Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 116

Thu, 28 Sep 2017

• 1. Oseh hashalom (Joseph Tabory)
• 2. Re: Oseh hashalom (Micha Berger)
• 3. “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux (Rich, Joel)
• 4. future impact of deeds (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Oseh Hashalom (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? (Professor L. Levine)
• 8. Re: Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? (Mandel, Seth)
• 9. Re: Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? (Micha Berger)

Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the
Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel
minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei
ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel
who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to
change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the
gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in
the kaddish after the Amidah.
Yosef Tabory

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote:
: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of
: the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel
: minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)...

Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that
started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah.

I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the
majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian
"Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon,
they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and
Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes
in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation --
10 yemei teshuvah.

To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before
Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection
between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the
same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria
in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh.

: Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel,
: the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not
: wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought
: that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh
: Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah.

The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz
also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh)
had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom"
in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify
abandoning it.

 -----

While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef,
let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to
me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in
"Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi
yontef nusach for the joke to work.

    Why are so many Jews overweight?
    Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei,
    we sing:
        Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein!

Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8),
apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates!

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life

    Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in
    a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of
    the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")?

    A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19)
    that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition
    and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on
    Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which
    is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart"
    (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot
    Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim
    Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13).

IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me)

GCT
Joel Rich

In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding
of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the
future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example
was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C &
D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later,
while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense
that A gets more credit(schar) than B?

My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar
is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H
knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B.

So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your
potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish,
etc.) Thoughts?

GCT
Joel Rich

.
Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom
during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It
seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic
and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the
preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus
attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach
Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz.

I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I
grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one
gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not
even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year.
Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of
Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom
during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva.

Specifically:
Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912
Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928
Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940
(Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.)
Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949
Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950
Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960
The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960
Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982

There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is
a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being
published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz
Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is
the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in
following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and
this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a
given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh
Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor.

Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll
Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in
Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows
the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special
Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the
note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to
the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this
machlokes.

However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and
machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different,
and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the
Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor.

My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by
supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads
me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America
(who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to
Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and
Elokai N'tzor.

My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening
Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during
Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era
which included the newfangled text?

Akiva Miller

.
R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical
> substance at all, ...

I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence
that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical
substance?

I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got
that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is
effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean
beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the
substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must
be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot*
be removed by cleaning.

Gmar chasima tova to all,
Akiva Miller

Please see the discussion at

http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v


I personally have always used money for Kapporas was.


This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly
mistreated before they are used for Kapporas.  IIRC a few years ago it was
discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water
or food and died.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170928/c6f08750/attachment-0001.htm>

As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get
all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had
been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by
the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had
to be discarded.

After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost
everywhere with the kapporos chickens.

Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means
there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim:
it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here.

I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell
people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko.

But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the
main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union

On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> .
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
> 
>> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical
>> substance at all, ...
> 
> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence
> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical
> substance?

I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a 
modern person to wrap ones head around.


> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got
> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is
> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean
> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the
> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must
> be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot*
> be removed by cleaning.

If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing 
left to kasher!  All you've done is clean the surface.  There was never 
a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. 
  We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on 
the surface.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got
> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is
> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean
> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the
> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ...

If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get
it out by washing.  That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel).  I
always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance
absorbed into the kli.  Hence things like glass and stainless steel
possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous.

Lisa

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence
:> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical
:> substance?

: I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for
: a modern person to wrap ones head around.

I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT)
about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion:
: On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
:> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got
:> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is
:> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean
:> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the
:> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ...

: If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get
: it out by washing.  That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel).  I
: always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance
: absorbed into the kli.  Hence things like glass and stainless steel
: possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous.

In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general
argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more
than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we
understand an experience intellectually.

This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian
trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs,
etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than
to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with
common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off
in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience.

My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its
impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer,
than on the physics of the objects being utilized.

Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance
(like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance"
(as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the
past agreed with.

If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I
wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked:
> The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate
> the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the
> volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the
> ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as
> to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat
> that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul?

But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be
experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the
whole pot is indeed tainted.

I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally
intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The same boiling water
mi...@aishdas.org        that softens the potato, hardens the egg.
http://www.aishdas.org   It's not about the circumstance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but rather what you are made of.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote:
: http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v
...
: This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly
: mistreated before they are used for Kapporas...

That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against
being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact
that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens,
not the minhag.

This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and
the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag.

The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag.

In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz
as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached
them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it?

Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori.
(It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need
to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.)

And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and
"ve'ein leshanos".

Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the
Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them
a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money.

Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age --
we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply
to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean
plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa")
or not been doing kapparos at all.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The same boiling water
mi...@aishdas.org        that softens the potato, hardens the egg.
http://www.aishdas.org   It's not about the circumstance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but rather what you are made of.


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



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