Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 157

Thursday, March 15 2001

• Re: Dor Revi'i on asseih lanu elohim asher yeilkhu l'phaneinu
• Re: Parashas Zachor
• bishul aku"m and canned goods
• RE: bishul aku"m and canned goods
• Re: bishul aku"m and canned goods
• Re: bishul aku"m and canned goods
• Re: wearing a tie
• Rebbes Wearing Ties (When the Chassidim Do Not)
• Birkas Krias Shema After Z'man Krias Shema
• somech geulah litefillah
• Re: somech geulah litefillah
• Re: somech geulah litefillah
• Re: Areivim V6 #527
• Re: Areivim V6 #527
• Cheilek E-loak mima'al
• Definition of ocheil for chameitz
• Re: Women, Tefillin, and Niddah
• Re: Clapping on Shabbos
• hukas akum
• Re: Women, Tefillin, and Niddah

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website

www.dorrevii.org
and
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor 4

aseih lanu elohim asher yeil*khu l*phaneinu ki zeh Moshe ha-ish 
lo yadanu meh hayah lo: 

See what we have written in parashat t*rumah in the name of our 
master, and we have an opportunity here to explain further.  In the 
early generations when people walked in darkness rather than light, 
it was the practice of every nation to worship their kings and their 
rulers as gods, because the people saw that their leaders were 
educated and wise and therefore concluded that their leaders could 
not be ordinary people.  So Hiram, the king of Tyre, in his towering 
conceit, said *in the abode of G-d have I dwelt.*  And so did Pharaoh 
say, *the river is mine and I have made it.*  So they led their barbarous 
peoples to believe in their divinity, as they alone possessed knowledge 
and wisdom, which they kept to themselves and withheld from their 
people.  They wanted the people to continue to dwell in darkness so 
that they could do as they pleased to the people.  But Moshe our 
teacher did not conduct himself in this way with our ancestors.  For he 
appeared to them as an ordinary person, and he said to them:  *I am a 
man and not a god.*  And Moshe very much wanted that all Israel 
would obey as one person all the commandments of this Torah given 
at the mountain from the midst of fire and that they would all learn to 
know the Eternal, so that the whole nation would be holy.  So the 
Scripture says (Deuteronomy 33:4)  *Moshe commanded us the Torah, 
An inheritance of the congregation of Ya*akov,* for all have an equal 
share in it, so that no one may raise himself above his brethren, and 
that all the people should be priests.  Thus, the Eternal commanded 
them through Moshe (Exodus 19:6): *And ye shall be unto Me a 
kingdom of priests and a holy nation.*  And did not Moshe say 
(Numbers 11:29): *would that all the Lord*s people were prophets*?

	However, our ancestors in the desert did not understand, for 
they were a nation void of counsel (goi oveid eitzot), and they rebelled 
against counsel and wisdom, because they were idolaters (as it appears 
that the fish of the swamp enjoy the muddy waters and despise the fresh 
waters of a rushing stream).  So they therefore gave precedence to 
*na*asseh* before *nishma* as we explained above (parashat t*rumah), 
because they refused to see that a wise person is above a simpleton.  
And what they meant by saying *make us a god who shall go before us* 
was that they wanted to be led, like all the nations around them, by a 
leader who would be a god * who would go before them and they would 
follow blindly, without knowledge or understanding.  

	*For this Moshe, the man* (ki zeh ha-ish Moshe) who would lead 
us who says that he is a man like any other man *we know not what is 
become of him.*  Why would he lead us like an ordinary person and why 
would he not want to raise himself up above us to be a god unto us?  
v*havein.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 3/13/01 1:33:20pm EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> 2.  Any difference for the three year cycle of krias haTorah?
> 3.  Why is the mitzva of parashas zachor done by reading from a sefer
>     Torah whereas, for example, zachor es yom hashabbos lekadesho is done
>     with kiddush, and the other zechiros apparently just by mentioning
>     at most?

See Encyclopedia Taalmudis Vol. 7 Erech "Zchras Ma'aseh Amoleik", who
brings the different opinions as to what the actual Chiyuv is and how
often (once in 3 years to reconcile the 3 year cycle is also mentioned,
Vyesh Lha'arich that actually it comes out twice in 3 years, Bshalach
and Titzei), also see Sdei Chemed Klolim Zayin 13. WRT #3 note Megila 18a
"Zikoron *Basefer*".

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

I'm looking for shu"tim (or ideas be-alma) relevant to whether or not
hashgahot on canned goods (need) take into consideration bishul aku"m.
Any help would be appreciated.

Yisrael Dubitsky

From: yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU [mailto:yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU]
> I'm looking for shu"tim (or ideas be-alma) relevant to whether or not
> hashgahot on canned goods (need) take into consideration bishul aku"m.
> Any help would be appreciated.

I always thought that canned goods are not oleh al shulchan melachim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Yisrael Dubitsky wrote:
> I'm looking for shu"tim (or ideas be-alma) relevant to whether or not 
> hashgahot on canned goods (need) take into consideration bishul 
> aku"m. Any help would be appreciated.

There was an Or Hamizrach a few years ago with a number of articles about
tuna fish. I recall articles from R. Hershel Schachter, R. Mordechai
Willig, and R. Menachem Genack among others. R. Genack's article addressed
your question. I believe (but am not sure) that he argued that bishul
aku"m is not a problem.

Gil Student

In a message dated 3/14/01 2:33:50pm EST, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
> I'm looking for shu"tim (or ideas be-alma) relevant to whether or not
> hashgahot on canned goods (need) take into consideration bishul aku"m.

IIRC there is an artical from RHS, (in one of the RJJ digests?), one of the 
issue is Machlokes Haposkim if steaming with water in the can has the din of 
Bishul or M''ushon.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 2:32:56pm EST, Eli Turkel
<Eli.Turkel@kvab.be> writes:
>> While I agree there is a machlokes Gra vs Rema, I'm not sure how far it
>> goes. The Rema/Maharik learn that hukas akum means there is NO reason
>> why the goyim wear this, then we assume it is based in AZ from previous
>> generations. Therefore, clothing of kavod, like a doctor's uniform
>> is mutar....

> Can someome explain accrding to the Remah what the purpose of wearing
> a tie is? Why is it not prohibited?

[Joel Rich's reply:]
Perhaps because originally there was a toelet(napkin/cover unsightly
buttons)

KT
Joel
I believe they should be assur based on R'Ybs dictum that its assur to
be stupid :-)

[Moshe Feldman suggested:]
It's "clothing of kavod" derived from clothing worn by the nobility in the
Middle Ages (I heard that originally it was used to camouflage food stains).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[Micha's 2 cents:]
I thought the tie evolved from the ascot, which was used to hold
perfume. Useful for holding up to your nose when passing open sewers,
and for masking body odor. But the origin (which is why I lumped all
three emails into one posting) is not relevent to Avodah. Whatever it
actually was, it seems there once was a reason for ties that no longer
applies. So, what does that mean lihalachah?

A second issue, there are probably Freudian reasons for the popularity
and persistance of the tie. (Ask me in private email if you need further
explanation.) Would this make them more assur?

-mi

E. Turkel:
>Granted that many chassidim and Israelis do not wear ties yet many
>others do wear them.

Why is it that there are rebbes who wear ties while their Chassidim do
not?

Also, why is that some rebbes, such as the Stoliner, for example, dress in
a more modern manner than many, if not most, of their Chassidim. In the
case of the Stoliner, the last I saw him he had trimmed payos behind his
ears and wore regular pants, while many (if not most) of his Chassidim in
Eretz Yisroel have long payos and wear white socks and knickers on Shabbos.

- Noach

It has been mentioned that there are shitos that prohibit saying Birkas
krias shema shel arvis before tseis hakochavim. Are there also shitos
that prohibit saying birkas krias shema shel _shacharis_ after z'man
kiras shema?

(I know that there are after z'man tefilah)

Thank you for any replies.

- Noach

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> Davening shemoneh esreih after
>shekiah is certainly mutar. The only question is Shema and its berachos.
>The rishonim disagree whether one can Shema and/or its berachos before
>tseis hakochavim. According to those who forbid it, there is then
>the question of whether one can daven shemoneh esreih without Shema,
>i.e. not be somech geulah litefillah.

I thought somech geulah litefillah only applied to shacharis.
Which is why we have chatzi kaddish in between, no?
Or did I come in late and completely misunderstand something?

-- Eric

Eric wrote:
> I thought somech geulah litefillah only applied to shacharis.
> Which is why we have chatzi kaddish in between, no?
     
Berachot 9b
R. Yochanan said: Who is among those in the world to come? He who connects
the redemption of arvit with the prayer of arvit (hasomech geulah shel
arvit litefillah shel arvit).

There is, however, a machlokes rishonim whether tefillah betzibbur for
ma'ariv is more important than somech litefillah for ma'ariv. In other
words, if the tzibbur is davening when it is late enough for tefillah
but too early for shema, there is a machlokes whether to daven now
without being somech geulah litefillah or to daven later by yourself
and be somech geulah litefillah. I believe Tosafos and the Rashba in
the beginning of Berachos discuss this.

Chatzi kaddish is an excellent question. I have heard that RYBS
only answered what is obligatory in the chatzi kaddish (amen, yehei
shmeih... and last amen) and not what is not really obligatory (first
amen and berich hu).

[So I found when researching Ashirah Lashem, and later found in Nefesh
haRav. -mi]

Gil Student

At 03:53 PM 3/14/01 -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
>Berachot 9b
>R. Yochanan said: Who is among those in the world to come? ...
>(hasomech geulah shel arvit litefillah shel arvit).

Hmm, I gotta go look into that . . . . 

I had heard (so no mareh makom) that there was no somech geulah litefillah
for ma'ariv b/c shacharis is d'oraisa (at least according to some)
and ma'ariv is not. Be that as it may, see below:

>Chatzi kaddish is an excellent question.  I have heard that RYBS only answered 
>what is obligatory in the chatzi kaddish (amen, yehei shmeih... and last amen) 
>and not what is not really obligatory (first amen and berich hu).

Not only chatzi kaddish, but hashkivenu, too (at least in my siddur
Tehillas HaShem, al pi Arizal I presume?).

-- Eric

From Areivim:
> Avraham knew that it was necessary to carry on the line with someone
> who possessed a Jewish neshama and not just "anyone".

It was my understanding that the concept of a "Jewish neshama" didn't come 
into the creation until Ma'amad Har Sinai...  And that Avraham went to his 
family because he didn't like the middos of the other nations.

praice

From: PRaice@aol.com <PRaice@aol.com>
> It was my understanding that the concept of a "Jewish neshama" didn't come 
> into the creation until Ma'amad Har Sinai...  And that Avraham went to his 
> family because he didn't like the middos of the other nations.

While undoubtedly less mystical philosophers would agree with you, Rav
Yehudah Halevy in the Kuzari held that the "Inyan Eloki" -- a special
Jewish-like neshama--was inherited generation after generation from Adam
until it resided in Avraham and his progeny.  RYH's has been very
influential.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:49:27AM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: While undoubtedly less mystical philosophers would agree with you, Rav
: Yehudah Halevy in the Kuzari held that the "Inyan Eloki" -- a special
: Jewish-like neshama--was inherited generation after generation from Adam
: until it resided in Avraham and his progeny.  RYH's has been very
: influential.

Lihalachah, when it comes to gid hanasheh, issur chal al issur. The reason
the gemara gives is because gid hanasheh applied to B'nei No'ach -- Ya'akov
ubanav until Har Sinai.

So it would seem that we have a p'sak endorsing the idea that the avos did
NOT have the din of Jews.

To answer the original question, Rashi is pretty clear that the problem
was that Canaan are the subject of Noach's kelalah. That makes them
(including Eliezer) unfit recepticles for birchas Avraham.

-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

Chameitz, like basar bichalav, appears to be an issur in the cheftzah
of ocheil (sheim davar, the neginah is milra, on the '-eil'), as opposed
to the rest of kashrus which refers to the pe'ulah of achilah.

However, chameitz is unique in that for it, ocheil is defined as ra'ui
la'achilas kelev; not ra'ui la'achlah (for a human).

Why? VIDC?

-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

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 10:27:21AM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: I didn't see it inside, but that could be connected to above issue, however 
: perhaps a more definitive Rayoh to prohibit the wearing of Tfilin during 
: Niddus may be from the Halacha in O"C 40 (in S"A Horav 40:9)...

I assume you mean during yemei rei'iyah, not the entire time she is a
niddah. Isn't the inyan over there guf naki, not the tum'as keri?

-mi

Yeruchamiel Bratt [to Areivim, on the subject of applauding after a derashah
or shi'ur]:
>Seems to me that it just isnt the "thing" to do.  But Akiva, wadr, 
>clapping on Shabbos or Yomtov is not prohibited.  and one need not clap 
>ke'le'achar yad.  The gezeira prohibting fixing musical instruments goes 
>to playing them and not clapping your hands.  Source is at the end of Mes. 
>Beizah.

                                                                 Bs"d
WADR, many do, in fact, hold that clapping on Shabbos or Yomtov is 
prohibited and one does need to clap k'lacher yad - except for mitzvah 
purposes. See Shmiras Shabbos 16:43 and 28:36. It's true that there are 
those who hold otherwise, but I don't understand how you can so blithely 
dismiss the other side and the many who hold by it.

Eli

R' Turkel:
> Can someome explain accrding to the Remah what the purpose of wearing
> a tie is? Why is it not prohibited?

I wish to claim, though R' Gil disputes, that even according to the Gra some
degree of fashion is permitted.   Not everything need be utilitarian.  But
a doctor's robe or a nurse's cap needs a heter precisely because it is not a
normal accepted fashion statement.  A tie is an item of clothing wore for
kavod of the wearer, it should certainly be permitted according to the Rema.
But blue jeans on the other hand...?

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 3/14/01 9:33:46pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I assume you mean during yemei rei'iyah, not the entire time she is a
> niddah. Isn't the inyan over there guf naki, not the tum'as keri?

Yes I meant specificly during the Yimei Rei'yah (not Yimei Libun).  The 
Halacha in Simon 40 is to point out that while Tumas Keri does not stop 
putting on Tfilin, the Keri while on the Guf obligates one to take off the 
Tfilin.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]