Avodah Mailing List
Volume 10 : Number 120
Wednesday, March 5 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:09:08 -0500
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject: RE: RAYHK and separatism
[RYGB:]
> RDG faxed me today (thanks!) RAYHK's letter in defense of the DR - it
> is a masterpiece, and I asked RDG to have Reb Micha PDF it so RDG can
> post it on the DR website. So many yesodos!!!
> As I thought, of course, RAYHK in no way opposes the Hirschian
> Austrittsgemeinde
As in many cases, RYGB and I can read the identical sources with
diametrically different conclusions - rather than arguing, I too hope
Reb Micha (shlia) can PDF it, so people can read it.
Meir Shinnar
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:15:56 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject: re: Free choice vs. foreknowledge
[Mi:]
> And yet, I don't see your problem, that it eliminates that "distance".
> What it means is that Hashem is giving the ko'ach and mamashus to the
> chotei to do his cheit. In a manner, He is participating ("up close") in
> allowing the sin to happen. "Bederekh she'adam rotzeh leileich..." This
> is discussed at length at the begining of Tomer Devorah.
We have to be careful to keep disciplines sparate. When a philosophical
question is posed, it ought to be addressed in the terminology and
methods of philosophy; or else, we enmesh ourselves in miscommunication
and confusion.
Distance means G-d's non-interferance to right wrongs. Thus, if an evil
man throws a child out of the window, no miracle occurs to save his
life. This is so that evil remains a viable choice. Had every evil been
immediately corrected, it would cease to be a viable choice. On the other
hand, it makes G-d appear distant, not intimately involved in our lives.
Ultimately, distance versus closeness is our perception of the Divine (I
appreciate that Kabolah uses a different conceptual language of closeness
and distance). I do not understand how aloowing cheit to happen can be
called closeness. I have to check the Tomer Devora to understand what
you have quoted.
M. Levin
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:25:42 -0500
From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Hakkol Tsofui
RMB <<This goes to the core of Rabbi Akiva's words. "Hakol tzafui"
Because to Him there is no hoveh vs asid. Which eliminates the problem
of His knowing now what will be. It...>>
while hakkol tsofui is understood by many rishonim/rambam as a
foreknowledge of the future, however one wants to deal with the b'chiroh
chofshis problem it would engender (and r akiva's formulation is then
not very satisfying as a "solution" since it merely invites the response
"how") it is important to remember there is a completely different p'shot
in r akiva -- that he is saying nothing at all about foreknowledge,
but rather that God -- the Tzofeh -- sees all things, even that which
is hidden in the hearts of men. (who knows, the shadow knows). But all
in the present. Then R. Akiva's statement is more along the lines that
God doesn't interfere with your free choice, rather than an attempt to
"solve" a foreknowledge contradiction to b'chiroh. and of course there
were even those who, following the logical conclusion of b'chiroh,
denied that God could foretell the future.
(Note: I forego my preferred transliteration scheme with common names
which have wide acceptance/recognition)
Mechy Frankel W: (703) 845-2357
Michael.frankel@osd.mil H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:24:58 -0500
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject: RE: Netziv and separatism
RYGB
> 2. the irrelevance of the Netziv is apparent if you look at the teshuva (MD
> 1:44). He is addressing a community where the Rav and Rashei ha'Kehilla are
> shomrei Torah u'mitzvos and admonishing them not to forsake their R brethren
> but be mekarev them by setting up Torah education (even including limudei
> chol) under their auspices to educate the non-O. Outreach.
> Nothing about common institutions.
I have had a chance to review the tshuva, and BMKVT, the tshuva is
actually quite different.
While the issue of kiruv is included, the tshuva goes much further:
1) eyn lahem takkana ela lihyot even yisrael, hayinu sheyihyu mechubarim
beaguda achat az eyn umma velashon yecholim lehafridam, vehaeych nomar
lehipared ish mereehu veyavo'u umot haolam ushtafunu me'at me'at c"v.
The requirement is for a joint community - dealing with them.
This requirement (and my understanding) is further extended by the
analogy he makes to the prushim and zadokim ( the canonical "minim"),
whose controversy destroyed the land and the bet hamikdash - clearly,
joint institutions between the prushim and zadokim are preferred.
The issue of how to deal with the minim of course differs in a community
where the Orthodox are in control - where he would forbid austritt,
from where the Orthodox are not in control - where perhaps austritt is
necessary to maintain control, but continued interaction and outreach
is necessary.
This is actually strengthened by 1:9, also cited by RYGB, as a model of
endorsing austritt - actually, here too, my reading is far different.
First, the Netziv in the first part is dealing specifically with the
issue of hillul shabbat befarhesya - and argues that joint prayer with
mechallel shabbat befarhesya is forbidden (I would add that in the mid
19th century Lita, the current issue of whether those who are mechallel
shabat befarhesya should be treated as a tinok shenishba wasn't present -
the dominant Jewish society was shomer shabbat).
The Netziv bases himself on mishle 1 - al telech bderech ittam mena
raglecha minetivatam - and distinguishes between derech - the public
domain, and netiv - a private way.
With the public domain - it is impossible to separate, however one has
to be careful about joint endeavors. With private domain - eg, within
their own temples, one should separate completely, but even there,
one shouldn't fight them.
Therefore, even with mehallele shabbat befarhesya, the level of separation
the Netziv was for was less than that of Hungarian austritt...
I would add that the criteria that the Netziv uses where separation
is indicated - hillul shabbat befarhesya and avodat elilim - are quite
different than the ones that would apply to JTS...
Meir Shinnar
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:53:52 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: RE: Netziv and separatism
At 05:24 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>RYGB
>> 2. the irrelevance of the Netziv is apparent if you look at the teshuva (MD
>> 1:44). He is addressing a community where the Rav and Rashei ha'Kehilla are
>> shomrei Torah u'mitzvos and admonishing them not to forsake their R brethren
>> but be mekarev them by setting up Torah education (even including limudei
>> chol) under their auspices to educate the non-O. Outreach.
>> Nothing about common institutions.
>I have had a chance to review the tshuva, and BMKVT, the tshuva is
>actually quite different.
>While the issue of kiruv is included, the tshuva goes much further:
>1) eyn lahem takkana ela lihyot even yisrael, hayinu sheyihyu mechubarim
>beaguda achat az eyn umma velashon yecholim lehafridam, vehaeych nomar
>lehipared ish mereehu veyavo'u umot haolam ushtafunu me'at me'at c"v.
>The requirement is for a joint community - dealing with them.
>This requirement (and my understanding) is further extended by the
>analogy he makes to the prushim and zadokim ( the canonical "minim"),
>whose controversy destroyed the land and the bet hamikdash - clearly,
>joint institutions between the prushim and zadokim are preferred.
RMS has gone through 1:44 with a fine-toothed comb and uncovered the word
"agudah" which he then decides must mean some communal organization. I
have been davening Yomim Noro'im davening for many years and have never
had the concept of a communal organization in mind when saying "v'yei'asu
kullam agudah echas la'asos retzonecha b'leivav shalem."
In other words, his inference is incorrect. The agudah here means kiruv
levavos, not one gemeinde.
(deleted)
>This is actually strengthened by 1:9, also cited by RYGB, as a model of
>endorsing austritt - actually, here too, my reading is far different.
(deleted)
RMS's incorrect interpretation of 1:9 is readily refuted by a simple
look at the teshuva. Anyone who would like it and has not yet received
it should please let me know.
(deleted)
>I would add that the criteria that the Netziv uses where separation
>is indicated - hillul shabbat befarhesya and avodat elilim - are quite
>different than the ones that would apply to JTS...
1. We were talking about the Netziv vis a vis the Austrittsgemeinde,
not vis a vis JTS - although the idea that the Netziv would allow anyone
to teach there can only be viewed as a manifestation of Me'shenichnas...
2. Chillul Shabbos b'farheseya and avoda zara (i.e., kefira) are hallmarks
of JTS.
RMS's misinterpretation of the Netziv is paralleled in to his misreading
of RAYHK - I hope that will be available in PDF soon.
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org or ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:20:40 -0500
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Subject: Re: Mah Tovu
In Avodah V10 #119, DJHavin wrote:
> Is the recitation of Mah Tovu restricted to Shacharith? It would seem
> to be appropriate to recite it whenever entering a shule to pray.
Actually, I think it's appropriate whenever entering a shul (or bais
medrash), whether or not entering it for purposes of t'filah.
> Many German shules have the custom to sing Mah Tovu on Yomtov evenings
> as an introduction to Ma'ariv when Kabalat Shabbath is not said. (Minhag
> Frankfurt, which recites Kabbalat Shabbath even when Yomtov coincides
> with Shabbath does not, IIRC, sing Mah Tovu in that circumstance.)
That's my recollection, too...and "Breuer's" always used the same tune
for it. (BTW, I would be happy to sing the opening bars upon request,
but I'll need RW and a few other volunteers in order to form a choir and
give the entire piece a semi-proper rendition :-), and I'm not so sure
RW can help us until Nisan 5764.) It also was sung on special occasions
(e.g. I recall its being listed on the program for Rabbi Dr. S. Breuer's
installation as Rav in Frankfurt).
JBaker wrote:
> I postulated that, given the presence of a regular minyan at set times,
> and an aron with sefer torah, the shiva minyan may have the din of a shul.
> ...That [Rav Moshe Feinstein] asks the question in terms of "in a house of
> mourning, or in a bet midrash..." indicates some kind of equation between
> the two as a place in which regular davening takes place, while women
> may only attend sporadically. This would seem to support my thought.
I don't believe that Jonathan's inference is muchrach -- seems to me those
two places are listed together merely because women are rarely found
[and a mechitzah is usually not extant] in either. (In terms of SHuT,
I'm sure DEidensohn can quote us chapter&verse on any RMF thoughts which
noted the temporary nature of a bais ovail, and if no thoughts of that
nature can be found in "Igros Moshe," I dare say they can be found in
other t'shuvos.) What is muchrach, IMO, is R'Yochanan's BT Sanhedrin
105b statement, which ties botai k'naisiyos and botai midroshos to
"[mah tovu] oholecha."
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:41:33 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject: mamzer
Micha writes
> However, if the issue is hilchos ishus, with the possibility of creating
> mamzeirim, one needs to find a poseiq whose opinion would render the
> person a non-mamzeir according to as many people as possible.
I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that if a psak of posek X is
controversial then a bet din should be matir a mamzer based on this psak?
Similarly with regard to IVF and other methods are artificial insemination
there are many arguments with some poskim declaring mamzerut in some
cases. Does one have to always go le-chumra.
For a story - I recently went to a shiur of R. Zilberstein of Bnei
Brak. In the shiur he prohibited any form whatsoever of artificial
insemination. When people complained that many poskim allow many types he
answered that R. Eliyashiv allows it only for pikuach nefesh (I assume
extreme depression) and as such he won't consider other opinions (RIZ
is a son-in-law of RYSE).
--
Eli Turkel, turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 05/03/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:46 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: mamzer
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:41:33AM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Micha writes
:> However, if the issue is hilchos ishus, with the possibility of
:> creating mamzeirim, one needs to find a poseiq whose opinion would
:> render the person a non-mamzeir according to as many people as
:> possible.
: I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that if a psak of posek X
: is controversial then a bet din should be matir a mamzer based on
: this psak?
I'm not addressing the pesaq itself, but rather the question of authority.
There are many questions where one is pasqening for gantz klal Yisrael
until the end of time. Such as in mamzeirus cases. It is therefore
quantitatively and perhaps even qualitatively different than an eiruv
question. And would need a poseiq who is a maran dekhol Yisra'el, not
just the mara de'asra. Assuming you could find such a poseiq...
What I mean is: I have no idea what to do.
Best we can do is find a poseiq that nearly all observant Jews would
respect, and hope.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:20:04 -0500
From: "Brown, Charles.F" <charlesf.brown@gs.com>
Subject: chovat kriat hatorah
> In OC 4:40 R' Moshe writes that the chiyuv of hearing kriat hatorah is on
> each individual.
Yet in OC I:24 he adopts the Ramban's position?
Rashi writes that "porsin al shema" can be done by any yachid as long as a
tzibbur is present; even though it is mentioned in that mishna on 23b it
must be (acc to rashi) a chovas hayachid, against the Ramban.
Since acc. to Rosh, R' Eliezer freed his eved to make a minyan for parshas
zachor, that at least must be a chovas hayachid of keriya b'tzaibbur. If
every keriyas hatorah worked this way, it would fit nicely as a a "ke'eyn
d'orasya tikkun".
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:58:59 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject: A Divine Whodunnit
This is actually NOT funny. It came from Tzvi (Harry) Gross, who sent
it to me in 1999 (5759) (I tell you the date only because it talks
about "this" year being the last year of the 19-year cycle - the year
referred to is 5759).
And for those who have forgotten, tonight is Rosh Chodesh Adar Beis
so Chodesh tov....
-- Carl
A Divine Whodunnit
Yeshivat Ohr Somayach
If Agatha Christie started off each of her mystery stories by revealing
who perpetrated the crime, she would probably still be typing letters
in the typing pool.
Life is like a cosmic 'Whodunnit.'
Man is invited to enter the theater of life. He's given a ring-side
seat, and his role - his 'audience participation' - is to figure out
'Whodunnit?' Who created this beautiful world? Who ordered it with such
exquisite precision? Who put the stars in the sky? Who makes the sun rise
every morning? Who keeps us standing on this planet, with air to breathe
and water to drink and food to eat? Why don't we whirl off into space?
The famous English physicist, Sir Isaac Newton, had a colleague who was
a staunch atheist. Newton, who believed in G-d, would frequently cross
swords with his colleague on this subject.
One day, the atheist came to visit Newton in his library, and his eyes
fell upon a most beautiful sight. Sitting on Newton's desk, reflecting
the rays of the afternoon sun, was an exquisite astrolabe, a brass engine
which depicted the solar system in three dimensions.
"How beautiful!" remarked the atheist.
"You haven't seen anything yet." said Newton. "Do you see the small
lever on the base? Move it towards you."
As the atheist moved the lever, the entire engine slowly came to life.
At its center, the orb of the sun started to revolve. Further out,
turning on brass cogs, the earth and the planets began their revolutions
around the sun; each planet accompanied by its own moons, all moving in
breathless precision.
"This is amazing!" remarked the atheist, "Who made it?"
"No-one" replied Newton, dead-pan.
"What do you mean 'No-one'?"
"No-one. It just sort of... fell together, you know."
"No I don't know! I insist you tell me who is the maker of this priceless
object. I refuse to believe that this object merely 'fell together'."
"This..." said Newton, pointing to the astrolabe, "This you insist has
to have a maker. But this..." Newton said, spreading his arms wide,
indicating the Creation "How infinitely more beautiful and complex!
This, you insist, has no Maker!"
You don't have to be able to invent the First Law of Motion to read the
world like a book.
Just like the book testifies to the existence of its writer, so the
world testifies to the existence of the Divine Author.
BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS
Since observation alone cannot be guaranteed to crack the Whodunnit
of Life, the Divine Author gave us the solution to the puzzle some
3,000 years ago. Every Pesach we faithfully pass the solution to that
puzzle over.
The festival of Pesach is to passover to our children and grandchildren
the real-life experience of Hashem taking the Jewish People out of Egypt
in a way which defied the 'laws' of nature.
The Jewish year begins in Nissan with Pesach. It's also the beginning
of our relationship with G-d. The open miracles of Egypt were the
beginning. They are the foundation. Pesach is open revelation. But it's
only the beginning, only the foundation.
The Jewish Year is a continuum. It's a rite of passage. A progress.
That which happens at the beginning of the year has to happen at the
beginning because it represents foundation, commencement. That's why
it's at the beginning.
Similarly, events which happen at the end of the year must be associated
with the fulfillment of purpose and completion; with achieving a target,
because they happen at the end.
What's the end of the year? Purim and Adar. Purim is the 'end' of the
year - it's purpose.
Let's take a closer look at Purim. On Purim we read the Megillat
Esther. In the entire Megillah, Hashem's name is not written even
once. Isn't that strange? A book about the miraculous delivery of the
Jewish People from genocide, and the Name of the 'Hero' doesn't appear
even once?
The title of the book itself, Megillat Esther, contains the answer to
this riddle: Megillat Esther is from the words 'Legalot et ha-nastir' -
'To reveal the hidden.' That's the purpose of Purim: To reveal the hidden
Hand of the Divine Author in our cosmic whodunnit.
Megillah means a scroll. The scroll 'reveals' as you read it. But you
have to unravel it yourself. Like all good mysteries!
The Jewish Year is like a Megillah, like a scroll unraveling the secrets
of Creation.
MORE THAN A PREGNANT PAUSE
We've all heard of a 'pregnant pause' but how about a 'pregnant year'?
Seven times in nineteen years an extra month is added to the Jewish
calendar to equalize the solar and the lunar calendars. (See the article
titled 'Real Time' in Seasons Of The Moon, Tammuz and Av 5756). Such a
year is called in Hebrew 'a pregnant year.'
This year is one of those nineteen. In fact, it is the last in the series
of this particular nineteen year cycle.
The 'pregnant' year's extra month is called Adar Bet, or the second
Adar. As we said, the Jewish year starts with Nissan and ends with Adar,
but why is the extra month added at the end of the year? Why not have
two Nissans? Or why not add an extra month in the middle of the year?
On one level, the answer is that the purpose of the leap year is to
ensure that Pesach always falls in the Spring, as the Torah commands.
When Beit Din (the Rabbinical Court) fixed the lengths of the months and
the years by observation of the New Moons, it was only when Adar arrived
that it became clear whether the Pesach of that year would fall in the
Spring, or whether there was a need to add another month.
Although our calendar is fixed, we nonetheless adhere to the principles
which guided the Sanhedrin when they regulated the calendar by
observation.
But maybe there's a deeper reason why we make two Adars and not two
Nissans.
The festival of Pesach was given to us by Hashem Himself. It is D'Oraita
(a Torah mitzvah).
Purim is D'Rabbanan (a Rabbinic mitzvah). It's man-made. It was instituted
by the Sanhedrin after the deliverance of the Jews who were under the
rule of the Persian Empire. The whole existence of the festival of Purim
is based on Man unraveling the 'megillah' of existence, and recognizing
the writing of the Divine Author.
Purim is Man playing detective in G-d's world. Finding the solution to
the cosmic Whodunnit by himself, without the sea splitting in front of
him, without open miracles.
It's the end of the year, and its 'end,' its purpose.
For the whole purpose of the Creation is that Man should open his eyes
and see Who pulls the strings of history.
Maybe that's why the leap year has two Adars, and not two Nissans.
When we emphasize a part of the year, we emphasize its end, its purpose,
the recognition of the Creator via our own efforts.
If there's a pregnant pause in the year, a pause to consider what we
are doing here, then the time to do it is Adar.
--
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.
To subscribe to my Jewish humor list, send a message with the subject
"subscribe carl's jewish humor list" to sherer@actcom.co.il. To
unsubscribe send a message with the subject "unsubscribe carl's jewish
humor list" to the same address.
You can get three more humor messages per day by subscribing to my
private humor list. To subscribe, send a message with the subject
"subscribe carl's humor list" to sherer@actcom.co.il.
Thank you to Active Communications Limited for making this list possible.
For information about becoming an Actcom subscriber, point your web
browser to http://www.actcom.co.il and make sure you tell them that you
saw it here.
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:26:26 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: fanaticism
If you define kano'us as enthusiasm, I have n quibble with you. I am
just not sure that is the accurate definition of the term.
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org or ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:03:04 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: fanaticism
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:26:26PM -0500, RYGB wrote:
: If you define kano'us as enthusiasm, I have n quibble with you. I am
: just not sure that is the accurate definition of the term.
Kano'us is an important term. Don't just leave me hanging -- tell me
how _you_ would define it!
-mi
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:03:19 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Har ha'Bayis
OK, since I was asked to bring this to Avodah, I suggest that interested
parties peruse Hil. Bias Mikdash, chap. 3.
The reason all individuals are admonished not to stick hands into the
Kosel, unless they have gone to a mikva is because niddos, zavos, zavim
and ba'laie keri are all meshulach from Har ha'Bayis, and transgress a
lav if they do enter HhB. HhB begins beyond the outer face of the wall.
A tmei mes may enter HhB, but may not enter the azara.
The tumah that prohibits entry into the HhB is "merely" a lav (chiyuv
malkos).
Tumas mes ba'azara is a chiyuv kares.
Whether inserting a limb, such as a hand, in the HhB is a lav or makkas
mardus (d'rabbanan) is unclear.
Leaders such as RAYHK and Rav Unterman and others with a sense of
responsibility for Acheinu KOL Beis Yisroel understood that there cannot
be a "nasata devarecha l'shiurin" approach, as the laws are very complex,
the locations are not clearcut, not every person who would like to ascend
to HhB is a great YS, and issurim abound.
That is why the Chief Rabbinate, wisely, issued a blanket prohibition.
Precisely because there are reckless or unmindful individuals in the
potential millions.
If there was some shul - and we have no idea where it was or how it was
entered - on HhB, in a dor when perhaps dozens of Jews, observant and
under the auspices of rabbis that could tell them what to do and where
to go - it is not precedent for our dor parutz.
To throw in another issue: The Brisker Rav's objection to techeles is
very relevant here. On matters of fact, we did mesorah, not archaelogical
hash'aros. In the case of techeles, the argument is made, what is there
to lose? Here there is very much to lose...
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org or ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:46:22 -0500
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Har Ha'Bayis
For an exhaustive review of the subject of entering Har HaBayis, see
Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:50-69 who concludes that it is assur.
Gil Student
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:56:41 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <akiva@atwood.co.il>
Subject: Re: Har Ha'Bayis
> For an exhaustive review of the subject of entering Har HaBayis, see
> Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:50-69 who concludes that it is assur.
And for those of us *without* a T.E. -- a summary?
Akiva
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:30:09 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Har Ha'Bayis
At 08:56 PM 3/5/03 +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>> For an exhaustive review of the subject of entering Har HaBayis, see
>> Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:50-69 who concludes that it is assur.
>And for those of us *without* a T.E. -- a summary?
He summarized it in one word, no? Assur! :-)
Kol Tuv,
YGB
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:58:58 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <akiva@atwood.co.il>
Subject: RE: Har Ha'Bayis
> He summarized it in one word, no? Assur! :-)
No, he didn't.
IF it's assur because of a metzius (i.e knowledge of locations on HhB,
etc) then the original psak would need to be re-examined.
Akiva
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:14:34 +0200
From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Subject: shalach manos
> The item in question is this. I was told that the mishloah manot must
> consist of at least two different berakhot!
...
> What is the source for this????
...
> Joseph Mosseri
Since it is so common, though not codified, maybe it is based on
shitas/girsas Rashi Megilla 7a Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent Rabbi Oshiya meat
AND wine to fulfill the mitzva of mishloach manos.
Shlomo Goldstein
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:10:12 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Toras Purim 5763, part 2: Megilla and Eydus
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:29:15PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Mattan Torah in the Midbar was bechinas yiras ha'onesh, wile Purm is
: bechinas yiras ho'romemus.
: This seems counter-intuitive, because the greatest gillui of Kevod
: Hashem was at Har Sinai. V'aderaba, at the time of Mordechai it seems
: that it was simple fear of death that motivated the great teshuva of
: "Lech kenos es kol ha'yehudim."
I had a whole piece on this in one year's shalach manos. (Rather than
the simple "Happy Purim from The Bergers" card.)
I suggested that "kafah aleihem hahar kegigis" was the neis nigleh and
onesh nigleh of bayis rishon. The gigis was not removed from overhead
until the period of hester panim.
This is why Esther's chag, the day of "hipil pur" is the day of "qiymu
veqiblu".
I also suggested a parallel in the relationship between Yom haKippurim
and Shemini Atzeres and that between Purim and Shavu'os on these grounds.
The original is at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/purim.html>.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
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 ]