Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 043

Sunday, July 4 2004

• Singing the Zemer 'Bar Yocha'i in Shul
• VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #14, MC p. 46
• Megillah 16b
• RE: Zoo Torah: Identifying the Animals of the Torah, Part One
• Re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• water in the tube of a "pump pot" (was immersing electrical appliances in the mikvah)
• Re: water in the tube of a "pump pot"
• Re: Totally Safe Psak
• Re: Yizkor
• Re: Disputing Earlier Genrations--Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai Message
• Re: Yizkor
• Megillah 16b
• Jokes and Humor

I presume that most on this list know the zemer 'Bar Yocho'i' which is
usually sung on Lag B'omer.

I have heard that some Sefardi shuls in EY it is sung every Friday night.

Our shul, which is nusach Ashkenaz [Ob], it is sung on the Friday night
before Lag B'omer - after Bameh Madlikin - before Borchu, which AFAIK
has become a minhag of many chassidim.
This began here afew years ago, when some chassidish chap started singing
it spontaneously - with everyone [especially the kids - who seem to
love this song] joining in - and no protest, either from the Rav or even
the stiff-necked Ashkenaz types. [Maybe that is how minhogim start?]

My question is:
As this song is full of praise for the greatness of Rashby, is it 'derech
eretz' or even halachically correct to halt our tefilos to the RBSO -
to sing the praises of a bosor vodom - be it even the great Rashby? And
noch in Shul?

Are there any others cases where a man is praised mid-tefilah?

[The "Zechors" in Tefilas Geshem mention certain greats - but there we
are asking for rain - 'bizechusom' - rather than stam praising them.]

SBA

In Orach Chaim #318 we learn that several Rishonim hold that ein bishul
achar bishul b'lach. Yet several Acharonim (see Chavas Da'as Yoreh
De'ah 94:4) hold that in the case of basar b'chalav there is bishul
achar bishul. VIDC?

YGB

My chavrusa and I are learning Gemara Megillah, and we each have a
question on the bottom of daf 16b. I'll review the text and explain
our questions.

It begins 9 lines from the bottom, quoting the pasuk in Esther 10:3,
which says that "Mordechai was ratzui (acceptable, popular) with *most*
of his brothers", implying that there was a distinct minority (miktzas)
who did *not* approve of him. Rashi explains that this was because
"he was m'vatel divrei Torah and entered government."

R' Yosef said: "Talmud Torah is greater than Hatzalas Nefashos. We see
this from Mordechai, for at first he was ranked fifth [literally: he
came after four], and at the end he ranked sixth [literally: after five]."

My question is this: Regardless of how this ranking was evaluated, how
does Mordechai's slippage (from fifth to sixth) show that learning is
*more* important than nefashos? If anything, it shows that Mordechai felt
that his learning was *less* important than what he could accomplish in
the governmental arena. My only guess is that this R' Yosef sided with
the minority view, or perhaps had an entirely different interpretation
of that pasuk.

The gemara continues, explaining the ranking: In the beginning, Ezra
2:2 listed "Those who came with Zerubavel were: Yeshua, Nechemya, Sraya,
R'elaya, Mordechai Bilshan ...", so Mordechai (also known as Mordechai
Bilshan) ranked fifth. Later, in Nechemya 7:7, the pasuk says "The ones
who came with Zerubavel were: Yeshua, Nechemya, Azarya, Raamya, Nachmani,
Mordechai Bilshan ...", where Mordechai comes sixth.

My chavrusa pointed out that if the two lists would have had the same
names but in a different order, we would agree that certain individuals
grew more in their learning, and others *may* have fallen behind. They
might not have. It could well be that all of them continued to grow
in their learning, but some grew more than others. And in this case,
where the second list has new names which were not on the first one,
I don't see how we can draw any sort of conclusions at all.

An analogy to sports records is helpful at this point: If a runner came in
fifth at the 1992 Olympics, and then came in sixth at the 1996 Olympics,
does this mean that he is not as fast as he used to be? It most certainly
does not! It could well be that he ran faster in 96 than in 92, but that
the competition was tougher.

Let's look at the original psukim.

Ezra 2:2 -- "Those who came with Zerubavel were: Yeshua, Nechemya, Sraya,
R'elaya, Mordechai Bilshan, Mispar Bigvai, R'chum, Baanah..."

Nechemya 7:7 -- "The ones who came with Zerubavel were: Yeshua, Nechemya,
Azarya, Raamya, Nachmani, Mordechai Bilshan, Misperes Bigvai, N'chum,
Baanah..."

Notice that Ezra ranks 8 individuals, and Nechemya ranks 9 individuals.
This is not "The Top Ten". It is "The Top Ones Who Deserved To Be Included
In The List". From that point alone, we see that either the standards
have changed, or the people's accomplishments have changed, or both. But
either way, Mordechai is fourth from the bottom on both lists.

Note that I have not addressed the time span between the two lists, or who
wrote them, or what sort of editing might have been done to them. If the
two lists did address different times, isn't it logical to figure that
some of the people on the first list may have died, and were replaced
by younger rising stars?

Or, they might have simply been hidden when the first list was compiled. From
our own experience, we know of gedolim who kept themselves hidden until
late in life, when they sprung on the scene and jumped to near the
front of the line -- the Chofetz Chaim and Chazon Ish come to my mind,
for example.

In short, it seems to us that R' Yosef has simply not proven his point.
His inital logic doesn't make sense, and then the psukim don't hold up
to analysis either. We're hoping that someone else can offer another
explanation of this gemara. Thank you.

Akiva Miller

With regard to my point that the Torah would only mention things that
were familiar to the generation that received it, R' Micha wrote:

<<I don't see why this seems clear. It's not even taken for granted that
the rulers of Edom were people the Sinai generation could have heard of.>>

But the names would still be meaningful and understood as the rulers
of Edom.
On the other hand, let us consider animals. They are mentioned in Tenach
for one of three reasons:
1) Due to their role in a historical event - in which case it must have
been an animal from the region;
2) In the laws of kashrus - in which case it had to be a creature familiar
to the people, or its name would be meaningless and useless as a means
of transmitting the halachah;
3) The overwhelming majority are mentioned to convey concepts, which
would be meaningless if people didn't know what the animal was.

<<As for the ra'ayah, part of the meaning of Pesach is its celebrating the
the ripening of the crops in EY. Otherwise, the omer would be disconnected
from it. That the holiday has more meaning in EY has little to do with
the referents of the people Moshe gave the first copies to.>>

I didn't write my essay so clearly. The Pesach idea was merely brought to
support the idea that the Torah is phrased with a primary focal audience.

R' Micha then asked on my statement that the only exceptions are the
monkeys and peacocks that were shipped to King Shlomo:

<<That's a half of a millenium after matan Torah. I don't think it's safe
to assume slaves, even of the urban Egypt, had heard of these animals
just because the royalty of their pretty remote descendents did.>>

These animals are only mentioned in Nach, not in Chumash, hence the
slaves of Egypt didn't hear about them.

R' Micha then asked on my point that we should be skeptical of claims
that a creature formerly existed if there is no evidence for it in the
fossil record:

<<How isn't this circular reasoning? Of course we know about the animals
we know about? How does this prove there isn't huge gaps about which we
know nothing? Is it better to find a poor fit and keneitch the words
than assume we have a historical document that refers to an animal we
clearly don't encounter?>>

The point is that almost every animal living today in Eretz Yisrael
is also known from hundreds of fossils. This tells us that the fossil
record for the region's recent wildlife is excellent.

It's not like archeology. Whenever the animal in question is posited to be
extinct, this is suggested in order to maintain its identity in accordance
with what is given by the simple understanding of the Torah, e.g. a
small ruminant that can hide under the rocks (the shafan), or a raptor
without a hind toe (the nesher), or a giant Thing (the re'em). These
are all radical departures from known species. You're talking about an
entirely new family. To say that no fossil members of this family have
ever been found anywhere in the world is extraordinarily far-fetched
(aside from the innate chiddush in positing such a new type). And let's
not forget that we are talking about the creature existing just a few
thousand years ago, when aside from fossils, we have extensive literary
and artistic records of animal life.

Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

Micha Berger wrote:
> A crockpot or urn that is dismantled still has a beis qibul. How does
> it cease being a keli?

I had heard of the dismantling approach in connection with a toaster
and had the same unanswered question as you ask.
Tonite at a wedding I asked R' Feurst, and he called any case where the
actual receptacle hasn't changed a "baloney heter".

elly
--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

Micha Berger wrote:
>: by the way, this tube creates some questions regarding preparing this
>: pot for shabbos, as if it fills (even partially) with water when you fill
>: the pot, that water will not have been heated for shabbos, and could be
>: a problem if mixed with the heated water.

> Why isn't it all one keli? I would have though the problem of mixing
> the water in the spout with that in the rest of the vessel is identical
> to worrying about water from the top, further from the element, being
> heated by that from the bottom.

Well, perhaps one could say that if there is some way that part of a
kli would not be heated enough to be considered "boiling" k'fi halacha
before shabbos, then there would be a problem. But in a pot, the whole
pot boils, and from that point on, any temperature differences, even if
they were large wouldn't matter.

Let me clarify the case with the pump pot, because the issue is slightly
different than with the older urns.
This got a little long so let me do this
Short Version:
R' Feurst says there is no problem with the water in the tube of the
older urns and the pump pots because they do get hot enough prior to
shabbos.  I am uncomfortable with his proof, but he has paskened and
that's that.

Long Version:
With the older urns with the water tube on the side, the water from the
tube mixes with water in the urn when you open the spigot, as that water
flows back into the urn. But the pump pot is different, in that when you
pump out the water, you are pumping it out through the tube.  At the
time the pot was filled, this tube gets filled with water, and this
water does not get heated like the water in the pot does.  So when you
pump out your first cupful, you are getting a mix of this water and the
boiling hot water from inside.  If that water was never cooked in
advance of shabbos, even if it is somewhat warm, there is a problem with
it mixing with the hot water coming out of the pot.

In fact, I recall reading the advice to pump the pot before shabbos,
after it has boiled so that you can squirt out this water, and replace
it in the tube with water that did boil for shabbos.  However,   there
was some reason why one could use it even if you didn't pump it,

I asked R' Feurst tonite about these instructions, and the halacha if
one forgot.  First he mentioned the heter of p'sik reisha d'lo nicha
leih, though he said that it isn't clear we should rely on that.  But he
said the issue doesn't even start because  in the old urns, he knows the
water in the tube got hot enough, because he burned himself testing.  He
said he was sure (though he hadn't tested) that the same heating occurs
with the water in the tube of the pump pot.

Now he paskened, and that's the end, but I am uncomfortable with his
proof. He told me that the water must reach 160 degrees F to qualify
as having been heated before shabbos. But you can get burned by water
below that, so did it really get that hot? I'd like to get a temperature
probe and test this when I get a chance.

elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
Phone: (847) 676-2880  Fax: (847) 982-2304
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 12:02:40AM -0500, Elly Bachrach wrote:
: Well, perhaps one could say that if there is some way that part of a
: kli would not be heated enough to be considered "boiling" k'fi halacha
: before shabbos, then there would be a problem...

I can hear this chiluq.

I question the lema'aseh, though. The tube inside the pump-style urn is
within the insulation. It contains water in direct contact with the water
one is heating in the main keli. Can it really be below yad soledes bo?

Compare to the old-fashioned urn, where the connection between the water
guage and the urn is far smaller, and there is no hatmanah causing them
to sharer heat.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

In a message dated 24/06/2004 21:11:35 EDT, hlampel@thejnet.com writes:
> This brings to mind the Brisker Rov's vort on why Ploni Almoni did
> not want to marry Ruth, despite the Sanhedrin's p'sak of "Moabi v'lo
> Moabiss." I.e., he feared that a later Bes Din may change the halacha,
> and subject his offspring to the status of mamzerus. Another scholar
> adds that even though he may have accepted Boaz's reply that this was
> irreversible--since it was not derived through drash, but was a Halachah
> L'Moshe MiSinai--he still feared that later generations may forget this
> fact, think it was drash-generated, and reverse it. Indeed, generations
> later, Dovid HaMelech's status was contested for this very reason.

Here is a useful rule for understanding mis-unsderstandings:

Sometimes we know the What to do
but we don't know the WHY we do it...

In the above case the Psak could be correctly made but the "ta'am"
could be forgotten. IOW let's day dor 22 knows it's becasue of HLMM but
dor 26 only knows the bottom line and then figures it was a reversible
drash that led to the psak.

This goes to the root of the mimetics/minhag controversy....

If you know what to do {e.g. M inhag} but you don't know WHY, then you may
speuclate as to the reason and conclude that this is done for incorrect
reasons. However, the real reason might really be something else.

Another example is re: Dam that falls on top of bread or into a keili
collecting fat under a broiler. {bei dugei}

Is the issur due to the d'orassa of Dam or the cheshash of mar'is ayyin?

If d'Orraisso then all the sefikos and machlolos might be lechumra,
but if it simply a gzeira mishum mar'is ayyin then it makes sense to be
meikel in the above. This is a machlokes Rishonim, because the Gmara is
not clear as to why Shumuel assers and Rav Huna and Rava are meikel....

If you are into Halachic styloe then you notice that the Rambam seems
to have a high level of confidene that his svara is THE correct dynamic
and he tends to run with that Svara in any direction it may lead -
i.e. l'chumra or l'kulla

OTOH, the Rema and others are much more cautious as to which is the
underlying dynamic and hence are at ften machmir except be'hefsed merubba,
etc. etc.

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

In a message dated 08/06/2004 15:39:46 EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Dr. Schuss asked for the source of yizkor on Yom Tov. I asked Rav Nosson
> Scherman this question this morning and he responded that he had once
> seen something on it but couldn't recall. In the interim, I remind all
> that the source of yizkor on Yom Kippur is that meisim need kapara as
> well as chayim.

Rabbi Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel told me that Yizkor on YT is an extension
of Matnas Yad.

For those non-yekkes who are clueless about matnass yad let me say briefly
that one makes nedavos on YT during the day of krias parhsas Re'eh {ish
mekmatnos yado} therefore Yizkor are merely Nedavos in memory of beloved
ones in adddition to other nedavos

Yizkor on YK is more of a function of Kapparah for the meisim after
three is NOT matnas Yad on YK.

I specuatle that Yizkor on YK preceded Yizko on Matnas Yad by several
generations - a totally wild guess is about 200 years or so

In summation then the somber mood associate with Yizkor on Shalosh
Regalim is highly questionable. The main piont AISI is strictly about
making nedavos in memory of beloved family etc. Of course this is done in
their zchus, but it theorically should NOT induce mournful feelings. this
also helps to explain no Yizkor for the first year etc. Yizkor in the
first year would bederech klal bring about a form of aveilus befarhesya,
something that theoreicallly should go away after the year is over

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 12:49:09PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Micha, you infer from general statements of both Malbim and Rav Shamshon
: Raphael Hirsch, that they hold that every fact of Torah ShehB'ahl
: Peh--including HLMS--has a remez in Torah Sheh BiCh'sav...

I do not believe this to be an inference from the Malbim. The Malbim
explicitly says that kol haTorah kulah can be reconstructed from TSBK
and these 613 rules.

As for what to do with the Malbim on Emor, I don't know. It seems to
be a setirah within the Malbim. As Emor is in the same volume as the
intro to Vayiqra, it's hard to say the setirah is due to a change in
shitah. (Not that it's "frum" to acknowledge that rabbanim can change
shitos during their lifetimes. <g>)

...
: Thus the Malbim is in full accord with the Rambam, except for the slight
: "k'naitch" that the Torah does indicate that there is, in the posuk,
: an indication that there exists a Halachah L'Mosheh MiSinai regarding
: the subject, which, nevertheless, cannot be derived through drash. (An
: interesting turn.)

To rephrase, just to make sure I understand:
So you must be able to derive the fact that there is a din for every
din, but what the din actually is may be only known by mesorah from
Sinai.

As for RSRH, I said this issue merely touches upon the one of the nature
of TSBK and that RSRH's opinion would fit the notion that it's all derivable.
RSRH's actual words, as you quote them, does dovetail well -- he ascribes
much significance to the rarity of exceptions.

: You raise another issue regarding k'lal u'prat vs. ribui u'mi'ute, and
: Rabbi Akiva and R' Yishmael, which I would also like to address in a
: separate posting.

So you promised me on Shabbos as well. I'm anxiously awaiting.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> The main piont AISI is strictly about making nedavos in memory of beloved
> family etc. Of course this is done in their zchus, but it theorically
> should NOT induce mournful feelings. this also helps to explain no Yizkor
> for the first year etc. Yizkor in the first year would bederech klal
> bring about a form of aveilus befarhesya, something that theoreicallly
> should go away after the year is over

I came to the totally opposite conclusion. If Yizkor is for Nedavos
then I should make sure to say Yizkor during the first year.

Shabbat Shalom   

[R Akiva Miller:]
> My chavrusa and I are learning Gemara Megillah, and we each have a
> question on the bottom of daf 16b....

> R' Yosef said: "Talmud Torah is greater than Hatzalas Nefashos. We see
> this from Mordechai, for at first he was ranked fifth [literally: he
> came after four], and at the end he ranked sixth [literally: after five]."

> My question is this: Regardless of how this ranking was evaluated, how
> does Mordechai's slippage (from fifth to sixth) show that learning is
> *more* important than nefashos? If anything, it shows that Mordechai felt
> that his learning was *less* important than what he could accomplish in
> the governmental arena....

> The gemara continues, explaining the ranking: In the beginning, Ezra
> 2:2 listed "Those who came with Zerubavel were: Yeshua, Nechemya, Sraya,
> R'elaya, Mordechai Bilshan ...", so Mordechai (also known as Mordechai
> Bilshan) ranked fifth. Later, in Nechemya 7:7, the pasuk says "The ones
> who came with Zerubavel were: Yeshua, Nechemya, Azarya, Raamya, Nachmani,
> Mordechai Bilshan ...", where Mordechai comes sixth.

> My chavrusa pointed out that if the two lists would have had the same
> names but in a different order, we would agree that certain individuals
> grew more in their learning, and others *may* have fallen behind. They
> might not have. It could well be that all of them continued to grow
> in their learning, but some grew more than others. And in this case,
> where the second list has new names which were not on the first one,
> I don't see how we can draw any sort of conclusions at all.

I think that the key in uderstanding this lies precisely in the
assumptions that you so clearly expressed. This is the kind of material
that I deal with on the Midrash site (aishdas.org/midrash). To answer
requires two hakadamos:

1. In drash as opposed to pshat, different rules of interpretation
apply. The prespective that you take is a pshat one and is inapplicable
to this gemara. Rather, the questions to ask are: Is there a difficulty
in the pasuk and which drash rules can provide a drash explanation?

2. A well known rule of drash is that a person who is more prominent in
Tanach, whatever his actual official prominence is, should always be
listed more prominently. For lists, it means that he should be listed
first, notwidstanding what his actual, real-world level of learning
may be.

IF so, we have two problems. In Megilah -it is rov achov. IN Ezra/
Nechemiah it is listing of Mordechai not first and even not fifth both
times. That he is not listed first is not much of aproblem as we do not
really know the identity of the ones who preceded him. Those names may
be fodder for drash as well and turn out to be very prominent individuals
or even all names of the same person. Considering Mordechai's prominence
in Megilas Esther, the slippage is for a darshan a big problem. Again,
this has nothing to do with accomplishements of other people but with
application of rules. Even if they had grown in learning, Mordechai
should not have been displaced.

This leads to the unescapable conlcusion that Mordechai lost not only
relative prominence but real, actual prominence.

Hence the conclusion.

M. Levin

[In my defense, I meant leitzanus, not milsa bedichusa. -mi]

A current thread on Areivim is discussing a particular song on a current
Jewish album. This song could be described, according to different
viewpoints, as humor, ridicule, parody, sarcasm, or in many other ways.

The mixture of that song with more positive songs on that album led R'
Micha Berger to ask <<< Would you expect a seifer to contain a joke
amongst the divrei Torah? >>>

There's a paragraph in the Taamei HaMinhagim Umakorei HaDinim about which
I've always wondered if it was intended as a joke or not. It's the very
bottom paragraph ("Uv'halachos") at the bottom of page 411. (I'd give my
translation of it here, but I don't want to spoil it for those who might
look it up. If anyone wants, let me know and I'll post a translation a
few days from now.)

All comments and opinions and other information that anyone might offer
about that paragraph are welcomed.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]