Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 133

Tuesday, March 25 2003

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:38:49 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: kaddish


In a message dated 3/13/2003 7:57:44 AM EST, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> I wrote an email to Rabbi Neustadt of Cleveland who has several halacha
> books out including a d discission of the issue. His answer was that
> everyone should use the same nusach for kaddish. However, he stressed
> that avoidance of machloket was more important than everyone saying
> kaddsih together in one nusach

I am davka learning Mishnayos Psachim 4:1

It should be noted, that if EVERYONE in the entire world followed MY
SHITA, there would be no machlokes!

But somehow, everyone I know seems to say the same think as I do adn
there IS machlokes!? Go figure?!

All kidding aside, it is a dvar Mishnah that you do NOT import
your minhag into a makom that has a different minhag - especially an
established local Minhag

ANY Rav/Poseik/Gadol who pasken against this clearly "to'eh biDvar
Mishnah" in the most literal sense of the word.

And any guest who steps on the local Minhag is just plane rude. Derech
Eretz Kadmah leTorah. I mean would it be any less rude were a Sephardi
house-guest to bring in Kitniyos to an Asheknaz house on Passover?

When you do have an issue with a local minhag, then the proper thing to
do is to bring it up to the local mora d'asra...

<<However, he stressed that avoidance of machloket was more important
than everyone saying kaddish together in one nusach>>

Now for the perfect irony. It should be stressed that at one time
everyone - at least in Ashkenaz - had just one solo-ist saying Kaddish.
The only reason for simultaneous "kaddish zuggen" is darchei Shalom in the
first place! But leave it to us to take a Takkanah made as a compromise
for Darchei Shalom and to twist it so as to make a machlokes anyway.

So becomes arguable now that the current KAJ Method of having one kaddish
soloist at a time is indeed more in harmony with Darchei Shalom nowawadays
- as we seem to have come full circle...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:47:45 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Who is a posek?


At 10:39 PM 3/22/03 -0600, gil@aishdas.org wrote:
>R' Aharon Lichtenstein has an article on this topic that was reprinted as
>chapter 6 of his "Leaves of Faith". He lists the following qualifications
>for paskening a she'eilah.
>
>1. Chochmah
...
>2. Honesty, both personal and intellectual
>
>3. Total commitment to Torah AND ITS VALUES (emphasis mine...)

>4. Humaneness, sympathy

>5. Being firm, even agressive. Aware of his responsibility and resistent
>of outside pressures.

>6. Humility
...

I tried to give assessable criteria and reference points. These are not
so assessible.

YGB


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:24:22 EST
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
Subject:
disclosure of source of computer aided / based bekius mandated ?


The gemara (IIRC) says that if someone is being given kovod as if he was
boki in two mesechtos, but, in reality, was only boki in one, he should
correct the people's misimpression and tell them that he is only boki
in one.

I see some people at times make postings containing many mareh mekomos. I
have (on at least one occasion) seen someone else comment on what a
great talmid chochom a certain such a person is (I don't know if his
bekius is computer based).

My question is - if a person reels off a lengthy list of mareh mekomos
or shows impressive knowledge - but in reality it is not from his head -
rather from something like a Bar-Ilan database - should they be advised /
required to state to people that they are really not such big beki'im -
rather just users of some good software ?

To argue for the other side - perhaps some people will say that it is a
dovor poshut bizmaneinu - esp. for people of a certain age - that someone
who consistently gushes forth with loads of mareh mekomos on short notice
is using software for it - so no disclosure is needed........Nevertheless,
perhaps some (more naive or less computer savvy) people would not realize
it........(if such people are only a [small?] miut, should we still
be choshesh for them ?). Also, perhaps there still are some genuine,
old fashioned beki'im out there......

Also, it should be noted that many mareh mekomos can also be gleaned at
times from some non-computer references - so computer aid is not always
indicated.......However, perhaps even someone that spews forth many
mareh mekomos from a non-computer source, should also give his source,
so as not to give people the impression that he has more 'bekius' than
he actually has.....

Comments please....

Mordechai


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:43:03 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: RYBS view


At 01:53 PM 3/24/03 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>You reminded me of logotheraphy, and Victor Frankl's observations about
>man's search for meaning.
>
>Watching his fellow victims in Auschwitz, Frankl noted that those who
>managed in the camps were those who had/found a meaning for which to live.
...

Viktor Frankl was mechaven to the Rebbe Reb Bunim's pshat in "Yismach
lev mevakshei Hashem."

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:24:25 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
RE: oats


From: Eli Turkel [mailto:turkel@post.tau.ac.il]
> R. Eliyashiv is very insistent that oats is one of the 5 minim and says
> we rely on our kabbalah for kulah and chumrah and that he doesn't care
> what professors have to say

Can anyone think of areas where a kabbalah has been discarded because
of historical discoveries? We have talked about the issue of actual
halacha psukah being set aside in the case of not allowing the killing
of lice on shabbos; here, the gemara and possibly even rishonim don't
give the identity of modern day oats.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:30:42 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: oats


On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:28:28PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> I know that R. Hershel Schachter doesn't believe that oats is one of
:> the chamesh minim based on evidence that oats didn't grow in the Middle
:> East during the time of chazal....

: R. Eliyashiv is very insistent that oats is one of the 5 minim and says
: we rely on our kabbalah for kulah and chumrah and that he doesn't care
: what professors have to say

What is interesting is to see the leshitasam WRT professorial statements
on chilazon being the murex trunculus. RHS acts leshitaso, and accepts
the statement. According to the rumor mill, R' Eliashiv wears murex
died begadim only on his talis qatan. Implying that he's not willing
to pasqen it's the emes thing, but is willing to be chosheish for it as
a personal chumrah. Would this disprove the rumor, or would RYSE would
also avoid oats on a "personal chumrah" basis?

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:46:22 -0500
From: "Yehudit and Meyer Shields" <meyerfcas@prodigy.net>
Subject:
Zeicher before Zecher?


RRW: "May I add a footnote that if you first lain Zeicher and THEN lain
Zecher, it would constitute the following Reading it correctly FIRST
and then correcting it with an incorrect reading accordign to 99.9%
of the shitos on the matter."

We actually had that version done this year. Objections came in two
versions: 1) That's not the minhag of our shul (the ba'al korei said
that a Lubavitcher chasid had suggested this version, although I don't
remember that as their minhag either), and 2) Reading it "properly"
(i.e. with a tzeiri) the first time allows the pasuk to be read as part
of the whole parsha.

Meyer


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:37:41 -0500
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
Subject:
Re: Zecher and zeicher


Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wrote: <<< if you first lain Zeicher and THEN lain
Zecher, it would constitute the following: Reading it correctly FIRST
and then correcting it with an incorrect reading according to 99.9%
of the shitos on the matter. Lich'ora, if you are going to lain it
"wrong" by using Zecher, then at least do it FIRST and then correct it
with Zeicher. >>>

That is exactly why in Elizabeth this year, that phrase was read THREE
times.

The lainer knew to start with "zecher" and correct it with "zeicher", but
he mistakenly said them in the other order ("zeicher" and then "zecher")
at which point Rav Elazar Teitz instructed him to correct this error by
finishing up with a final reading of "zeicher".

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:37:11 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Standing for Parshas Zakhor


There is a minhag to stand for any mitsva as sign of respect. I believe
that the source is from Bnei Isoschar, althoguh I do not have a reference
handy.

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:47:21 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Zachor - Standing for Laining


In a message dated 3/24/2003 6:07:28 PM EST, cmsherer@fandz.com writes:
> RYBS held not to stand for them unless one normally stands for all of
> kriyas haTorah. He held they should not be treated differently than any
> other portion of the Torah. In fact, we were taught that if we were in
> a shul where the entire shul DID stand for them, we should stand from
> the beginning of the aliya to the end of the aliya in order to avoid
> standing only for the shira or aseres ha'dibros.

> Note that this may be different for Shavuos - I don't recall...

It is my opinion that the minhag to stand for Asseres hadibros and for
the Shira has to do with the revelation of schina at those 2 events
were not meant to construe that these pasukkim are exceptoinal or more
importan per se, rather the event is im portant

I have no RAYA to this, BUT we can show that there is a minhg to stand
DAVKA at the haftora of Shavuos which is the ma'aseh merkava. To me this
is a REMEZ that the revelation aspect is what makes THAT haftora special
and I merely extrapolate THAT minhag to the asseres hadibros and to the
Shiras Hayam by way of extenstion.

The fact that this minhag was protested might be attributed to one of
several possiblities

1) the poskim who saw it might not have understood this underlying reason
2) the poskim DID see this as THE underlying reason but felt neverthless
that a "GZEIRAH" was in order in order to avoid confusion by the "Amcha"
who might not undertstand the REAL reason

As far as the minhag to stand for ALL laining goes, one reason to stand
is for Barchu at each aliya. And then from there many people are probably
noheig to remain standing. AIUI it is a big kula NOT To stand for Barchu.
I heard this indirectly from R. Moshe Tendler soemthing to this effect

 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:09:59 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
who is a posek


> R' Aharon Lichtenstein has an article on this topic that was reprinted as
> chapter 6 of his "Leaves of Faith". He lists the following qualifications
> for paskening a she'eilah.
...
> 6. Humility

What bothers me is that given these criteria (especially #6) how
does any posek get the nerve to decide he is qualified to be a posek.
Given a question his answer should be "please go to a real posek since
I am not qualified"

--
 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 25/03/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:58:40 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Brisk


I have the book/pamphlet Brisker - Derech - A practical guide by
M. Wachtfogel. As I recall it does not aspire to the kind of analysis
that you put forth. Instead, it is a straightforward guide to using
chakiros to understand possible approaches to analysing a concept and
it does not limit itself to answering questions.

It seems to me that there is little justification to limit the Brisker
method to answering questions alone. It is a powerful tool and it begs
to be used wherever it can be helpful. As I understand, in Telz it was
also used precisely in this manner.

As all revolutionaries, R. C. Brisker may ahve wanted to somewhat limit
the power of the method until it can be better evaluated.

Two other pieces of evidence against the thesis that you posted in the
name of R. Krumbein

1. I heard form RYDS that Hashgocho arranged for the Brisker method to
arrive just in time to enable the Yeshiva world to compete with the
splendor of the conceptual revolution that occurred in all branches
of knowledge in the beginning of last century. Yeshiva students were
being led away from learning by the siren song of the new bright and
endearing patterns of thought and Brisk allowed Torah to compete with
them. This idea is also quoted in the name of R. Yakov Kaminetsky in
Yonatan Rosenblum's biography so, it is accepted beyond Brisk.

2. Intro to Marcheshes complains of new methods of study that he calls
"chemistry", taking apart and putting together. It is unlikely that
he would object to the delimited practice of a method that can provide
logical answers to tough kushios and is otherwise unthreatening to the
traditional study structure.

BYTHW, I once saw a book in Hebrew and English called "Lomdus" by
? R. Adler. I have not seen it since and not been able to find it. It
provides a great number of details for various methods of chakirah

[Funny, my copy walked too. -mi]

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:20:43 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
disclosure of source of computer aided / based bekius mandated


Isn't it quite clear and well-known what kinds of sources are available
and which are not available in CD-Roms etc? I think that most talmidei
chchamim can fairly easily evaluate where the marei mkomos come from.

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:01:41 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
Re:Eiruvin


> BTW, a bridge does not count as a tzurat hapessach, as per RMF contra
> Rav Kasher, and a ThP does not termintae a real reshut harabbim (atu
> rabbim umevatlei me'hitzah).

As I understand it, the question is whethe passage of cars, where
people do not stop and get out, can be considered "Ati rabbim umvatli
mchitsata".

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:11:02 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: gilgul


Posted:On 23 Mar 2003 at 18:09, sba@iprimus.com.au [forwarded from a friend
who -mi] wrote:
> With regard to earlier sources, The Ramban hints at it in Bereshis
> 4:1 and 38:8 (If you have the Mossad Horav Kuk edition, you'll find
> many other references in the notes),

I don't have the Ramban in the office (I do have the Mossad HaRav Kook
edition at home), but IIRC the Ramban in Breishis 4:1 is referring to
Moshe Rabbeinu being a gilgul of Hevel and in 38:8 he's talking about the
child of a yavam and yevama being a gilgul of the dead brother. In any
event, he is not referring to gilgulim of people as animals of any sort.

I would like to add that the clearest reference to this (Sod Haibbur) is in the introduction and also within the peirush on Iyov. BYTW, I am not aware of any reference to gilgul  into animals in the Ramban.

[Email #2, in answer to RET's question:
> I got lost - why would one want to eat tzaddikim who are megulgalim
> in fish?
-mi]

To elevate them in the act of eating lshem shemaim - a basic chassidic
idea.

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:05:24 +0100
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: golgulim


I wrote:
> "The Ari also originally formulated the idea that one is not a gilgul of
> just one neshamah, but one's neshamah is a gilgul of a multitude of other
> neshamot, akin to a genetic blueprint. The Ari's coneption of gilgul
> has its attractive and less attractive points, but let me stress that
> according to him, one ought not to find the gilgul of Mr. X, since he is
> megulgal into many, many bodies (including fish and fowl), and shares
> the space with other soul fragments. Every (human?) being has then its
> own unique configuration, a soul which never again enters another human
> body (but I am not sure about animal bodies) in the exact same makeup."

RET asked:
> What happens in techiyat hametim?

Well, the Ari bases himself on a maamar 'Hazal <<ein ben David ba 'ad
sheyikhlu kol haneshamot shebeguf>>. For the Ari, there were 600K souls
created, and they are not entirely released at once. Now, unfortunately,
I don't remember the details of this anymore, and am not at this point
dwelling a lot on these matters, so I will offer a speculation: at ThM,
every unique configuration will ressurect with its body, i.e. much,
much more than merely 600K.

RSBA's friend from London proved that I was wrong to claim that the
Ari was me'haddesh the idea of gilgul into animals, and quoted from
the Ramaq to this effect. I am very pleased to find out about this
reference. However, much was me'huddash in Tzfat of that day, and even
though Ramaq wasn't a me'haddesh, the idea need not have been much older
than the Ari. I am quite confident that the Ari popularized this notion.

Arie Folger


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:03:29 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
Subject:
Re: Zachor - Standing for Laining


On 25 Mar 2003 at 12:47, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> I have no RAYA to this, BUT we can show that there is a minhg to stand
> DAVKA at the haftora of Shavuos which is the ma'aseh merkava. 

I have never heard of such a minhag. How widespread is it? If you're
going to stand for that Haftorah, why not also for the Haftorah of
Parshas Yisro?

-- Carl

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


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:03:30 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
Subject:
Re: Standing for Parshas Zakhor


On 25 Mar 2003 at 10:37, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> There is a minhag to stand for any mitsva as sign of respect. I
> believe that the source is from Bnei Isoschar, althoguh I do not have
> a reference handy.

Bentching? Kriyas Shma al ha'Mita? 

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:52:18 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
mitzvot/amida


I was taught that mitzvot(or at least brachot) should be said/done
standing. In thinking about it however, I'm sure that we stand by omer
because of pasuk(mehichal chermesh) and by edut because of vamdu, This
would imply to me that "stam" we wouldn't have to stand.

Any thoughts?

KT
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:49:02 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Toras Purim - Yirah


[The first of a whole slew of emails that somehow were lying around.
Some for MONTHS! Sorry. -mi]

Al pi devareinu yevua'ar the use of "das" as opposed to "chukkim" in
the megillah - Aish Das (v'yesh l'ha'arich bazeh, v'od chazon la'mo'ed).

And, of course, Amalek comes when "v'lo yarei Elokim." The tikkun to
that is Purim.

AFP!
YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:35:27 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15


At 02:52 PM 3/13/03 -0500, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
> >>>Does not say there "mei'ahavas Hashem;" it says "mei'ahavas ha'nes."<<<
>
>The point is Rashi is meduyak that a binding kabbalah had to be done
>specifically through ahavah.  If I was you I would be concerned with the
>fact that Rashi uses the word ahavah at all; why didn't Rashi say "mitoch
>yiras haromimus"?
>
>N.E. k'darko brings no mekoros, but seems pashut to me that it is a simple
>extension of this Rashi.
>
>But v'nahapoch hu, where are your mekoros in chazal for a kabbalah based on
>yiras haromimus b'zman purim?

The earliest protagonist of the Ahavas Hashem basis of Purim that I
found in a quick search is the Yaaros Dvash 2:2.

Of course ahavah is essential to a true kabboloh, that is not an issue.

However, the state of ahavah is, to my mind, not associated with simchah,
but with oneg "menuchas ahavah u'nedavah."

Yomim Tovim - which are intimately associated with Morah Mikdash -
are times of simchah.

Simchah results from the accomplishment of or contact with something
awesome. It is thus intimately connected with the appreciation of
something of great significance or wondrous qualities.

On the contrary, ahavah is often associated with ache and pain "ki cholas
ahavah ani."

See the Sefas Emes Purim 5643, that Al ha'Nisim is in Modim because
it is a ceri'ah we received because "Mordechai lo yichra." Ceri'ah is
associated with Yiras Ha'Romemus, as in the first part of Aleynu.

"V'rabbbim mei'amei ha'aretz misyahadim ki nafal pachad ha'Yehudim
aleihem.'

"V'ra'u kol afsei eretz es yeshu'as Elokeinu - beyemei Mordechai
v'Esther."

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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 02:50:35 +0200
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject:
Re: earliest mincha


Concerning the issue of when chatzos is the following was stated on Rabbi
Blumencrantz's Pesach Bulletin

www.neveh.org/pesach/pesblm2.html

    There are 3 opinions concerning the calculation chatzos (midnight).

    a) 12 hours after midday (This is the majority opinion). [According to
    Rabbi Feinstein, ztl , and the Aruch Hashulchan who are of the opinion
    that midday is always constant, i.e. 12:00 PM -midnight would then be
    12:00 AM. According to those authorities whose opinion is that midday
    is variant, Chatzos this year (5762-2002) would be at 12:02 am. This is
    so because midday on Erev Pesach, is 12:02 PM.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:59:01 +0200
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@bezeqint.net>
Subject:
NOT BEING A NUDNIK BEFORE G-D


There is a related theme - Not bothering G-d with our personal requests.
This seems to have been a major theme of the Magid of Mezerich but
Rav Chaim Voloshner Ruach Chaim 3:2 has a similar point of view. We
are only to be concerned with the suffering of the Shechina - not our
petty complaints.

Magid of Mezerich (Lekutei Yekarim 7a)...page 81 of Prof Rivka Shatz-
Chasidus as Mysticism.

    The matter is comparable to that of a human being who rules over
    several countries, near and far, all of which are governed by the
    command of the king and his fear is upon them and they always listen
    to his commands, at the will of the king. For this reason, the king
    also sets his eye and heart upon those countries and protects them
    in all sorts of ways from all harm and enemies, so that they may be
    free to do his command. The king therefore turns away from all his
    concerns and pleasures and joys to do good to these countries, and
    all the king's thoughts and concerns are constantly involved with the
    improvement of those countries and their needs and protections, and
    he constantly thinks about their wise guidance...One day, a certain
    poor and oppressed person of little worth came from a far off land,
    suffering and stricken with leprosy and cried out behind the king's
    palace about another one like himself who had robbed him on the
    highway. When the king heard the cry of that person, it disturbed
    his clear and pure thought and the king sent his servant to find
    what it was all about. But the man paid no attention to the servants
    of the king and continued to cry out. "Save me my Lord the king "
    so that the king needed to come down himself to abandon the great
    and lofty thoughts with which he was constantly engaged at every
    hour and moment concerning great and profound improvements without
    end or limit to concern himself with the case of this person who
    was crying out theft - when the theft was itself note even worth
    a penny. But the rule of the kingdom was that all must be heard,
    great and small, so that they might know that there is a judge in
    the world. But it was clearly a great descent for the king, to be
    forced to turn away from the improvement of the country and from
    his pure and subtle thoughts in order to hear the cry of that fool,
    which was not worth a penny. Indeed, that leper was not worthy of
    the king looking him in the face, how much more so to come into the
    royal palace to present his arguments before the great and noble king
    - that is certainly called a descent! And the parable is clear:
    when there is no judgment below G-d must make judgment above, and
    He must look down and oversee minor corporeal matters of this lowly
    world. Even though he oversees with a sharp eye all of the created
    things and beings and what is done in the world, nevertheless the
    providence effectuated in response to the cry of the humble man makes
    it as if he forces Him to oversee them, and it is therefore called
    a descent...but when there is judgment below...He is not required
    to descend that is to look at the small corporeal matters. Thus we
    find that G-d is supernal....


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 04:15:16 +0200
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject:
Re: RYBS view


> The way I understand this based on personal knowledge of and study under
> the Rov and his students is that it is a mistake to think that religion
> comes to smooth our difficulties or to bring inner peace. Instead it
> gives one the tools to deal with spiritual struggles and all challenges.
>
> This is also the way R. Rakeffet quotes it in "The Rav", as I recall.
>
> The practical import of this is that one need not feel frustrated and
> betrayed when one cannot find an immediate answer in the Torah for
> whatever question.

If religion does not smooth out difficulties or bring inner peace than why
shouldn't it be frustrating when one cannot find an immediate answer? If
it gives you the tools to face challenges so that you aren't frustrated
that sounds line inner peace and smoothing out difficulties?!

                                            Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:01:23 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Rambam: Hakdama


In a message dated 2/2/02 9:19:50 PM EST, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com writes:
> Read through the Rambam's Introduction to the Mishneh Torah.

> The Rambam lists three levels of Rabbinic Legislation: Gezeira, Takana
> and Minhag. 

This theme is also found in his Hakdama to Pirush Hamishnayos and clearly
defined as 3 seperate things in Hil. Mamrim 1:2.

> How does a "Minhag" differ from a Takana?

As RYGB already pointed out:
Minhagos are subject to Lo Sasur (Mamrim 1:2), but we do not make
berachos on them nevertheless, as that is part of their "etzem cheftza":
"D'lav toras mitzvos be'hu l'vareich aleihen, d'rak al mitzvos mevorchin,
v'lo al minhagos." He proves this from the Rambam Megilah v'Chanukah 3:7.

Just to add: see Rambam last Halacha in Hil. Brochos, and see Rashi
D"H Minhag Sukka 44a, even though that Tos. D"H Omar Taanis 28b (and
other ones noted there) hold otherwise, and see Sdei Chemed Asifas Dinim
M'areches Brochos # 14.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:56:55 -0500
From: Stuart Klagsbrun <SKlagsbrun@agtnet.com>
Subject:
RE: CY/ChC


On Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:57 PM, afolger@ymail.yu.edu wrote:
> An anonymous reb wrote:
> <<My LOR has a privately published letter from R' Dovid Feinstein
>   answering the rumour that he (and his family) drinks ChC. He says quite
>   clearly there that he and his family don't drink it.>>
>
> I doubt this. An eid e'had who is neeman, and lives in the LES (so do
> I ;-)), and is my friend, and is an Oveid (who mostly lurks) and is
> a friend of RYGB (by now I hope said Oveid will do me the favour of
> personally introducing himself) told me he was at RDF's home, and was
> served Breyer's yoghurt. Said Oveid may also elaborate on whether ChC
> ice cream is being served there as well, or similar products.

Here's another version: In RDF's home they drink ChY but are not makpid
on other dairy products including baked goods.

There are so many different legends about what RDF does in practice
that I am beginning to suspect that they are all wrong and we will one
day learn that in fact RDF shlit"a is severely lactose intolerant and
hasn't touched anything dairy in years.

FWIW, the candy machine in MTJ always sold ChC products and I believe
it still does.

kt
sk


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 >