Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 038

Friday, November 10 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:57:02 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: 85 letters makes a sefer kadosh?


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:00:09PM +0200, Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
: It seems to me that Vayhi Binsoa is a makor.  Why think it is merely a
: proof?

Because it relies on a quote made about there being 7 books in the Torah
by someone who may not have been even thinking about the question of the
minimal size of a seifer. R' Yonasan was talking about the significance
of Vayhi Binso'a -- for all we know, he held a shi'ur of some number
less than 85.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:14:08 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Kiddush intro


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:52:32AM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:                                                    from the Loshon Hazohar 
: (brought in the M"A O"C 282:1) it seems even one word is a problem.

I don't understand. How does one daven in lashon hakodesh without
building it out of single words, many of which were used in Tanach?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:07:48 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: women's tfila


On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 02:59:41PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Would I be better off buying a minimally kosher esrog at a moderate price as
: opposed to spending a lot of $$$ on a high priced alternative that I resent?

: Of course you COULD say spend the extra money and change that atitude, but
: let's just say it's not so easy to change ...

And what do you do until then? Mitoch shelo lishmah?

I think this question ties very nicely to our discussion of omitting
parts of korbanos in order to say the rest at a doable speed. Or why pesukei
dizimrah outranks one's other obligations, including one's wife's chiyuvim.
It's all halachic triage. How do you choose what to sacrifice? (pun
intended)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:43:44 -0500
From: "Edward Weidberg" <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com>
Subject:
Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim


> How about the last line of kaddish Oseh Shalom Bimrmov?  Did RYBS insist on
> completeing that passuk too?

> How about Kedushah?  Kaddosh and Baruch k'vod Hashem?  They are fragemnts in
> birchas yotzeir too.

Continuing the line of reasoning-- "Boruch ato Hashem" is also a posuk
fragment, ending "lamdeini chukecho" (T'hilim 119:12)-- If one must must
complete the whole posuk, how can we ever make a brocho?

At the very least, we must be m'chaleik between nusach hatfillo within
a brocho which in its flow intended to incorporate posuk fragments
(where completing the posuk will detract from the flow and meaning of
the t'fillo) and where p'sukim are said independently. Only in the latter
case might there be a hakpodo to complete the posuk

KT
Avrohom Weidberg


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 23:03:04 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Science and Torah


								Bs"d

Just an interesting tidbit: I often listen to the BBC when driving around,
and so hear snatches of different programs. A few days ago, someone on a
science program said that long standing theories about how long it took
for the glaciers to melt after the ice age have recently been proven
wrong. Previously, it was assumed that the melting took thousands,
or maybe hundreds of thousands of years. However, recent core samples
in glaciers prove that they melted in a span of a mere ten - yes, 10 -
years. In his book Mysteries of Creation, Rav Brown, z"l, states that
they melted in 150 days - with the scalding waters of the Mabul. This
new info certainly is much more in line with that! Seems that long held
suppositions actually are occasionally overturned, and the new ones are
much more in keeping with the way we understand things to have happened.

Eli


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 23:38:42 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Noach and wine


								Bs"d

RRW:
> FWIW I don't see Noach's drunkeness as a result of hedonism.  I see it as a
> depressive episode following his "survivor guilt" or his guilt over not
> intervening on behalf of his generation. 

RDF:

>The parsha works just as well if Noach was drunk for no particular reason at 
>all, except that he was a human, and in psychic decline. Maybe the parsha 
>works even better that way.

As I mentioned, Rav Zeidel Epstein, shlitta discusses this. In brief, he
says that Noach got drunk because of the depression over the realization of
the magnitude of the destruction. He notes that in general, we drink to
take the edge of our sorrow, because wine has the power to gladden man's
heart. However, with such a major task in front of him, Noach should not
have taken the time to indulge in personal considerations such as his
sorrow. Rather, he should have set immediatly to the task of rebuilding the
world and had bitachon in HaKudsha BriChu, certain that He would help him
succeed in his monumental task.

Eli


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 23:37:57 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Bs"d


Me:
> Can anyone tell me why it's accepted that we don't head our posts with
> "Bs"d"?

RDE:
>Look at Igros Moshe Y.D.II #138 page 232

I did. For those who didn't, the question is, it ok to write B"H at the top
of a letter, or is it usser. RMF answers that for various reasons, there's
no need to be makpid, but that it has no special myla. OTOH, he says that
Bs"d and BezrH"y present absolutely no problem whatsoever - but doesn't say
there's a specific myla either. So, that doesn't really answer my question,
which I will now restate: Even assuming there's no special myla (maybe
other poskim say there is?), then why do those of us who otherwise put Bs"d
on a written letter not do so on email posts? If there are poskim who do
say there's a myla, then the question is even stronger.

RYZ:
>There is a letter from the L. Rebbe to the Ragitchover Gaon on this it is 
>printed in the begining of Vol. 21 of the Igros Kodesh.

Don't have the sefer. Can you, or someone else give a sikum? I assume that
like RMF, this letter deals with b'clal is there an inyan to write Bs"d on
a letterhead. However, that's not my question, which is based on the
assumption that most people do - so why not on an email as well?

Eli


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:59:28 EST
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Bs"d


From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> R. Seth Mandel can correct me, but R. Hershel Schachter in Nefesh HaRav says 
> that RYBS and R. Chaim Soloveitchik did not write BS"D on letters.

R. Yosef Kapach z"l in the two volume kisvei Rav Kapach has an article where 
he responds to questions / criticism of the lack of a minhag by the Teimanim 
to write b"H or bs"d. Ayin shom.....

Mordechai


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 23:38:31 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Rav Tzitzis (was techeles)


									Bs"d

RYD:
>I'm not sure why one assumes kruspadoi is purple/techelles...the places
>in Onkelos that it appears (in BaM 15:38-39 and Dev 22:12) translates
>the word tsitsit, not tekhelet.

Whoops! You're right - made a mistake. Thanks. Also, thanks for the
interesting answer, for of course, the question remained even after your
correction.

RYZ:
>There is a Sefer from R' Reuvein Margoliyos in which he explains many of the 
>names (WRT R' Kruspidoee see Seder Hadoros).

Can you be a bit more specific? Which elef, and which year?

Eli


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:03:08 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: karbanot


In a message dated 11/9/00 12:03:36pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> If ketores is an inyan of "uneshalma parim [samim ?] sefaseinu", is there
>  a chiyuv misah for missing or repeating a word?

See Ramoh end of 132.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:03:09 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: kruspadai


In a message dated 11/9/00 10:07:18am EST, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
>         that's fine and good for Rashi to say but now that we know a Greek
>  word which explains Kruspadai, which might have translated Ben Tsistit
>  to begin with, one is tempted to explain the gemara's explanation of the
>  name differently...

1) Rashi knew the Possuk in Yechezkeil too, he even brings it in his Pirush 
of the word Tzitzis.
2) Nigrar means dragged along (not draped) and see Mogein Avrohom end of O"C 
21.
3) what Heter would he have for long hair (Chukas Hagoyim).

Veoid, V'ikar what is so Shver in the Gemara that one needs to reject Rashi's 
Pirush which he probably received from his Rebbe?

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:03:07 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Kiddush intro


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:52:32AM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>:                                                   from the Loshon Hazohar 
>: (brought in the M"A O"C 282:1) it seems even one word is a problem.

In a message dated 11/9/00 3:08:25pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>  I don't understand. How does one daven in lashon hakodesh without
>  building it out of single words, many of which were used in Tanach?

Obviously both Tefila and Tanach are in Loshon Hakodesh, the issue is where 
it is obvious that we are using a Possuk (not a word).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:03:37 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Kiddush intro


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:52:32AM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>:                                                   from the Loshon Hazohar 
>: (brought in the M"A O"C 282:1) it seems even one word is a problem.
 
In a message dated 11/9/00 3:08:25pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>  I don't understand. How does one daven in lashon hakodesh without
>  building it out of single words, many of which were used in Tanach?

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:03:07PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: the issue is where it is obvious that we are using a Possuk (not a word).

I'm still confused, my apologies for my density.

Are you saying that the lashon haZohar doesn't say "even one word",
that it was guzma on the MA's part? Or that it applies only when you say
"shene'emar" or otherwise indicate you intend this to be a quote?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:43:36 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: kruspadai


Yitzchok Zirkind:
> 3) what Heter would he have for long hair (Chukas Hagoyim).

Nazir?  <big smile>

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:27:00 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim


Avrohom Weidberg:
> Continuing the line of reasoning-- "Boruch ato Hashem" is also a posuk
> fragment, ending "lamdeini chukecho" (T'hilim 119:12)...

> At the very least, we must be m'chaleik between nusach hatfillo within
> a brocho which in its flow intended to incorporate posuk fragments...
>              and where p'sukim are said independently....

Good points.  But isn't Al pi Hashem Beyad Moshe also a  fragment that
constitutes an affirmation wrt to the Divine status of the Torah?  IOW, even
desipte being a fragment, doesn't it complete a thought and round out the
meaning of the passuk by saying not only is this THE torah but it is Al pi
hashem beyand moshe...  And as we know v'zos hatorah is itself taken out of
context anyway.

In an earlier post, I noted that there is a chiluk with Nach vs. Chumash.
And you are right, there are a lot of Nach fragments in the litrugy.  But
afaik just a handful from Chumash.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:08:49 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Science and Torah


Eli:
>  Seems that long held <scientific>
> suppositions actually are occasionally overturned, and the new ones are
> much more in keeping with the way we understand things to have happened.

This is a great argument for not letting Halacha lurch in the direction of
the latest scientific fad.

But it sure makes it difficult to know which diet plan is really healthy
after all <smile>

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:50:05 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Questions about p. Noach


In a message dated 11/9/2000 10:59:10am CST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
>> The parsha works just as well if Noach was drunk for no particular reason at
>> all, except that he was a human, and in psychic decline. Maybe the parsha 
>> works even better that way.
 
> True perhaps.
 
>> But isn't it always true that in *Man's Search for Meaning* we endeavor to
>> find or assign meaning to events?  To learn lessons thereof?  Also isn't the
>> Torah serving as a guide to insights into human behavior? ...

Sure. But there might be a lot of meaning (including moral power) in the 
notion that at the end of his life Noach was burned out and psychically lost, 
no longer able to play out the transcendent role assigned to him when he was 
younger. Noach turned into a drunk. Other men have become senile, childlike, 
mentally incompetent -- including men who have remained elders in the 
community and have continued to exert power over it. There are lots of 
lessons here!

David Finch


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:14:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: karbanot


On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Micha Berger wrote:
> I try to always include "Abayei hava misadeir"...

Abayeh etc. is not the Yekkishe siddur, that is why I do not say it.

> If ketores is an inyan of "uneshalma parim [samim ?] sefaseinu", is there
> a chiyuv misah for missing or repeating a word?

That is the AH's limud zechus, no?

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:48:49 +0200
From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
[none]


The Rema that forgetting a word of ktores is hayev misa is OC 132

Shlomo Goldstein


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:30:37 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
RE: Science and Torah


> wrong. Previously, it was assumed that the melting took thousands,
> or maybe hundreds of thousands of years. However, recent core samples
> in glaciers prove that they melted in a span of a mere ten - yes, 10 -

I'm dubious about this report (previous ice ages are an interest of mine --
along with Global Warming). The fact that the glaciers retreated from
England in a space of decades has been known for at least 20 years -- but
that was determined by geological records. (melting glaciers leave physical
remains behind).

Core samples can only tell you how fast the glacier GREW, since they measure
what is left. If the ice melted then there wouldn't be any layers left to
measure...

> years. In his book Mysteries of Creation, Rav Brown, z"l, states that
> they melted in 150 days - with the scalding waters of the Mabul. This

This is an example of trying to explain a neis via physical laws -- Micha,
would you hold this acceptable or not?

> new info certainly is much more in line with that! Seems that long held
> suppositions actually are occasionally overturned,

Sure they are -- any scientist will tell you that.

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:58:06 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: karbanot


On 9 Nov 00, at 12:34, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> > If ketores is an inyan of "uneshalma parim [samim ?] sefaseinu", is
> > there a chiyuv misah for missing or repeating a word?
> 
> Isn't that one (of the possible) reason(s) we (who daven nusach
> Ashkenaz) don't say Ein K'-lokeinu on weekdays when we are pressed for
> time and are liable to trip up on the words?

Only in Chutz La'Aretz. We here in Eretz Yisrael say it every day. 
Even Nussach Ashkenaz. I think it may have something to do with 
being b'simcha (which is why we duchan every day as well)....

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:02:25 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
RE: karbanot


On 9 Nov 00, at 10:40, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:

> Footnote:
> According to Minhag Kaj/Frankfort Kaddish derabbonon marks the end of
> a significatn section. As such, kaddish yassom and NOT Kaddish
> derbbanan is recited after Pitum Haktores and Perek Bame Madlikin.
> This implies that karbannos and Birchos Hashachar are quite separate
> from the psukei d'zimra that follow. This is further re-inforced by
> the Roedleheim's siddur which places Atifas Tallis and hanachas
> teffilin before Baruch She'amaor

Actually, I suspect that Roedleheim's placement of Atifas Tallis 
and Hanachas Tefillin may have more to do with the fact that it was 
originally published in Germany (correct?) where during the winter, 
when hanetz can be at 9:00, they start davening before Atifas Tallis 
and Hanachas Tefillin and sometimes even wait until after 
Yishtabach to put them on. That was my experience in Paris in 
January three years ago.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:41:22 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
Rishonim


Shlomo Goldstein:
> [The Kotzker] ... if the Aharon [were] right that the Rishon is wrong,
> then the "sechel haTorah" the Torah-intelligence of the Rishon would
> have rejected his own premise.

While it seems Rishonim get admiration for what they say re: Gmara, their
versions of nusach hatefillah and minhaggim seem to get dismissed rather
frequently.  I wonder why?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:32:58 -0500
From: Herschel Ainspan (862-1197 fax-4134) <ainspan@watson.ibm.com>
Subject:
pitum hak'tores


From: "Shlomo Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
> The Rema that forgetting a word of ktores is hayev misa is OC 132

The MB there says the chiyuv misa is only b'meizid, and ham'dakd'kim omrim oso
b'chol yom.  Note the Rema there says to say k'tores before the yom, as was
the order in the avodah; tzarich iyun why the siddurim reverse the order (and
why they put it after musaf on musaf days; k'tores was also before musaf in the 
avodah).

Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:44:48 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Torah as Lecture notes


In a message dated 11/10/2000 8:09:47am CST, I wrote to Areivim:
: But to be "Torah-believing" means to believe that the Torah was given
: as crib-notes for a much larger Torah sheBa'al Peh. Just because they
: co-opted a slightly bowdlerized version of Tanach doesn't mean that
: they actually believe in the Torah.

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 09:25:21AM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com replied:
:                                                Chumash cannot be reduced to 
: mere "crib-notes" for Torah sh' Ba'al Peh. It's closer to the other way 
: around: the oral law provides explanation, explication, and application of 
: d'oraisah, within the traditional (and very real) limits of machlokes and 
: hiddush. And while oral law was revealed by HaShem, Chumash was "given" by 
: him. 

: And then there's aggadah, and Scriptual metaphor and poetry. This is the real 
: literature of Judaism. Oral law does not even attempt to mediate these works, 
: which remain the property of each Jew's imaginative insight (Thank HaShem!!) 

: So . . . crib-notes Scripture is not. 

I believe this is a repetition of a well-argued debate. My position
(unsurprisingly, by now) is based on that of RSRH. I forgot who
articulated the other perspective.

Related is Malbim's introduction to Vayikra, where he says that all of
Torah could be reconstructed from the Chumash, given the laws of derashah
and sevarah.

See also the discussion titled "missing data" in the Avodah archives.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:59:27 GMT
From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Bs"d


On 8 Nov 2000 16:47:49, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> R. Hershel Schachter in Nefesh HaRav says that RYBS and R. Chaim 
> Soloveitchik did not write BS"D on letters.

R. Gil is and R. Schachter correct. R. Hayyim Brisker (and R. Moshe
and R. Velvel Brisker) and RYBS did not begin any correspondance with
B'H or BS'D. (This is confirmed by all of the original correspondance
that I have seen). R. Moshe said in the Igros Moshe that the problem
is that the hei in B"H should not be erased lekhathila and should not
be thrown in to a maqom bizzoyon, but that bs'd poses no problem of
that. RYBS said that R. Hayyim felt that it was more than just that;
there was also the issue that HQB'H's name should not be invoked shelo
letzorekh. (Providing, of course, a springboard to discuss the mitzva of
yir'as haShem; as defined by the Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos it clearly
rules against saying things like "My G-d" when upset or surprised, and
similarly any mention of His name unless necessary in the context of the
letter.) RYBS and R. Hayyim never saw what is the necessity of invoking
the name of HQB'H to begin a letter. If, however, it was relevant to
the letter, it would be brought in the body of the missive.

On 8 Nov 2000 16:46:11, Micha Berger wrote:
> But I find the underlying question interesting: why and when did this 
> minhag begin? Is there a difference whether the mail is divrei chol or 
> divrei Torah? Do teshuvos have a B"H/BS"D on them?

This indeed is an interesting question. I have seen some original letters
by the Rambam, the Rashba, the Rmo', the Havvas Yoir, and the Vilner Gaon,
and none of them had either on top. Among aharonim, the custom is split;
some do, some don't. R. Moshe Mordekhai Epstein did not, R. Hayyim
'Ozer sometimes did. Perhaps someone else has some data on when this
custom got started.

Seth Mandel


Go to top.


********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]
< Previous Next >