Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 012

Tuesday, April 27 2004

• RE: Riddle
• Re: Shmurah Kitniyos
• Re: Shutfus and Demus Hagu
• Shutfus
• Re: Apocryphal Story
• Re: Apocryphal Story
• RE: 24/7
• RE: 24/7
• Re: Limmud or Ma'aseh?: V'hogisoh Boh Yomom Voloiloh
• Circus redux
• Re: Shmurah Kitniyos
• RE: shmura kitniyot
• Re: How big of a deal is it if you miss an occasional minyan?
• Re: keruvim (was: Torah portion)
• RE: 24/7
• RE: 24/7
• "shutefus" and "shituf"
• Milchemes Reshus
• Shmura kitniyos
• Re: shmura kitniyot
• Re: cos shel eliyahu
• Re: Christianity
• Re: Christianity
• Re: Christianity
• RSRH
• Re: Milchemes Reshus
• Hallel on R"H
• Re: Hallel on R"H
• Kiddush Levana
• Re: Dateline

> We're all familiar with the pasuk "Layhudim haysa orah vesason vykar"
> to which we, during havdala, add "ken tihyeh lanu"

> I'm looking for other instances where we add our beracha to the pasuk.
> I have one other example in mind but am looking for others I have not
> thought of.

Here's another one:

VaShem aleyhem yeroeh, veyotzo chaborok chitzo, vaShem Elokim bashofar
yitoka, veholach besaros teimon. Hashem Tzevokos yogen aleyhem... ken
togen al amcho yisroel bishlomecho.

Zechario 9: 14,15 from shofros in Rosh Hashono mussaf.

Akiva Blum

[Take II, with the URL. -mi]

In a message dated 4/23/04 12:27:46 PM EDT, rygb@aishdas.org writes:
> Took a look. To me it seems from the SAh"R there that it would be OK.

I now see that there are other Poskim that say it's OK,
as well as some that are Machmir, I am enclosing from the
Piskei Tshuvos on this topic, please point your browser to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/piskeiTeshuvah.pdf>

(I also want to add that the Ktzira might have to be before they are
completely ripe, and not made on Pessach).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

> Statues are only present in Catholic churches.

not true. nor relevant. idolatry means image worship, 'avodah zarah does
not contain the concept of image.

/dw

[As RML writes: enough Xianity lessons on Avodah. -mi]

>> of error. Therefore, I believe, that whatever the official line, all
>> churches, images etc are object of AZ because of those worshippers who

> You are confusing "christianity" and "catholicism", which is a subset
> of christianity.

> Statues are only present in Catholic churches.

> And "trinity" is dealt with differently in various christian
> denominations, as is the "divinity" of Jesus.

My remarks apply to both; the issue of going into a church of whatever
denomination and in regard to images in Catholicism. As far as Trinity,
most denominations that subscribe to historic definition, catholic or
protestant, are bound by the Athanasian Creed. Only more modern rebels
have began to question it in the past 120+ years. My point is that
individual worshippers remain generally confused on this issue but in
any denominations there are those who follow Athanasian understanding
or even outright 3 gods paganism and that for practical psak purposes
in halacha Cristianity is shituf even for the denominations that claim
Oneness and reject trinity. I apologize for discussing these issues on
a Torah site but as it affects halacha I felt compelled to respons. I'll
be happy to entertain farther discussion privately.

M. Levin

>Lchora he meant Zichru Toras Moshe by same author.

No, that is on Hilchos Shabbos. He certainly meant the Kitzur Sefer
Chareidim by R' Avraham Danzig. <http://tinyurl.com/yu7o7>

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

>> I don't seen any connection to Sefer Charedim.

> Lchora he meant Zichru Toras Moshe by same author.

My mistake. I had Matzeves Moshe in mind because it is mentioned in the
intoduction to the edition of the kitzur I was looking at. The name of
the kitzur by R.Danzig is Sefer Kitzur Charedim Mi Ba'al Chayei Adam.

RYGB (in my post on Ashkenaz rabbanim going to concerts) cites the SE as
being opposed. However, this is irrelevant to my post (and even proves
that the general minhag was against it)
> SE (new edition OC 1:16):
...

The SE tshuva proves the following (basically irrelevant, or even
confirming my post):
1) GOing to concerts, even among the yereim, was common.
2) Even protesting against it was impossible in eretz ashkenaz, as it
was so widely accepted.
3) The basis of this was on an understanding of the SA
4) The SE argues that the majority of poskim disagree with this
understanding.
5) There were attempts, not only to go to concerts, but to have concerts
actually in shul. (First two citations deal with bet haknesset)
6) The SE argues that in shul, such concerts are assur - and should be
strenuously objected to.
7) He even objects to religious concerts
8) The basis of the objection has nothing to do with letzanut or 24/7 -
the basis of our discussion - but rather with the issue of the heter of
music, and the issue of kdushat bet hakneset (the concerts were to be
held in shul)

I would add that in other contexts, the SE is makpid on kdushat bet
haknesset - eg, the bat mitzva tshuva - and the first two thsuvot seem to
focus more on kdushat bet haknesset than on the issue of concerts per se
(he is opposed to them, but does not feel constrained to object).

Meir Shinnar

> << It's the 24/7 approach - whether forbidding doing a mitzva rather than
> learning, or forbidding leisure time activity - that can be argued is a
> "hadash assur min hatora".>>

> Ain't the same by any means.  As stated (ad bosh) previously, learning
> instead of doing mitzvos was, per the Gemara
> previously cited, not for everyone.  Saying it is for everyone may be
> incorrect, but assur??  

> Be that as it may, saying that it is assur to advocate learning instead
> of leisure time activities is simply mind boggling.

I never said that. I did argue that the reordering of communal priorities
to set up 24/7 as the standard, and the actual forbidding of leisure
time activities (that according to many are necessary for the study time
to be fuly productive) is a radical innovation, rather than a natural
extension of previous positions. Those who argue for the maintenance of
traditions and opposition to innovations should therefore be opposed to
this innovation.

Meir Shinnar

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> Upon further
> consideration, I have decided that for ALL people, learning mussar =
> learning Torah. Especially if you're learning a classsic like Mesilas
> Yesharim.

See Ruah Hayyim 2:9 (there's a parallel in Pirkei D'Avraham ad. loc.).

David Riceman

Looking for something else, I found this Midrash Rabbah Breshis 67.

R'Levi said 6 things serve a person - 3 with his reshus [control] and
3 without.
The eyes, ears and nose - do as like like. 
The mouth, hands and feet - are are his control. It is up to him if he
learns Torah or rather speaks Loshon Horah or is Mecharef umegadef. The
hands - can do Mitzvos or can steal and kill. The feet can go to either
theatres nd circuses or to Botei Knesiyos and Botei Midroshos....

SBA

>>An aspiring entrepreneur asked me what the halacha would be if he produced
>>"shmura kitniyos" ...

Rav Zevin in his "Moadim Ba Halacha" discusses matza kitniot in his
section on kitniot, beginning on page reish nun tet . There were,
of course, some (less well known) achronim who were opposed.
But for the more accepted matirim:
see Shut Chatam Sofer siman 123, who allows Kitniot Matza under certain
conditions, Binyan Tzion HaChadashot , who is more meikel than the CS.
Chayye Adam klal 127 (Zevin's footnote incorrectly says 126) Seif alef
who says clearly : aval mutar lithon velaafota ke-ein matzot u-le-ocla
(it is permissable to grind and bake it (the kitniot) as we do for matzot
and to then eat them...) .

So RYGB, tell your aspiring entrepreneur to get going. Corn Matzot
- Kasha Matzot, Soy Matzot (for those who hold that those minim are
kitniot), this could be the best thing since Chocolate covered Matzot,
or Kosher LePesach Doritos (found in Israel...) .

For a post on other kitniot questions, including Rishonim who held
that forbidding kitniot is incorrect, and shitot of achronim who
hold certain varieties are not kitniot, see my post on another list
www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i22.html

 Dov Bloom 

Since one of the theories for the issur of kitniyot is that it might be
used for mazzot mizva instead of mazza made from the five grains, shmura
kitniyot would be forbidden. This is similar to the argument offered
by Rav Kuk, when he permitted the use of sesame oil made in a process,
which he claimed, would have been permitted even if they had used wheat to
make the oil. Rabbanei Yerushalayim forbade the use of such oil. Kol tuv

Joseph Tabory
taborj@mail.biu.ac.il

In Avodah V13 #11 dated 4/25/04 "Avroham Yakov" avyakov@hotmail.com> writes:
> But how big of a deal is it if you miss an occasional minyan?
> I would define occasional as twice a year.

It depends who "you" is. A man who misses davening with a minyan only
twice in an entire year is a tzaddik, IMO.

A woman should preferably NEVER daven with a minyan, according to the
Gra, as quoted in the parsha sheet R' Bensinger put out this week. (The
famous Gra about how it's better for a woman not to daven at all than to
go to shul and talk L'H.) I have been abiding by the Gra's advice willy
nilly for years, because that cup of coffee and a good book on Shabbos
morning when the house is dead quiet is taam gan eden.

  Omer Day 19
 -Toby Katz

In Avodah V13 #11 dated 4/25/04
> <<Would a sign posted by some kohanim that reads "G-d Loves You" show
> Hashem's chibah? Mah beinaihu?>>

> If the sign was commissioned by the RbSh"O, yes. The m'ar ish veloyos
> in the Beis Hamikdash were bichsav miyad Hashem alai hiskil, i.e.
> commissioned as above.

Did the pictures on the wall change with G-d's state of mind or attitude
toward us at any given time?

BTW this business of seeing illustrations rather than the real thing
takes all the romance, beauty and poignance out of the whole story of the
keruvim and the Romans at the time of the churban. It has left me in a
blue funk for days. I am going to try to forget about this by Tisha B'Av.

  Omer Day 19
 -Toby Katz

> RSBA
> > Operas where women sang? 
> > And beaches where men a women bathed together?

> Yes....(sorry to break it to you)
> <<<

> No need to apologise...

> But how did they get over the problems of the issur of Kol Isha 
> and the Chazal that a woman who  bathes in the view of men -
> 'mitzvah min hatorah legarshoh' [Gittin 90b]?

1) There are few written sources about this - however, there are certain
oral traditions.
2) WRT to kol isha and opera, there are numerous heterim
	a) Issur applies only if one can have social connection with
	the singer
	b) Issur doesn't apply if it is a woman Plus (tre kolim enam
	nishmaim)
	c) Issur of kol isha only applies to the problem of saying davar
	shebikdusha in its presence (tshuva of Rav Unno, the Rav of
	Mannheim before the war, justifiying having choruses of girls
	sing - arguing that this was ikkar hadin)

What is clear that it was widespread (someone just documented that RSRH
went to hear a Wagnerian opera)

2) WRT to the beach - it is not clear that this notion of bathing applies
to swimming in the sea. - However, it was quite common for rabbanim to
go to the beaches (Trieste was quite popular), and the standard of dress
in the 1920-30s was quite similar to a modern family oriented beach.

[I question the metzi'us claim of that last clause. -mi]

At 05:03 PM 4/25/2004, [RMS] wrote:
>The SE tshuva proves the following...:
>1) GOing to concerts, even among the yereim, was common.
>2) Even protesting against it was impossible in eretz ashkenaz, as it
>was so widely accepted.
>3) The basis of this was on an understanding of the SA
>4) The SE argues that the majority of poskim disagree with this
>understanding.
>5) There were attempts, not only to go to concerts, but to have concerts
>actually in shul. (First two citations deal with bet haknesset)
>6) The SE argues that in shul, such concerts are assur - and should be
>strenuously objected to.
>7) He even objects to religious concerts
>8) The basis of the objection has nothing to do with letzanut or 24/7 -
>the basis of our discussion - but rather with the issue of the heter of
>music, and the issue of kdushat bet hakneset (the concerts were to be
>held in shul)

>I would add that in other contexts, the SE is makpid on kdushat bet
>haknesset - eg, the bat mitzva tshuva - and the first two thsuvot seem to
>focus more on kdushat bet haknesset than on the issue of concerts per se
>(he is opposed to them, but does not feel constrained to object).

Huh?

The SE declares that (following your points):

1. This was a shortcoming of the yerei'im.
2. This was a shortcoming in Ashkenaz.
3. There is a very remote, and misconceived limmud zechus.
4. The majority of Poskim *agree* that instrumental music is forbidden.
5. These attempts - made only as a last ditch desperate measure in the face 
of Nazi banning attendance at secular events - were misguided.
6. The SE assumes that at least in shul they will accept the protest.
7. The SE is not pleased with religious concerts, but states they are 
halachically permissible.
8. The SE would have forbidden attendance at any concert anywhere would 
anyone only heed the protest.

B'kitzur, what the SE maintains is forbidden, inadvisable, and at best
shayach to a remote limud zechus, you interpret as permissible, advisable,
and with ample halachic basis.

Hmmm...

YGB

Backstage correction I received, which I am forwarding to the lists (TK):
> RTK reacts to errors in English, I do to what I perceive as misuse of Torah 
> terminology.

>  "Shutafus" is a partnership, as in business, while the worship of Hashem 
> plus something is called "shituf."  

Over the years, we've discussed various issues where Torah values seem to
differ from the values which we have been taught and have grown up with.
This includes areas such as slavery, relationships between parents and
children, teachers and students, Jews and non-Jews, and similar topics.

I'd like to raise another area, that of the Milchemes Reshus.

I don't have any problem with a Milchemes Mitzvah, since it is either for
protection of our lives, or at the explicit command of HaShem. But if our
lives are *not* at danger, why would the Melech want to expand the
borders of the nation, and why would this justify loss of life?

I do realize that this war would only occur with the consent of the Urim
vTumim, but why would one ask for such a war to begin with? The other
side would almost certainly refuse to surrender without a fight, and that
would certainly entail many lives lost on their side, and quite possibly
some lives lost on our side as well. Why is this not condemned?

(All the above presumes that if the Melech is motivated to do a
pre-emptive strike against a threat, that would count as a Milchemes
Mitzvah, and that a Milchemes Reshus is for non-security purposes. If I'm
mistaken on this, please correct me.)

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

What does this person mean, is it OK to sell "shmura kitniyos"?

Kitniyos are defined in the Yerushalmi as those grain-like products
which, by experiment, have been determined not to become leavened.
They already have to be inspected to make sure no real chometz-able
grain has become mixed in (e.g., checking the rice).

What extra protection would be afforded by "shmura mish'at ketzirah"?

It sounds like a marketing scam - selling a type of product to people
who put the desire to keep extra chumrot ahead of thinking logically
about halacha and food products.

Is the real question "is it OK to prey on some people's irrational
desire for chumra so as to sell more expensive kitniyos products"?

Or is it "is there some reason to guard kitniyos"?

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

In a message dated 4/26/04 2:50:25 PM EDT, taborj@mail.biu.ac.il writes:
> Since one of the theories for the issur of kitniyot is that it might be
> used for mazzot mizva instead of mazza made from the five grains, shmura
> kitniyot would be forbidden. 

This is covered in the Piskei Tshuvos I forwarded.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

[R Jonathan Cohen <jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz>:]
>The cos chamishi is mentioned in the Rambam - he says one should do the
>chatima of hallel at the usual place and drink the fourth cup, and then
>pour the fifth and continue with hallel hagadol over the fifth cup -
>without mention that it is specifically drunk, in fact R. Avraham ben
>HaRambam says his father didn't drink more than four cups...

Some do have a minhag to drink 5 cups. The Radzyner haggadah says that
some are accustomed to drinking 5 cups as the Maharal did, and notes
that this is the Radzyner minhag. The 4th cup is after the concluding
brocha of Hallel, then U'vchein Va'yehi BaChatzi HaLaila(1st night)
or U'vchein v'amartem zevach Pesach (2nd night), and then the 5th cup.

Does anyone know a source in the Gemara for the dispute between 4 and 5
cups? The section in chumash uses 5 loshonos, and as far as I remember,
the question was whether the 5th was supposed to allude to the future
redemption. But, I can't remember where this is discussed. Argh!

mendel

Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Health Services Research
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
e-mail: mes12@po.cwru.edu

T613K@aol.com wrote (on Areivim):
>>> According to Tosafos, the Christian is a believer in shutfus [--Ploni?]

>>  The only advantage of a Xian
>> over a Zoroastrian is that the Xian has read some Tanach, or at least
>> has heard stories and ideas and language that originates in the Tanach.

> Is it not commonly accepted that a goy who believe in shutfus is still 
> considered a monotheist/not guilty of A.Z.?

It's commonly believed that Xianity is shituf, and therefore permitted
for goyim. I have serious doubts about this common belief. The only
actual descriptions of shituf that I've seen inside do not match anything
that any brand of Xians believe. I'd like to know which rishonim,
exactly, held that Xianity (of their area and era) was shituf, and what
was their basis for saying so. So far, the only thing I've seen inside
is one tosefos, in which about five answers given to a question, *one*
of which suggests that perhaps Xianity is shituf; that is not the final
answer, so it's not clear that even the baal hatosefos who proposed it
thought it through and really held that way.

OTOH, it seems to me that trinitarian belief is not in itself sufficient
to qualify as AZ; not because it's shituf, but because it's monotheism.
Trinitarians insist that their deity really is One, as well as being
three, and that He is the same as our God, though they admit they
don't understand how this could be. I don't think they must come up
with an explanation to avoid the charge of AZ; it should be sufficient
that they believe there *is* an explanation, even if it's one humans
are not capable of understanding.

IMHO, the one Catholic practise that most qualifies as AZ is the
adoration of the host. At an RC mass, a piece of bread is held up,
and the people bow down to it, and actually believe that it is the
Creator, ch"v. This is understood by them *not* to be a metaphor, or
a symbol, but the actual substance of the Creator. In medieval times,
Jews were accused of stealing these crackers and torturing them, and the
Catholics actually believed that the crackers felt pain, and that they
bled, because they were literally God. This is one of the main beliefs
that separated Catholics and Protestants, and there are many stories
of Protestants being literally moser nefesh not to bow to the host,
because they considered it AZ. In the 19th century, when the Anglican
church was roiled by a bitter machlokes over such issues, there were
many Low Church ministers who would bedavka throw the leftovers of the
mass into the toilet, to demonstrate that they believed the mass was
only symbolic, and there was no real 'kedusha' in the bread and wine,
lehotzi miliban of the Catholics.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 03:02:36AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Is it not commonly accepted that a goy who believe in shutfus is still
: considered a monotheist/not guilty of A.Z.?

Contrary to several opinions expressed on this forum, several major
achronim (Noda Beyehuda, Avnei Miluim and others) have stated that a goy
(e.g.) a christian is ossur beshutfas.

They believe that there is a misunderstanding of a Tosfos in Avoda Zoroh
which seems to imply otherwise.

What Tofsos really means, they say, is that when it comes to an oath in a
court a non-Jew is not forbidden to swear "In the name of G-D and.....",
not that worship of Shutfus is excluded from the Mitzvos Bnei Noach. I
think this view is now commonly accepted (but stand to be corrected)

All the above from ancient memory, but references can be supplied if
requested.

Elozor Reich, Manchester

I think most people here in the states assume that Xianity is shittuf
because many American Jews rely on this lehalakhah. One can go to 47th
Ave, to the Diamond Exchange (at least I can, it's a couple of blocks
from here) and find ehrlicher and frum yidden of every stripe who sell
crosses.

-mi

 From one of my cousins, one of the foremost experts on RSRH, as to my
inquiry about RSRH and attendance at the opera:
>Never heard this.  One has to wonder how anyone who attended the Opera 
>could have possibly had time to be the Rav of a Kehilla, a posek, editor 
>of a monthly journal, raise 10 children, and produce the literary output 
>that SRH did.

YGB

> would almost certainly refuse to surrender without a fight, and that
> would certainly entail many lives lost on their side

a good thing and an aim to justify the war by itself: lemi'ute
goyim. mahhloketh tanaim if this is mitswah or reshuth

> and quite possibly
> some lives lost on our side as well. Why is this not condemned?

haelef lekha shelomoh umathayim lanoterim eth piryo

/dw

What's the earliest source for Hallel to be recited on Rosh Hhodesh?
And specifically why bedilug? I heard recently that it was a fairly
late development.

Thanks,
	-Shlomo-

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:18:54AM -0500, Shlomo Argamon wrote:
: What's the earliest source for Hallel to be recited on Rosh Hhodesh?
: And specifically why bedilug? I heard recently that it was a fairly
: late development.

See http://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/hallel.htm

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 21st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             factor in harmony?

Where does it discuss who and when Kiddush Levana was done in the times of 
the Temple relative to Mekadeshing the chodesh? When was Shabbas Mevorchim 
started?

Chaim
hgschild@yahoo.com

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:15:38PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In addition if one measures distance by degrees on the globe it makes 
: little sense if one is near the poles where each degree is only a 
: small physical distance.

But by that point, you're too close to the pole for the concepts of 
alos and sheqi'ah to make sense anyway. The dateline would tell you
which day is starting at sheqi'ah -- but you can't use local sheqi'ah
anyway!

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 05:58:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:> As others have pointed out how about islands off of Australia?

: He holds that they are on the other side, as is the sea off the coast.
: As far as I know, the same people who avoid spending a Sunday in Japan,
: in order to be choshesh for his opinion, also avoid boating in eastern
: Australia on Sundays. Mind you, when I lived in Melbourne I never actually
: heard from anyone that they personally did this, but I did hear that
: there were such people in the community.

This raises a second issue (related to RET's question): Can one re-enter
Shabbos? Regardless of where the dateline is, with a sufficiently fast
airplane, it's a possibility.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 21st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             factor in harmony?

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


[ 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         ]