas Shabbas to switch tunes prior to the
second-lamed line -- no switching is done at KAJ/"Breuer's" (Minhag
Frankfurt), and AFAIK no switching is done in Minhag Ashk'naz (NB: when I
use that term, I mean what RDrYL called "the original Nusach Ashkenaz
minhag").  Anyone who thinks k'lal Yisrael w/out exception change the tune
apparently isn't an AishDas member :). 

A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom and all the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

At 07:10 PM 6/23/2011, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>R"n Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> > Pirkei Avot mentions 10 things that were created erev shabbat
> > bein hashemashot.  All of them are miracles that don't fit in
> > nature.  Short of a literal statement in Tanakh, I assume this
> > means that everything else God does in the world is derekh
> > ha-teva.
>
>How do you understand the story of the Burning Bush? That seems to 
>be a literal statement in Tanakh, and in the Torah in fact.

Hence "short of a literal statement in Tanakh".  That isn't short of 
it.  If the text said it was just a bush and there was a midrash that 
said it was burning and not being consumed, I'd have issues with 
taking it literally.

>One might want to interpret the "burning" as poetic, referring to 
>bright colors or something, but then one would have to explain 
>Moshe's surprise that the bush was not being consumed. Whatever was 
>happening, it seems clear to me that Moshe did NOT consider it to be 
>derech hateva. But the Burning Bush is not included in that list 
>(Avos 5:8 in the siddur, 5:6 in Mishnayos) of supernatural miracles.
>
>Come to think of it, this question is not specifically directed to 
>RLL, but to that Mishna. If that Mishna is an all-inclusive list of 
>things which *had* to be created during Bereishis because there's no 
>way to pull off those miracles within teva, then what is the natural 
>explanation for the Bush?

SFX. ;)

Lisa 

On 23/06/2011 7:11 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> I unequivocally reject your premise that the word "frum" was ever used
> as a derogatory term in the Litvishe Yehiva world, except when used
> sarcastically.

I too have never heard of this supposed derogatory use of "frum", and
am therefore skeptical of its genuineness.  But I can't unequivocally
rule it out, since we have the precedent of "parush", which in the
gemara *usually* refers to Orthodox Jews, but the Gemara Sotah lists
several kinds of prushim, and only the last two are the genuine article.
Yannai told his wife to trust the Prushim but be careful of the "tzvu`im",
who pretend to be Prushim but aren't; the gemara in Sotah is not so
careful, and labels them "prushim" too.

(And it seems to me that this is also how we should understand the
references to "pharisees" in the NT; when these stories were originally
told by J's talmidim they meant the "tzvu`im", not the real Prushim,
but by the time the stories were written down in Greek, by goyim who
had no inside knowledge of the Jewish community and its common usages,
this distinction was lost.)

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

> ...certainly one who refuses ever to believe the literal meaning of a medrash is a kofer in the whole torah.
    Upon what source do you base this statement?

Certainly you are aware there are rationalist meforshim who interpret the incident of Bilaam's talking donkey 
in a NON-LITERAL manner. Rambam sees it occurring in a dream. The Ramchal suggests that the donkey
brayed plaintively and Bilaam intuited what it was trying to convey. And this is not a medrah; this is from the
Torah. Are they also kofrim? In addition, the Midrash lists Bilaam's donkey as one of the 10 miracles created 
by God in the last hours of Creation. So does that make Rambam a kofer because he didn't take it literally?

To tie this discussion with another, this is exactly my point. We have an
obscure midrash about MbY. The Rambam is clear about taking midrashim
literally (he doesn't). So take that idea, his silence in Hilchot Milachim
regarding MbY, and I come to the conclusion that the Rambam doesn't hold
that one has to believe that this person will ever come.

Ben

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joel C. Salomon 


  Put it this way:  Our nevi?im have prophesied about the re-establishment
  of malchus beis dovid and the coming of Eliyahu haNavi.  We also have a
  very obscure masora about someone called ?Mashiach ben Yosef?.  Rambam
  gives the rules for identifying a navi and Mashiach ben David, but how
  would you possibly positively identify Mashiach ben Yosef, and what
  halachic significance would this identification have?


  --Chesky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/84177e81/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>>> Why do we say Baruch She'amar? Because it was on a piece of paper that
>>> fell from heaven.
>>
>> A piece of paper that fell from heaven. I'm not even sure how to respond
>> to that. I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of paper that fall
>> from heaven.
>
> Except that that is *exactly* how we got Baruch She'amar. ?I'm not sure
> how to respond to someone who openly says they don't believe that.
> See Taz OC 51:1

See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14392&;st=&pgnum=61&hilite=
(ot samech at the foot of the page).

Some one made a claim to me that since the closing of the Gemara there are 
no minhagim which are universally observed. I thought that Qabbalat Shabbat 
was such a minhag, but then someone else (a Moroccan) told me that his 
community doesn't say Qabbalat Shabbat.

Anyone know of a universally held minhag?

Ben 

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, M Cohen <mco...@touchlogic.com> wrote:
> RSM writes .. I'm fairly sure that the Avot, Moshe Rabbenu and Hazal all
> wore sandals without socks,
> and I see no reason why a dress code developed in a colder climate should be
> more appropriate.
>
> I also am not happy that chareidi dress code seems inappropriate at times
> for colder climates.
>
> However, I see no evidence at all for your claim that 'the Avot, Moshe
> Rabbenu and Hazal all wore sandals without socks'
>
> What are your proofs?

There's evidence of how people dressed in the period from Egyptian
tomb paintings, Assyrian reliefs, Roman statues, etc. etc. None of
these include portraits of the people I listed (though they do include
people standing before a king in sandals without socks), so there's no
_proof_, but I didn't say I had proof.

 
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
If I recall correctly, in  extremis you can put your arm over your waist
and consider that a  separation.


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


>>>>>
 
Yes, I remembered that bit after I'd posted about making a bracha  wearing 
a hospital gown. 
 

--Toby Katz
================






_____________________ 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/d2e38ba7/attachment-0001.htm>

On 23/06/2011 11:37 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>  wrote:

>>> A piece of paper that fell from heaven. I'm not even sure how to respond
>>> to that. I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of paper that fall
>>> from heaven.
>>
>> Except that that is *exactly* how we got Baruch She'amar.  I'm not sure
>> how to respond to someone who openly says they don't believe that.
>> See Taz OC 51:1
>
> See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14392&;st=&pgnum=61&hilite=
> (ot samech at the foot of the page).

Wow, *that's* a stretch!  Bimchilas kevodo, where did he come up with it?
He says he's responding to mockers, but how can anyone possibly find that
convoluted explanation easier to accept than the straightforward meaning?
A person who believes in Hashem has no difficulty accepting the plain
meaning, and a mocker will only laugh at the knots into which the apologist
twists himself to explain this away.  So why bother coming up with it?
In any event, we are certainly not required to accept it.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 109
***************************************

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..."