Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 039

Sunday, November 12 2000

• RE: Techelles
• Re: Torah as Lecture notes
• RE: Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim
• RE: Bs"d
• Re: Bs"d
• Kriyas Shema recitation
• Re: Torah as Lecture notes
• Re: Rav Tzitzis (was techeles)
• Re: kruspadai
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim
• Re: Torah as Lecture notes
• RE: Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim
• Science and mesorah
• Re: karbanot
• RE: animals / flowers - humor alert

Sorry,  it was Ohr Someach's Daf List.
Here it is:

Making a Name for Himself
If one hears another Jew make a vow to be a nazir in the event that a son is
born to him and he declares "Me too," there is a question raised as to his
intention. On the one hand we can interpret his statement as a vow that he
too will be a nazir if a son is born to himself. Alternatively, there is the
possibility that what he really meant was that he too will be a nazir if a
son is born to his friend, and the "me too" was a declaration that we will
love that son as much as his father does and therefore will express his
gratitude to Heaven in the same manner by assuming nezirut.

This unresolved question is presented in our gemara by a sage names Ben
Rachumi whose name appears nowhere else in the Talmud. An interesting
observation is made by Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chayot about sages who made such
solo appearances. These sages became so identified with their single
statement that they were called by a name referring to it.

One example is Rabbi Yitzchak Migdalah who explains the mishna (Mesechta
Bava Metzia 25a) which rules that if one finds three coins placed one upon
the other he must assume that they did not fall from their owner in such
fashion and were abandoned, but rather were placed there and forgotten, a
situation requiring the finder to announce his find. This is only true, says
this sage, if the coins are found in the pyramid pattern of a tower, with
each coin lying on one broader than itself. Since he used the model of a
"migdal," Hebrew for tower, to make his point, he was subsequently referred
to as Rabbi Yitzchak Migdalah.

Another example is Rabbi Zuhamoi (Mesechta Berachot 53b), who made a solo
statement that one whose hands are greasy from eating is ineligible to say
the birkat hamazon after a meal. Since he used the term "mezuham," Hebrew
for greasy, he was thereafter known as Rabbi Zuhamoi.

In the same manner, our gemara's question regarding a vow for nezirut which
might be interpreted as "love for the son," the sage who presented this
question was called Ben Rachumi which means a "son who is loved."

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 09:44:48AM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: 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.

I bit of clarification:

When I say Torah sheBa'al Peh, I refer to the entire divrei E-lokim Chaim,
not just the p'sak that became halachah. I don't see how the Malbim could
both be a halachic pluralist and also argue that piskei halachah can be
reconstructed one way or the other. Lo kol shekein diRabbanan's.

-mi

On 8 Nov 2000 17:15:05, Wolpoe, Richard" richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
>As I wrote elsewhere: yesh lechaliek between #3 (i.e. Chumash) and #4
>(i.e.Nach)

See my prior posting, that although I agree with the svoro, the RDaQ and
others say it applies to Nakh as well.

>Question: did the Rav Zecher Zecher Tsaddik Livracha v'Shaim Reshaim Yirkav
>insist on not splitting up psukim only in the liturgy or in regular usage,
>too?

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

This gets more to the meat of the issue. RYBS noted that the siddur is full
of phrases from the TnaKh, and he said that they form the backbone of a lot
of davening. After all, when we approach the Uneffable and Unknowable One,
should we not take our lead from his prophets, who used their words bruah
haqodesh? Some phrases are quoted as is (e.g. haMelekh "hayyoshev 'al kisse
rom v'nisso," and "rom v'nisso shokhen 'ad" marom "v'qadosh sh'mo," the
words in quotations are phrases from two psuqim in Yesha'yo). Others are
slightly altered (as in Shmone 'Esreh: r'fo'enu haShem v'nerofe, changed
from singular ("refoeni") to plural. It is clearly not the intention of the
halokho to outlaw all sentence fragments and phrases in davening. BUT there
is a clear distinction that I don't think has been made here. It is only
psuqim QUOTED or read AS PSUQIM that should not be broken up.

Psuqe d'Zimra quotes psuqim; they should not be broken.

Vaykhullu is a quotation of psuqim.

Anywhere in the siddur that it says "kakosuv" or "kmo shen'emar" is a
quotation of psuqim.

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

Excellent point. R. Hayyim Brisker held that the very 'etsem of qdusho was
that the ShaTz shoud say, and the Tzibbur respond, the ShaTz says, and the
Tzibbur responds. If either side is missing or not responding, it is no
qdusho. Because of that, he held that the taqqono was to use only parts of
psuqim, to emphasize that the qdusho was incomplete without the response;
IOW a special taqqono for qdusho (so RYBS in the name of his father in the
name of R. Hayyim). (That was also the reason why R. Hayyim INSISTED that
the Tzibbur should not say "n'qaddesh es shimkho" or "naqdishkho," only the
ShaTz, in accordance with the SA and the Gro', because the Tzibbur HAS to be
responding to the ShaTz with "qodosh." That is also why R. Hayyim was
maqpid that a yohid should not say the qdusho d'yotser or the qdusho
d'sidro, and why he insisted that the ShaTz say "me'asar beis shekhinteh"
out loud, so that the Tzibbur could respond by saying "haShem yimlokh.)

>Isn't every Rav and every Yid who did things one way for centuries ipso
>facto arguing against such a revision? What gives people the right to
>presume that these matters were overlooked? Maybe they were considered
>and rejected...

Again, I think your point is well taken. But your complaint should not be
directed against the relatively minor emendations made by R. Hayyim or the
Gro', but against large scale changes. Why did even minhag Frankfurt adopt
in the 17th and 18th centuries various changes in the siddur? Not to
mention the idea of a whole group of Ashknazim changing their nusah to mix
in elements of nusah Sefarad and nusah haAri? You and I might agree on
this, but there must be lots of others who either don't or who feel "nisht
geferlekh."

It was also suggested to me that the reason RYBS said the first part of the
pasuq before qiddush out loud was that what the RYBS considered an undertone
differed from what others consider an undertone; after all, he said his
tefillo b'lahash quite audibly. Yes, he did, and so did R. Hayyim and so
did his uncle R. Velvel, but that was because R. Hayyim felt that you could
not concentrate properly without saying the words audibly, and tfillo
without kavvono is nothing. Other things, like "borukh shem" in qrias
shema' and parts of tahanun RYBS did say quietly.

"Gershon Dubin" gdubin@loebandtroper.com wrote:
>On RYBS finishing off "tov lehodos lashem" in birchos krias shema, did he
>likewise finish off "lifnei Hashem..." in the vidui of the avoda of Yom
>Kippur?

I assume that was said jokingly. In the Avodah the payyton is trying to
describe how the avoda was done in the Beis haMiqdosh. So he describes that
the Kohen Gadol would say the pasuq "ki bayyom hazzeh" etc., but when he
uttered the Name, the kohanim and all others in the azoroh would prostrate
themselves, and say "borukh," and he would time himself to finish saying the
Name as they were finishing saying "borukh," and then he would conclude the
pasuq with the last word "tithoru." How else would you have the payyton
describe it? And note that the Kohen Gadol said the entire pasuq, without
any fragments of other psuqim, even though he could have said only "ki
bayyom hazzeh hekhapper 'aleikhem; tithoru," and thus get out of the
mahloqes tanoim about how the words "mikkol hattoseikhem" and "lifnei
haShem" are connected.

Now that I am quite sure that I have put everyone to sleep, it is time to
quit.

A gutten shabbos,
Seth Mandel

Seth Mandel:
>  RYBS said that R. Hayyim felt that it was more than just that...
>                as defined by the Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos it clearly
> rules against saying things like "My G-d" when upset or surprised...

Indeed invoking Hashem's name in vain is frowned upon.

What surprised me is the contrast to Islam where expressions like Ya'aleh
dvak invoke "Al-lah" as freqnetly as possible. (source: A freind of mine who
studied Arabic in college) It seems that Islam's it's a good thing to use
"al-lah" frequently while in Judaism - out of deference to Hashem's kavod -
we B'H <smile> restrain and refrain from using Hashem's name except when
neceesary.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:36:53AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: davka invoke "Al-lah" as freqnetly as possible...

I can see three takes on the name "Al-lah":

1- Culturally, we ought to hyphenate it if we're going to be consistant with
   the way we write "G-d", but there is no halachic necessity to do so.
2- Al-lah may be cognate to E-loah, and therefore more than just stam a
   kinui.
3- Alternatively, it is suggestedMohammed took the word from Arab pagans
   who still worshipped a descendent concept that traces its name back
   to the Canaanite "El", and related to the Babylonian Ellu (the god
   the month of Ellul is named for). This might make it worse than "G-d"
   (or maybe it's another point of similarity).

-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

> From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
>: that might mean, according to the Redaq, that psuqim have to be said
>: with their proper trop! Not the tune, of course, but divided properly
>: according to the trop, vekm'l.)

Rabbi Gold, my fifth grade rebbe, told us to kiss our tzitzis after we had
said the phrase "al tzitzis hakanaf" rather than at the word tzitzis, so as
not to divide the phrase.  Anyone else do that?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[Me. -mi]

In a message dated 11/10/2000 10:22:26am CST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> When I say Torah sheBa'al Peh, I refer to the entire divrei E-lokim Chaim,
> not just the p'sak that became halachah. I don't see how the Malbim could
> both be a halachic pluralist and also argue that piskei halachah can be
> reconstructed one way or the other. Lo kol shekein diRabbanan's.

In other words, you see Torah sh' Ba'al Peh as the totality of all 
understandings, arguments, and counterarguments that have been made, could 
have been made, and might be made d'rabbanim on any actual or possible issue 
of halakhah, or any possible interpretation of aggadah.

Let me suggest a fascinating book edited by Moshe Sokol, entitled, "Rabbinic 
Authority and Personal Autonomy." It was published through the Orthodox Forum 
in 1992. It includes two very relevant essays. One is by Michael Rosensweig, 
"Eilu ve-Eilu Divrei Elohim Hayyim: Halakhic Pluralism and Theories of 
Controversy." The other is by Jonathan Sacks, "Creativity and Innovation in 
Halakhah." The latter essay, which focuses on the notion of hiddush 
be-halakhah, is particularly useful when considering the RMB theory of Divine 
Crib-Notes.

(I can see a nice modern-Orthodox Jewish boy being examined on gemorrah. The 
boy takes out a book and the rabbi says, "What is that?!" The boy sheepishly 
says, "Well, on the point at issue Chazal seems to say X, Rashi says Y, and 
Tosafists say Z. I thought I'd look at Chumash and see what it says . . . ." 
To which the rabbi responds, "Take your crib-notes out of here! And don't let 
me hear you brought a Classics Comic into your Shakespeare exam, either!")

David Finch

In a message dated 11/9/00 5:03:51pm EST, REL <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
writes:
>>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?

In the Seder Tanoim Vamoroim under Cruspidahee and Krispa, my point was that 
there are a few spellings to his name, as RYD also wrote at lentgh.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/9/00 6:07:09pm EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
>Yitzchok Zirkind:
>> 3) what Heter would he have for long hair (Chukas Hagoyim).

>  Nazir?  

That was too obvious :-) IMHO they would just call him the Nazir (Nakdimon 
Ben Guryon was not nicknamed for his wealth).  OTOH I was looking for a 
better upshlog :-) that the heter was Mkurov Lmalchus (which as we discussed 
WRT Lieberman) is muttor to have Goyishe haircut, however that would be valid 
only according the 2nd opinion why he was called Hakasos (and see MaHaRShA), 
and even according to that opinion Ben Tzitzis was his name (not nickname) as 
Rashi explains, (and is Muchrach in Loshon Hagimara).

Gut Shabbos v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/9/00 5:10:48pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> 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?

Sorry for my being Mikatzeir Bmokom Sheomru Lhaarich.

The Zohar says "even one word" meaning that when one reads the Torah he has 
to be Mafsik exactly as Moshe Rabbeinu did, (likewise the Gemara in Megila is 
also talking when reading the Torah) in that case it is obvious that he is 
quoting the Torah, likewise Bnidun Didan when one begins Yom Hashishi it is 
obvious that he means to say those words as they are in the Torah, (that is 
also further anchored by the previously quoted Knesses Hagdola WRT Dvorim 
Sheb'al Peh who makes distinction where it is obvious that he is quoting from 
the Torah, the example he gives is "U'b'osor Lachodesh".

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

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...

Richard Wolpoe:
> Good points.  But isn't Al pi Hashem Beyad Moshe also a fragment...
> 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 liturgy.  But
> afaik just a handful from Chumash.

Perhaps there's a special hakpodo not to say (outside of a brocho)
a posuk fragment that has sheim Hashem in it--it would explain why "al
pi Hashem b'yad Moshe" and "al kein beirach..." are problematic while
"zeicher tzadik l'vrocho" is not.

KT and gut Shabbos
Avrohom Weidberg

David Finch wrote:

> (I can see a nice modern-Orthodox Jewish boy being examined on gemorrah. The 
> boy takes out a book and the rabbi says, "What is that?!" The boy sheepishly 
> says, "Well, on the point at issue Chazal seems to say X, Rashi says Y, and 
> Tosafists say Z. I thought I'd look at Chumash and see what it says . . . ." 
> To which the rabbi responds, "Take your crib-notes out of here! And don't let 
> me hear you brought a Classics Comic into your Shakespeare exam, either!")
     
My rebbe once gave a shiur on whether ma'aser beheimah is an obligation on the 
gavra (the owner) or the cheftza (the animal).  After a long shiur consisting of
a back-and-forth between gemaras, rishonim, and acharonim, I tried to disprove 
him from the passuk (Vayikra 27:32) "every one that passes under the staff" 
which, I claimed, implies the obligation is on the cheftza.  He didn't shout or 
kick me out of shiur.  He took the question seriously and answered the kashya.

Gil Student

Avrohom Weidberg:
> Perhaps there's a special hakpodo not to say ... a posuk fragment that
> has sheim Hashem in it -- it would explain why "al pi Hashem b'yad Moshe"
> and "al kein beirach..." are problematic while "zeicher tzadik l'vrocho"
> is not.

Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:27:28PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: How do you know some statment is literal?  Because a tradition supports it
: How does the tradition know? Because it takes the statement literally!

(BTW, the last sentence doesn't answer the previous one, even without all
four sentences of your circle. You just said "it knows because it knows.)

Mesorah knows because it is either what HKBH told Moshe, or a conclusion
reached by people who applied da'as Torah to what HKBH told Moshe, applied
recursively.

: I still do not understand according to you how a chiddush does not ipso
: facto argue on all previous generations because after all they failed to
: state it so therefore it could not be true?!

There is a difference between not finding that the halachah or p'shat is
X, and concluding that the peshat must be Y (where X and Y can't both
be true).

You're trying to prove something from the absence of evidence lihefech.



On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:21:11PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: AIUI the Gmoro determines "death" at the point where a feather cannot be
: moved by breathing.

I don't see this as a Torah and science issue but a philosophical one.
IOW, the question isn't over anatomy, but rather what state of the human
organism corresponds to the concept halachah calls "misah". It may or
may not correspond to the medical definition of death. But we don't
assert anything about what that medical definition is.


: According to Shapiro's Bio of the sridei Eish, Hoffman et. al. felt that
: Wissenshaft was esential in an age of "da mah lehashiv"....

Without a real reference, all I could say is that this might condemn W-t!
After all, the SE tells you to learn W-t because you need to know the
apikursus in order to answer it.

Again, I need more to go on.

-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

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

My father tought me to say this only on shabbat when we are not in a rush and
can be more carful to say all words properly. Furthermore some of us yekkes say
birchat hashachar on shabbat at home.

shabbat shalom
steve

Akiva Atwood wrote:
> Also, one problem with dating the split to Peleg is that the Chinese have a 
> continuous recorded history dating back at least 4200 years -- which pre-dates
> Peleg. (of course, by going back to 1560 it also pre-dates the mabul in 
> 1656...)
     
A perfectly timed article http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/10/world/10CHIN.html

"Everyone here knows that Chinese civilization has 5,000 years of
uninterrupted history, a truism proudly repeated by schoolchildren and
President Jiang Zemin alike. But as serious scholars have long conceded,
hard proof of the first 2,000 years is missing."

<cut>

"Ample evidence does exist of early cultures in the Yellow River Valley,
where legend holds that the Chinese language and imperial system took form
under a mythical Yellow Emperor 5,000 years ago. But no firmly documented
chronology of rulers, reigns and conquests - of the sort that exists
for ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia - actually goes back beyond 841 B.C."

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]