Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 42

Sun, 04 Nov 2007

• 1. Kaddish Triggers (Jonathan Baker)
• 2. Re: What Level Miracle? (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: women learning Torah (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Philtrum sources (SBA)
• 5. Re: Kaddish (was: Shabbas he mi lezok) (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 6. Alleged story about the SM"A (SBA)
• 7. Re: collective punishment (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. V'sein Tal Umatar (Richard Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Minhag Yisroel (David Riceman)
• 10. Fwd: Women's zimun (Meir Shinnar)
• 11. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos/Rabbi shopping (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Yarmulke: A Historic Cover-Up? (Yitzchok Levine)
• 13. Re: Kaddish (was: Shabbas he mi lezok) (Zev Sero)

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
 
> > The usual structure is
> > Kaddish Yehei Shlamah after Mikra
> > Kaddish Derabbnan after TSBP
 
> Kaddish derabanan must also be preceded by mikra, which is why we say
> the mishna "R Chananya ben Akashya", which ends with a pasuk.

According to RD Moshe Sokol, not mikra, but aggadita, is the trigger for
Derabbanan.

When Debbie gave a siyum on a seder Mishnayos in shul at Shaleshudis,
she was supposed to say R' Chananya ben Akashya afterwards, before saying
the long kaddish, until R' Sokol noticed that the mishna itself ended with
aggadita, obviating R' Chananya.

> > Aleinu and Shir Hakavod do not fit into any of the above
 
> They're both followed immediately by a pasuk ("Vehaya Hashem lemelech"
> and "Mi yemalel") precisely for this reason.

but both trigger Yehei Shlama, not Al Yisrael.
 
--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

 
 
From: "Richard Wolberg" _cantorwolberg@cox.net_ 
(mailto:cantorwolberg@cox.net) 

>>As  a side, it's a miracle that we can communicate with each other via  this
modality, irrespective of where we live. We don't see it as a  miracle
because it is a natural miracle.<< 


 
>>>>>




"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  
--Arthur C. Clarke  


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071104/85ef8fe4/attachment.htm 

 
R' Binyomin Hirsch writes:



"If girls don't learn Torah before they're  born, why do they have  a pinch 
under their noses?" 
>>By extension the same question can be  asked ad to why all humans have that 
pinch mark under their noses, everyone from  the Chinese to the lost tribes 
in Africa. Did they all learn Torah, and if they  did is that more problematic 
than a woman learning  Torah?<<




and R' Menachem Posner writes:
 
>>The source of this is Niddah 30b. Interestingly, the Talmud  mentions the 
angel tapping the baby on the mouth but nothing about the dent  (philtrum) left 
behind. If this is the sole source, it would render your   question and that 
of why non-Jews have dents immaterial; unless there is another  source which 
does mention it.<<

>>>>>
In reality my question about the dent under the nose was meant half in  jest. 
 I don't /really/ believe it's there because the malach tapped you  under the 
nose.  (I know someone who does not have that dent under her  nose and she 
does NOT remember learning the whole Torah from an angel before she  was born :- 
) )
 
But my question about girls learning Torah in utero was meant  seriously.  
And RBH's question -- which I didn't think of, though I should  have -- is also 
a logical question.  Do goyim learn Torah in utero?
 
I can think of a number of possibilies:
 
1.  Females and goyim learn what they will some day need to know, and  no 
more than that.
 
2.  Females and goyim do indeed learn the whole Torah.
 
3.  Females do but goyim don't (because their neshamos are different  from 
Jewish neshamos?  speculative).
 
4.  Goyim do but females don't (because goyim can become geirim some  day and 
so at least the possibility exists that some day they will learn Torah  and 
will need to know it, but females will never become males and will never  have 
a mitzva of limud Torah).
 
5.  Other?


--Toby  Katz
=============




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071104/c7dd0778/attachment.html 

From: "Menachem Posner" < >
Toby Katz wrote:
   If girls don't learn Torah before they're  born, 
   why do they have a pinch under their noses?

>>>
The source of this is Niddah 30b. Interestingly, the Talmud mentions the
angel tapping the baby on the mouth but nothing about the dent (philtrum)
left behind. If this is the sole source, it would render your  question and
that of why non-Jews have dents immaterial; unless there is another source
which does mention it.

================

Here's a "source" that is cholek on your reading of that gemara...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philtrum

According to the Jewish Talmud (Niddah 30b), God sends an angel to each womb
and teaches a baby all the wisdom that can be obtained. Just before the
unborn baby comes out, the angel touches it between the upper lip and the
nose and all that it has taught the baby is forgotten.
Commentries on this particular story can be found in "What the Angel Taught
you" by Rabbi Noah Weinberg and Yaakov Salomon (ISBN 1-57819-134-3).
Similarly, in other folksayings, it is said that an angel "shushes" the baby
in the womb, to stop it from talking about heaven, or to forget. Other
stories say that it is an indent left by the finger of God. Still more say
that it is the spot where the angel put his finger to "shush" the child
after having told it a secret. (This was memorably referenced in the film
The Prophecy by the arch-angel Gabriel (Christopher Walken).)

SBA

     The following dialogue took place between RRWolpoe and RZSero:

RRW: Kaddish after Aleinu [after shir Hakavod] could use its own thread.
  The usual structure is
  Kaddish Yehei Shlamah after Mikra
  Kaddish Derabbnan after TSBP

RZS: Kaddish derabanan must also be preceded by mikra, which is why we say the mishna "R Chananya ben Akashya", which ends with a pasuk.

     Is there a makor for this requirement?  I was taught that the reason for saying the mishna is that kaddish d'rabbanan is only said after aggadah (and for which, too, I would welcome a source).  In many shuls, a kaddish d'rabbanan is said after the b'raisa d'Rabbi Yishma'l, without korbanos, even though it ends with no pasuk (and, for that matter, contains no aggadah).

RRW: Aleinu and Shir Hakavod do not fit into any of the above

RZS: They're both followed immediately by a pasuk ("Vehaya Hashem lemelech" and "Mi yemalel") precisely for this reason.

     Aleinu does not require the adding of "Vehaya," since it already ends with the pasuk "Hashem yimloch l'olam va'ed."  Shir Hakavod is also followed by the pasuk "L'cha Hashem hag'dulah," so that "Mi y'mallel" is not needed to justify kaddish.  Obviously, then, these p'sukim are said for their content, and not for permitting kaddish.
 
     It would seem that it's the other way around: not that the p'sukim are added so that kaddish may be said, but rather that kaddish is said because there are p'sukim.

EMT

From: "Kelmar, Michael J." < >
Rabbi Richard Wolpe wrote: "Since the Sma was dead 7 years before the Shach
was born it would take someone from the extreme NON-HISTORICAL school to buy
into the above story!"

Clearly, the SM"A could have taken on the shita that later would become
known as the Shach's shita, even before the Shach's birth.
>>

The source for this story which I posted:
>>Shu"t Ksav Sofer YD: 109 - where the KS writes that he heard this "Mipeh
Kadosh Abba...ZT"L, ie the Chasam Sofer<<
doesn't mention any Shach.

SBA

R' Elliott Shevin wrote:
> I've always figured "timkheh es zeikher Amalieq" is idiomatic
> for "destroy." Remember the rest of that maftir: "al tiskhakh."
> You can't refrain from forgetting if you literally erase the
> memory. Nor do I think literally erasing the memory of an evil
> is a good idea. What if Ahmadinejad and his ilk were to succeed
> in displacing the memory of the Holocaust?

Timkheh does indeed mean "destroy" (or "erase" or "wipe out" or any of several synonyms), but according to Rashi, you're misunderstanding what "zeikher" means.

See that Rashi, Devarim 25:19 -- "Destroy the zeikher of Amalek: From man to woman, from infant to nursing, from ox to sheep. so that the name of Amalek will not be mentioned even about an animal, that someone might say, 'This animal was Amalek's.'"

Zeikher does not mean memory. It means memorabilia.

PS: I think zeikher has this meaning in other contexts too, such as in Kiddush: Shabbos and Yom Tov are "zecher liytzias mitzrayim". They are not merely reminders of the Exodus, they are tangible *souvenirs* of it.

Akiva Miller

That is the critical bit: the possible inclusion of the words "Don't say
V'Ten Tal UMatar".

 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the gabbai says "V'sein b'rocho" as he
says "ya'ale v'yavo" on Rosh Chodesh and on Dec.5th  (or 6th in a civil leap
year) say "v'sain tal umatar", why wouldn't that be enough? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071104/37c0891c/attachment.htm 

Rich, Joel wrote:
> "kabalas herem hala aleihem ve'al zaram ..." - SA YD 214:2 "nidui
> ve'herem hal al doros ha'ba'im" - ibid 228:35
>
>
>   
> Sorry for the lack of clarity - this din (which iiuc is based on the
> gemara in Pesachim 50b) is based on a pasuk in mishlei(Shma bni
> musar..). So my question was, what is the makor, as in is this an
> offshoot of a neder, is it halacha moshe misinai, is it a gezeira of the
> rabbanan.....?
>
>   
See Hayyei Adam Klal 127, especially s'ifim 11-12.

David Riceman

 From a discussion on areivim about women's zimun (transferred to  
avodah as per moderator - quotation of areivim is therefore  
presumably approved..)
>> RDW
>
>
>>
>> But then, I was the only one who pointed out that the GR"A  
>> paskened that
>> women's zimun is a must and not just optional.
>
>
> How about the rest of the quote from the Biur Halachacha
> that 'haolam lo noheg kach'.
>
> Notice he does not say 'bemedinot eilu' but 'haolam' implying that  
> while
> there is nothing wrong with their making a zimun, there is no  
> precedent in
> the world.
>
> Also earlier Rishonim, in the gemara of erchin, especially Rashi  
> and Tosefos
> hold it is a reshut not hova .
>
> Those who are avid followers of the GRA perhaps have the right to  
> discard
> all other opinions, but it is questionable for all others to reject a
> majority position for the sake of egaliterianism rather then being  
> Mekadshei
> Shem Shmayim by following an accepted precedent even if it's not
> egalitarian.

This is a fascinating leap.  RDW has brought down (as others have,  
but therefore he is clearly aware) - that the machloket is between  
those who hold it is a reshut versus those who hold it is a chova -  
he doesn't bring any one who has any issue at all with women saying  
zimun.

Furthermore, while few women actually practiced zimmun - and I don't  
think that people dispute that historically, few women did say zimun  
(as few women also learned tanach seriously...) - and the mishna  
brura brings down that this was the practice - the mishna brura also  
is careful not to go the extra step and say that therefore they  
shouldn't do it.  Indeed, he  brings down the opinion that the reason  
why women didn't do it  (and why, according to some of those who hold  
it is a reshut, women were not obligated) - is precisely the lack of  
education of women - and the chofetz chaim was acutely aware of the  
issue of education of women - and how it impacts on what one requires  
of them.  One can reasonably argue that today, amongst communities  
where women are educated enough to say zimun for themselves - it  
becomes the preferred option (even if still a reshut)- and major  
poskim (eg, the ben ish chai) did make this natural step..

However, while, one can reasonably argue that it is a majority  
opinion that zimun was and still remains a reshut - but to transform  
it being a reshut rather than a chova into viewing a positive value  
(mekadshei shem shmayim !!!!!) in deciding not to do the reshut is  
amazing - and I would argue a ziyuf hatorah.  One may choose not to  
do a reshut - but to denigrate those who choose a reshut is to  
transform one's community's value of radical anti feminism into a  
torah value - no less problematic than (and indeed equivalent to )    
those who transform their community's value egalitarianism into a  
torah value - and deserves a public mecha'a.

Meir Shinnar

[I keep wavering over whether to drop A/A.  RnCL heads the column of
reasons for staying.]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:31:03 -0000 "Chana Luntz"
<chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> must rule in such a way - although even then, one of the reasons given
> why the Mitzrim were punished for afflicting the Yidden, even though it
> had been fortold and clearly was part of Hashem's plan was because they
> took pleasure in it (the other of course was because they inflicted more
> than they were required which is the other limb of this).  

You don't mention the Rambam's [0] reason, which is that it need not
have been them, but you inspired me to finally clarify my understanding
of the Rambam, about which I had been rather muddled for many years.  I
now see that I was not entirely at fault, since there is a apparently a
major difference of opinions as to what exactly the Rambam is saying
here.

There are two quite different questions one can ask about the
Egyptians' punishment:

I)  The teleological question - God's declaration of "ya'doa te'da"
predetermined the Egyptians' actions, negating their free will, so why
were they punished?

II)  The axiological question - if God desired or commanded the
Israelites' persecution, then the Egyptians were doing God's will, so
why were they punished?

Lehem Mishnah [1] remarks that there is really no question here, since
Rambam has already established that Divine foreknowledge does not
contradict human free will.  The Mirkeves Ha'mishneh (Chelm), Avodas
Melech, Ziv Mishneh, Ben Yedid [2] and Yad Peshutah [3] all explain that
the Rambam's earlier resolution only applies to God's own knowledge,
but a spoken, prophetic declaration does indeed contradict free will.
All these Aharonim apparently understood the Rambam as asking question
I.

Ramban [4] objects to the Rambam's answer, arguing that even if God
hasn't singled out a particular oppressor, anyone seizing the
opportunity of fulfilling God's will has been "zachah be'dvar mizvah".
The Ramban is obviously dealing with question II, and the Meshech
Hochmah [5] indeed counters his objection by pointing out that the
phrase "va'avadum ve'inu osam" is descriptive rather than normative, and
therefore not a justification for the Egyptians.  The Yad Peshutah
elaborates further, and points out that the question II is clearly not
the Rambam's concern here, since the context of the entire chapter is
the resolution of apparent contradictions to the great principle of
free will.  Moreover, surely even the Ramban does not claim that
"ve'kam ha'am ha'zeh ve'zanam aharei elohei nechar ha'aretz", another
verse the Rambam cites together with "ya'doa teda", is an expression of
God's will that justifies subsequent idol worship!

Speaking of the Yad Peshutah, what do it, Igros Ha'Rambam, and Ti'um
Ka'vanot [Adjusting Sights], Emet Mi Eretz Tiz'mah [Aleppo Tales] and
Ke'af'apei Shahar [The Dawn of the Day] all have in common?

[0] Teshuvah 6:6
[1] ibid. 
[2] ibid. [The new "Meforshei Yad Ha'ha'za'kah" is really great!]
[3] ibid.
[4] Bereishis 15:13
[5] ibid.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

 From http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Rabinowitz.pdf

The Gra disagreed with R. Yosef  Karo's ruling [that one must wear a 
head covering] and countered that one is never obligated to wear a 
head covering, even while  participating  in a religious event.

See the URL above for more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071104/5f208469/attachment.html 

Elazar M. Teitz wrote:

>> RZS: Kaddish derabanan must also be preceded by mikra, which is why
>> we say the mishna "R Chananya ben Akashya", which ends with a pasuk.
> 
>      Is there a makor for this requirement?  I was taught that the
> reason for saying the mishna is that kaddish d'rabbanan is only said
> after aggadah (and for which, too, I would welcome a source).

Thanks for making me look this up.  See Magen Avraham 54:3.  Kaddish
must be preceded by pesukim, *or* by an aggada that explains a pasuk.
So the pasuk doesn't have to come at the very end of the piece;
R Chananya ben Akashya would have worked just as well had the pasuk
come before the drasha instead of after.  Yishtabach is tafel to the
pesukim for which it is the after-bracha, but if there's an
interruption after Yishtabach then more pesukim must be said before
kaddish.  The kaddish immediately after tefillah doesn't need a pasuk
either, though it seems to me that "yiheyu leratzon" should count.


>  In many shuls, a kaddish d'rabbanan is said after the b'raisa
> d'Rabbi Yishma'el, without korbanos, even though it ends with no
> pasuk (and, for that matter, contains no aggadah).

This indeed requires explanation.  SA Harav 54:4, in a parenthetical
comment at the very end, says that the tefilah of "yehi ratzon" is
enough to justify the kaddish, but see Shaar Hakolel 3:27, who
points out that in Pri Etz Chayim and Mishnat Chassidim the "yehi
ratzon" does not appear, but the kaddish does anyway, because it's
at a boundary between the four parts of the tefillah.


 
>>> RRW: Aleinu and Shir Hakavod do not fit into any of the above

>> RZS: They're both followed immediately by a pasuk ("Vehaya Hashem
>> lemelech" and "Mi yemalel") precisely for this reason.
 
> Aleinu does not require the adding of "Vehaya," since it already ends
> with the pasuk "Hashem yimloch l'olam va'ed."

True.


> Shir Hakavod is also followed by the pasuk "L'cha Hashem hag'dulah,"
> so that "Mi y'mallel" is not needed to justify kaddish.

In this case, I meant the pair of pesukim.  I recall reading somewhere,
perhaps even on this list, that these pesukim date much later than the
original Shir Hakavod.  It was my own assumption that they were added in
order to justify a kaddish after them.   The same cannot be said about
Alenu, however, since "Hashem yimloch" is an integral part of the
original nusach, so "Vehaya Hashem lemelech" must have been added for
a different reason.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 42
**************************************

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..."