Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 73

Wed, 04 Apr 2007

• 1. Re: halachik status of siddur (Meir Shinnar)
• 2. Re: halachik status of siddur (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: More on Mitzvos and Iyun (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 4. Re: More on Mitzvos and Iyun (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 5. Re: Ikarim redux (Zeliglaw@aol.com)
• 6. Re: New sefer (Zeliglaw@aol.com)
• 7. Re: waiting 24 hours before libun (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 8. Re: Concerning ourselves with the world at large (Aryeh Stein)
• 9. Re: More on Mitzvos and Iyun (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: More on Mitzvos and Iyun (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: waiting 24 hours before libun (Celejar)

Yes, people learn from piyutim - and major rishonim wrote  
commentaries on piyutim.  However, this is because that they were  
written by people with stature and accepted by the community - not  
because the fact it was a piyut in the siddur meant that it was  
therefore accepted that any statement in it was halachically binding  
and a binding principle of faith...
I would add that the brisker psak is not based merely on the kinah -  
but on the fact that a day was not added for gzerot tatnav - and the  
kinah gives an explicit reason for what seems implicit in other  
sources - and is therefore the proof text.
Meir Shinnar
On Apr 1, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:

> Do the ideas of any piyut incorporated into a standard siddur or
> machzor now have legal status that rejecting them is now  
> problematic???>>
>
> The halachik status of sayings in the siddur is very unclear.
> A famous example is the Brisker psak that one cannot add a day
> for the Holocaust based on a kinah for Tisha Ba-av. Other more
> haskafic questions are Prayers on Rh-YK that talk about
> G-d determining what will happen in the coming year. According to
> most rishonim that G-d only decides for tzaddikim this tefilot are
> not le-halacha. Similarly prayers on RH-YK that the world was created
> on RH are not necessarily psak but it is debated
>
> Chag Kasher vesameach
>
> -- 
> Eli Turkel

However, I believe that taaniot were indeed instituted for both the
crusades and Cheminilsky but were forgotten over time

chag kasher vesameach

On 4/2/07, Meir Shinnar <chidekel@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would add that the brisker psak is not based merely on the kinah -
> but on the fact that a day was not added for gzerot tatnav - and the
> kinah gives an explicit reason for what seems implicit in other
> sources - and is therefore the proof text.
> Meir Shinnar

Eli Turkel

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> RMB wrote:
> >> Lomdus is Torah lishmah,
> knowledge for the sake of knowing Retzon haBorei.  It has no visible 
> impact on the middos ....<<
>
>
>  
>  
> >>>>>
> I think this is a subtle denigration of talmidei chachamim in general 
> -- saying that their midos are no better than anyone else's and that 
> learning Torah doesn't improve their midos.   Possibly you feel a bit 
> sour because you have been disappointed by certain particular talmidei 
> chachamim.  But I don't think that as a general rule, it is accurate 
> to say that Torah learning lishma has no effect on one's midos.
>
>
> *--*
One of my rebbeim explained the above. If a person truly learns lishmah 
than he does not sin and obviously his middos are perfected. However the 
actual practical lishmah simply means one is not learning for the sake 
of obvious reward or titles. Such a motivation does not necessarily lead 
to perfection of middos. RMB's comments are obviously true to anyone who 
has spent time in yeshiva. I am surprised that Rav Bulman's daughter 
never heard her father make identical statements. It was something that 
troubled him greatly and he frequently commented on it. Thus one needs 
to differentiate the theoretical possibility of Torah study perfecting 
one's middos with the reality that typically it didn't.


chag someach

Daniel Eidensohn

Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:59:36 -0400
>From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] More on Mitzvos and Iyun
>Message-ID: <20070330025936.GA18601@aishdas.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:38:54PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda 
Gluck wrote:
>: R' MB:
>:* Lomdus is of little practical value,
>
>: I would add: ...except if you are already a Baki.

>How is it of /practical/ value even to a baqi? Lomdus is 
Torah lishmah,
>knowledge for the sake of knowing Retzon haBorei. It has no 
applicability,

Okay, I'm having trouble here with the definitions. Perhaps 
you could assist me:

Baqi - learning broadly and not deeply (?)
Lomdus -- learning as a process of logical analysis of 
content (depth) (?)

If Lomdus is in depth, and the purpose is knowledge of 
Retzon HaBorei how can that not be applicable?  If you know 
what Hashem wants -- you won't do it???!!!

Or is Lomdus not in fact to know Retzon HaBorei but rather 
it's a tool for sharpening the person's intellect, devoid of 
contact with reality (similar to the saying that learning 
Math doesn't make a person a triangle)?

Please enlighten me.

Shoshana L. Boublil

 
In a message dated 4/2/2007 6:07:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

RSB,  IMHO, mixes up several different issues - the ability of hazal  
to be  metaken tefillot, the status of the text of the tefilla (as  
distinct  from the idea of the tefilla)and how fixed it is (as per  
other  threads re nusach bavel and eretz yisrael) and the status of   
piyutim.  Now, even if one argues that being fixed by hazal gives  it  
a status, piyutim don't have that status  Given the fact of  who wrote  
them and that they were accepted into the siddur/machzor  means that  
the ideas should be taken with some seriousness (although  with the  
caveat that the position of rav hai gaon about aggadic  statements of  
hazal applies with far greater force to piyutim) - but  viewing them  
as binding statements of faith?? somehow, I don't think  that, say, if  
i disagree that af bri utat shem sar hamatar that I am  violating  
principles of faith....and the ideas of piyutim, even  widely accepted  
piyutim, have generated much controversy over the  years....(eg, even  
forgetting the fifth ikkar issue, the standard  ashkenazi avodah is  
viewed as problematic by  many...)

However, his position is represetative of a certan maximalist  school  
- that views everything within the mesora as inviolate and  not  
subject to questioning - but ignoring the fact that the mesora  itself  
views that much is subject to questioning - and therefore  this view  
is itself against the mesora


WADR, there is no confusion on my part. When Chazal established Nusachei  
HaTefilah,there is no question or uncertainty that the same was predicated upon  
Psukim in Tanach as they understood the same via a Mesorah passed down from 
the  AnsheiKnesses HaGdolah. Brachos Krias Shma, both before and after the 
recitation  of Krias Shma as well as  each and every Bracha of Shemoneh  
Esreh-Weekday, Shabbos , YT and Yamim Noraim was discussed and formulated on  these 
rules. The SE and Musaf of Shabbos, YT, RH and YK were not Aggadic ideas  and were 
viewed by Rishonim as stating the themes of the Kedushas HaYom and as a  form 
of Karban Mussaf. IMO, the sugya in RH re the recitation of the 13 Midos  and 
its efficacy for somone who does Teshuvah  and all of the Sugyos re the  
establishment of Hallel and the basic format of the Seder cannot be dissmissed  as 
Agaddic or the basis of Piyut, especially since Halachos are based upon them. 
 
The themes of Hoshanah Rabbah, Geshem and Tal can all be traced back to  the 
understanding of Chazal  that God watches over EY, our livelihood,  etc . 
While Ibn Ezra objected to the recitation of Piyutim, IMO, many other  Rishonim , 
Acharonim and Baalei Chasidus, Musar and Machshavah  viewed   the recitation 
of the Piyutim as building an emotional and  spiritual crescendo that 
reinforced the themes of the day. I highly recommend  Noraos HaRav on RH for anyone 
interested in RYBS's forceful defense of the role  of Piyutim and their being 
based on many Ikarim and halachos. 
 
The Piyutim of RH and Yom Hakippurim , especially those composed by R  Elazar 
HaKallir, have a special status and underscore the themes of Malchiyos,  
Zicronos and Shofaros, Tekias Shofar, Teshuvah and the Avodah.RYBS felt that  
Selichos were a necessary means of getting oneself spiritually prepared for the  
Yamim Noraim. Similarly, the Kinos also express the various aspects of Aveilus  
on Tisha BAv that emanate from the Churban.The recitation of the Asarah 
Harugie  Malchus on Tisha Bav relates to the special halachos of Aveilus for  the 
loss of Talmidie Chachamim-especially the Baalei Mesorah of the  Mishnah. 
Simply stated, Piyutim, properly understood, not only enhance  one''s Kiyum of the 
Kedushas HaYom, but are an integral part of  the  Kedushas HaYom. the 
community's Tefilas HaTzibbur and should not just be  regarded as inspired poety. 
 
WADR, there are many halachic debates that focus on the importance of  these 
Brachos being said in a Minyan as opposed to hearing Shofar. The Ramban in  
the Milchamos in Brachos  maintains that Emes vYatziv is Min HaTorah and  that 
the recitation of Krias Shma is Drabanan.Obviously, Ramban viewed the text  of 
Emes vYzatzviv as setting forth an authoritative Ikar-that by recognition of  
hidden miracles or what some call "tevah", one sees and comprehends   revealed 
miracles ( see Ramban at end of Parshas Bo for this in great detail).I  
highly recommend R E Bick's analysis of the views of Ramban in the latest Pesach  
package from the VBM. 
 
 Putting aside the question of the Avodah of Nussach  Ashkenaz, we recite a 
Nussach of it to rdemonstrate the supremacy of TSBP  and its role in the Avodah 
that we hope to restore speedily in our time and the  Asarah Harugei Malchus 
on Yom HaKippurim as a reminder that Misas Tzadikim  Mchaper, not as Piyut or 
inspired poetry.  They are not Aggadic themes .  The Nussach of any Birkas 
HaMitzvah is standard-Asher Kidshanu Bmitzosav  Vztivanu, etc. Whenever one 
recites such a Bracha, that is an affirmation of one  of the Ikarie Emunah-that 
Klal Yisrael is sanctified by a life dedicated to  those mitzvos that are not 
explainable on a rational level and which distinguish  us from the nations of the 
world, thereby establishing a covenental relationship  or Bris Sinai. 
 
Therefore, the notion that Piyut does not express Ikariei Emunah IMO cannot  
be seriously maintained.In addition, Like it or not, one can find support  for 
 the views of Chazal, Medrash, Zohar R Yehudah HaLevi,, Rambam,  Ramban and 
many other Rishonim within many of the sugyos that relate to the  Nusach 
HaTefilos and Brachos. That is all part of the Mesorah and requires  years of study 
just to scratch the surface of the  deeper meaning. However, there were and 
remain definite fixed  notions on both a Torah and Rabbinic level as to the 
basic  elements of Brachos and Tefilah.  Yet, IMO, that is a far cry from stating  
that "the mesorah itself views that much is subject to questioning" or that 
they  are merely piyut. 
 
Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070402/67e022d0/attachment.htm 

I noticed and bought an interesting sefer yesterday-someone printed the  text 
of R Chaim Kanievsky's Shoneh Halachos with notes to Piskei Halacha of the  
CI, RSZA , the Steipler, RSZA ZTL as well as RYSE. in a likut called Toras  
HaMoadim on Hilcos Pesach with some Hashkafa in the back of the sefer. 
 
Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070402/ee193b1c/attachment.html 

>Waiting 24 hours from the last use before kashering is only required
>for hagalah, not libun. See Hagalas Keilim chapter 6 paragraph 15, and
>the sources in note 40. This would seem to apply even to libun kal, and
>that's the opinion of the author of Hagalas Keilim, although in note 41
>he cites the Siduro Shel Pesah who disagrees about libun kal, which he
>dismisses as incorrect.


Obviously as per the Aruch haShulchan YD 121 #22 [b'libun ein chiluk 
bein she'hu
ben yomo o eino ben yomo ..,. d'ha'esh m'chaleh ha'kol'] you don't 
have to wait 24
for libun GAMUR. However, I was referring to libun KAL (oven). The problem is
whether we pasken chametz before Pessach is hetera bal'a or issura bal'a.

The entire "oylam" requires a waiting period of 24 hours (after 
cleaning) for Libun Kal.

Chag Kasher V'Sameiach

KT

Josh

>>>I only have one Makor for this idea, that we, as Jews, should concern
ourselves with the well-being of the world at large.>>>

=====================================
Well, here's a makor for the idea that we, as Jews, perhaps should not
concern ourselves with the well-being of the world at large.

In OC 694:3 (halachos of matanos l'evyonim), the MB states that if one
gives a p'rutah  to a gentile, this constitutes "gezel" from the
[jewish] aniyim (unless done for purposes of darkei shalom).

Perhaps a similar analysis can be made WRT to a giving of one's money
and time to causes outside of our
community - perhaps this constitutes gezel from those causes within
our community.

Given that we have a limited amount of resources (money and time),
perhaps we have a halachic obligation to devote these resources solely
to causes within our community (unless done for purposes of darkei
shalom).

KT and CKvS,
Aryeh

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:26:17 -0400, R Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> One of my rebbeim explained the above. If a person truly learns lishmah
> than he does not sin and obviously his middos are perfected. However the
> actual practical lishmah simply means one is not learning for the sake
> of obvious reward or titles.....

As already noted, I didn't actually mean that abstract gemara study has
no impact on the student. Rather, it has no /rational/ connection to the
refinement of the neshamah.

I would therefore only agree to a relative version of RDE's recollection of
his rebbe's words. Someone who learns less lishmah, or not lishmah at all,
will see only tiny changes in his middos compared to someone who learns more
lishmah.

Of course, to a Litvak, lishmah means lesheim sheleimus as an eved Hashem,
and to someone like myself who tries to have a mussar orientation, this in
turn means acquiring the middos of an eved Hashem. So, in my own definition
set, the previous paragraph is simply:
Somone who learns consciously trying to shteig in AYH will shteig more than
someone who doesn't.

Not much of a chiddush.

I am also reminded of the line said besheim the Alter of Slabodka (among
others). A student took pride in making a siyum hashas. IIRC, his third.
He came to the Alter asking for a mazal tov -- he had been through Shas 3
times! (Again, IIRC.) The Alter replied: That's how many times you have
been through Shas. How many times has Shas been through you?

Truth of the tale, the identification of its protagonist, or other details,
the point is one does not imply the other.

:-)|,|ii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Mon,  2 Apr 2007 10:53:27 +0300 (IDT), "Rt Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>>How is it of /practical/ value even to a baqi? Lomdus is Torah lishmah,
>>knowledge for the sake of knowing Retzon haBorei. It has no applicability,

> Okay, I'm having trouble here with the definitions. Perhaps
> you could assist me:

> Baqi - learning broadly and not deeply (?)

That's beqi'us. A baqi is someone who has the breadth of knowledge.

A baqi's lomdus is of higher quality, as it is an analysis that
reflects more of the data. I am much more likely to make a fundamental
error in my lomdus than many people on list because of my lack of
beqi'us. And we see this all the time -- I come up with something that
sounds so logical (to me at least) and one post in reply (or off-list
email from REMT) takes it all down.

...
> Or is Lomdus not in fact to know Retzon HaBorei but rather
> it's a tool for sharpening the person's intellect, devoid of
> contact with reality (similar to the saying that learning
> Math doesn't make a person a triangle)?

As for sharpening one's mind... That is a major point of learning,
no? Not just to know, but to learn to think as the Torah guides us
to?

I think it's devoid of halakhah lema'aseh, but not devoid of
reality. Lomdus is the discovery of patterns that explain
data in the gemara. It's science. In fact, when his detractors
called R' Chaim Brisker a "chemist", his followers accepted the
description as a compliment!

Pesaq is more like engineering, the application of science.

In theory, science advances engineering. For the individual, though,
rarely has a good theoretician also been a good engineer. One skill
actually detracts from the other -- being able to see what could be
clouds one's ability to see what is.

And being good at Brisker Torah makes it hard to take sides, to apply
one shitah over the other. Briskers who try to be poseqim (and R' Chaim
didn't, as I already posted) often engage in Brisker chumros, in trying
to be chosheish for both sides, rather than pick one over the other.

Something I do not understand, as the gemara has very insulting words
that would seem to apply to people who behave this way. Unless someone
can explain to me why their words only apply to machloqesei batei
Hillel veShammai.

:-)|,|ii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:41:28 +0300
"Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> 
> >Waiting 24 hours from the last use before kashering is only required
> >for hagalah, not libun. See Hagalas Keilim chapter 6 paragraph 15, and
> >the sources in note 40. This would seem to apply even to libun kal, and
> >that's the opinion of the author of Hagalas Keilim, although in note 41
> >he cites the Siduro Shel Pesah who disagrees about libun kal, which he
> >dismisses as incorrect.
> 
> 
> Obviously as per the Aruch haShulchan YD 121 #22 [b'libun ein chiluk 
> bein she'hu
> ben yomo o eino ben yomo ..,. d'ha'esh m'chaleh ha'kol'] you don't 
> have to wait 24
> for libun GAMUR. However, I was referring to libun KAL (oven). The problem is
> whether we pasken chametz before Pessach is hetera bal'a or issura bal'a.

I don't completely follow you. Hetera vs. issura bala has two
(relevant) nafka minos: a) may one kasher a utensil used al haesh with
hagala (or its equivalent, libun kal) [OC 451:4], and b) must one who
does hagala without water 60x the hametz be concerned that the hametz
will reenter the utensil [ibid. 452:1 - see Biur Halakha s.v. sheain].
An oven is presumably tashmisho baesh, and we're mahmir to consider
hametz issura bala and to therefore require libun hamur (Rama ibid. 451
and Mishneh Breruah ibid. 32), so why do you say libun kal?

> The entire "oylam" requires a waiting period of 24 hours (after 
> cleaning) for Libun Kal.

I don't know the minhag, but the Sefer Hagalas Keilim that I cited is a
fairly authoritative work. Additionally, as my brother in law points
out, his argument is rather convincing; the humra to wait 24 hours is
to avoid the problem of the hametz reentering the utensil (by waiting
24 hours it becomes nifgam and therefore nat bar nat dehetaira), and
that's why the poskim do not require waiting before libun, since this
reason is inapplicable, and it would indeed seem inapplicable to any
sort of libun.

Good Yom Tov,
Yitzhak


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 73
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."