Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 91

Thu, 06 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: Freedom of exegesive interpretation (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Kesones Passim (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. Re: Fables and Lies (Micha Berger)
• 4. Behaalosekha es haneiros (Gershon Dubin)
• 5. Re: Behaalosekha es haneiros (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Fables and Lies (Ilana Sober)
• 7. gentiles and tefillin (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Freedom of exegesive interpretation (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Re: Behaalosekha es haneiros (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 10. Re: Behaalosekha es haneiros (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the Private Worshiper? (Michael Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: Limited Mabul? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 13. Re: Behaalosekha es haneiros (David Eisen)

On Wednesday, 5. December 2007 11.54:06 avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org RJR
> Great example. If you mean that there would be a nafka mina lhalacha,
> IIUC most current day authorities would say that unless much earlier
> generations suggested an interpretation, we can not, even if when we
> flew around the world backwards (superman reference) we found that our
> interpretation was really what Rav Natan had in mind when he made the
> original statement. ?

The Tos. YT I quoted was about a novel interpretation that did not change 
halachah, even though it went against perhaps even a gemara.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

> From: "Meir Rabi" < >
> Has anyone an explanation for the Bakashah after Birkas Kohanim, in
> which we
> say that when Yosef was wearing the Kesones Passim he found grace and
> favour
> in the eyes of all who beheld him? Does this include his brothers?
> ==

Some Mareh Mekomos:
Siddur Rashban
Sefer Masas Hamelech (R' Shimon Moshe Diskin)
Yalkut Hageirshuni (Shabbos 10a)
Sefer Darkei Chaim (pg. 22-23) (Available online at www.hebrewbooks.org)
Tapuchei Chaim on V'asah Lo Kesones Pasim (Chasidishe Mehalech)
Sukas Dovid on V'asah Lo Kesones Pasim
Otzar Kol Minhagei Yeshurun (pg. 70, in Ha'arah)
V'ani Tefillah II (R' Zaitchik) (pg. 110-111)

KT,
MYG

On Thu, November 29, 2007 4:59 pm, Rabbiner Arie Folger wrote:
 Not all sources agree on this. Only some of the midrashim mention that
: there were ten martyrs to atone for Ypssef's sale, and not all link
: those ten with any known list.

On Sat, December 1, 2007 6:38 pm, Rt Chana Luntz wrote:
: I think it is more than poeticising.  Ten is a minyan.  And what
: happens in a prayer minyan? ...

Less well known than the Bavli's proof that a minyan is 10 mechuyavim
is the Yerushalmi's (Berakhos 7:3). There the gezeirah shavah is not a
2-step from the eidah of the meraglim, but from the brothers being
"besokh haba'im" to get food from Yoseif (Bereishis 42:5) directly to
"veniqdashti besokh benei Yisrael".

And so there is a real link between the 10 brothers who sold Yoseif
and the concept of minyan.

RAF, continued:
: The most prominent source linking the 10 martyrs to an atonement for
: Yossef's sale AND providing a listing of the martyrs, is Heikhalot
: Rabbati, a mystical text. The mere appearance of that interpretation
: in that work should suffice to make us guess that the composition
: wasn't necessarily meant to be taken as chronologically coherent,
: but rather unified on a mystical level.

For that matter, the story of the shoes doesn't really imply all 10
were there at the time. It could be that Lupinus Caesar was setting up
a "tab" of 10 martyrs, and didn't have any specific ones in mind yet.
Then R' Yishmael could be asking mei'achorei hapargod about himself
and R' Shimon -- and the 8 who follow, perhaps not even knowing the
follow through wouldn't happen until Hadrian y"sh.


Interesting is that the Ariza"l (Shaar haGilgulim haqdamah 34) does
not say the 10 harugei malkhus were gilgulim of the 10 brothers. In
fact, R' Yishmael Kohein Gadol of the extreme beauty is identified as
a gilgul of Yoseif. Thus R' Yishmael had the job of repairing Yoseif's
ill speech -- both in how he bragged about his dreams and in his LH
about his brothers. It also explains R' Yishmael's beauty, as per
midrashim about Yoseif, both of which had gotten Adam's beauty. And
so, Mes AZ (11a) tells of Edom having a parade once every 70 years in
which they dressed an ill man and a man in good health, dress the two
in the garments of Adam haRishon -- the ones that end up in Nimrod's
posession, stolen by Esav, and end up given by Yaaqov to Yoseif -- and
have the healthy one ride on the ill one. Thus representing Rome's
alleged victory over Yisrael. AND, the the skin from R' Yishma'el face
was worn as a mask by the healthy rider.

You can see the rich tapestry of ideas being woven together. There is
enough information there without insisting history really worked out
that way. It's clear we're being taught something fundamental about
morality and beauty, and the flaws in the foundation of humanity and
Benei Yisrael in particular caused by confusing the two. Not stories
about R' Yishma'el.

Thus the fall of the Jewish people, which happened in two stages
lasting from Churban bayis to Hadrian causing the end the generations
of tannaim and the loss of Torah to the shift in Israel, is associated
with the quantum of Jewish peoplehood, the minyan, and its founding,
the shevatim. That Yaaqov's rise over Esav is about a community
founded on a unique moral calling, one that places aesthetics in
service of Truth rather than making an end out of the pursuit of
beauty. To Esav, the soup is about its color, and the culinary
experience a fair exchange for a place in heaven.

I always thought that saddest part was the demise of his children.
That R' Yishma'el's suffering didn't even end with his petirah. And
that too was about their choosing morality over complying to Roman
slaveowners who wanted to breed them for their beauty (Gitin 58a).

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

<<the flame old shouldn't touch the the new wick>>

Never heard that;  where is that from?

<<Second, how can it be mutar for a zar to light the menorah if he was
already chayav misah for entering the bayis to light it?>>

The Gemara answers a similar kashye with "sakin aroch"; why not say the same here?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

_____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on consolidating your debt.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m2bhyfNhfIWXpJp9SDyk1fE5EbPKFE2Gksov1jAGwEztfLc/

On Wed, December 5, 2007 2:22 pm, R Gershon Dubin wrote:
: <<the flame old shouldn't touch the the new wick>>

: Never heard that;  where is that from?

Rashi on the word Behaalosekha. This unique way of lighting the
menorah is why it's called ha'alas haneiros, rather than hadlaqas (at
least in this pasuq). Usable in bar mitzvah derashos and yeshiva fund
raisers on that week: We teach by inspiring the student to ignite with
his own flame, not by trying to get our flame to burn in someone else.

: <<Second, how can it be mutar for a zar to light the menorah if he was
: already chayav misah for entering the bayis to light it?>>

: The Gemara answers a similar kashye with "sakin aroch"; why not say
: the same here?

Because as reading RZS (below), it's unclear he can't enter if he has
a purpose in doing so.

On Wed, December 5, 2007 10:34 am, R Zev Sero wrote:
 Since when is a zar not allowed to enter the hechal if he has some
: legitimate purpose there?  AFAIK only the QHQ was off limits to zarim
: (i.e. non-kohanim-gedolim), so that maintenance workers had to be
: lowered in in boxes.  The hechal, AFAIK, has the same din as the
: azara, that only people with legitimate business are allowed there,
: but such people *are* allowed.

Keilim 1:8 would seem to only let a zar into the ezras kohanim if the
zar needed to do a mitzvah begufo. I could see including bedaq
habayis, but am not sure if that would include a case where a kohein
is capable of doing the same job. But AIUI, the heikhal, not even on
those grounds.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

RnTK: The word myth simply is never used to describe straightforward history.

Exactly. That's why I think it is a useful word in conveying the idea
that the events recounted in the Torah are not intended to be merely
history, but something much more important.

> In normal, common English, there is no such thing as a "true myth."  You can
> instead use some such locution as "our founding narrative."

Ok, that's a good word. Maybe not as powerful as myth the way I
understand it, but definitely less easily misunderstood.

- Ilana

The Radvaz on Rambam, Hil. Melakhim 10:10 comments that, while acc. to Rambam, 
gentiles may voluntarily fulfil mitzvot in order to merit sechar, 
nonetheless, Radvaz considers that we should not permit gentiles to fulfil 
such kinds of mitzvot that require "qedushah vetaharah," such as Tefillin, 
Sefer Torah and Mezuzot.

Do some members of this august company know of other sources that discuss this 
matter, especially as it applies to tzitzit and tefillin?
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:42:08 +0100
Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

[snip]

> For example, did David haMelekh commit adultery, or was she
divorced at the 
> time? According to the gemara that say that kol ha'omer shedavid chatah eino 
> elah to'eh, David was technically saved from adultery. However, according to 
> this TYT, you could disagree.

The Abarbanel [0] does indeed vigorously reject Hazal's interpretation,
insisting that the narrative means exactly what it says.  He
painstakingly explicates (his view of) the enormity of David's various
sins, then cites Hazal's comments on the affair [1], and then proceeds
to sharply rebut them:

--- Begin Quote ---

These comments of our sages z"l are in the way of 'drash' and I have
nothing to say against them.  It is sufficient what they have said
"Rabbi who descends from David is "m'ha'peich b'zchusei", for this was
to them the way of 'drash', and Rabbi was "m'hapeich b'davar" because of
his connection and his descent from the house of David, but not
according to the truth.

And how can we say that David wanted to act but did not act?  And the
scripture explicitly testifies about the entire evil affair, and if
David did not sin, how did he say "I have sinned to God"? ...

And so I cannot tolerate a lenient approach to David's sin, and I will
not deny the simple truth, ...

Ultimately, if scripture calls him a sinner and he confessed his sin,
how shall someone err [2] by believing him?  I prefer to say that he
sinned greatly and confessed greatly and repented a complete repentance
and accepted [3] his punishment and thereby atoned for his sins.

--- End Quote ---

[0] Sh'muel 2:11
[1] Shabbos 56a
[2] a retort to Hazal's comment cited above by RAF
[3] or received, "v'kibbel"


> Arie Folger

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

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:23:09 -0500 (EST)
"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

[snip]

> Second, how can it be mutar for a zar to light the menorah if he was
> already chayav misah for entering the bayis to light it?

A zar may only enter the ezras ko'hanim for his 'needs' [0], and it is
not clear whether the prohibition is min ha'torah [1], but there's
certainly no death penalty for entering even the bayis [2]:

---  Begin Quote ---

t'horim who enter within their m'hizah, into the entire Heichal, forty
[lashes], inside the paroches and before the kapores, death.  Rabbi
Yehudah says the entire Heichal and inside the paroches, forty, before
the kapores, death.

--- End Quote ---

But your question still remains, since entry to the Bayis is definitely
prohibited.  The Rambam indeed writes [3]:

--- Begin Quote ---

Kindling the neiros is also acceptable if done by zarim, therefore if
the Kohen was meitiv the neiros and then brought them outside, the zar
is permitted to kindle them.

--- End Quote ---

The Hasdei Dovid [4] apparently says that from here we can infer that a
zar is indeed prohibited to enter the Heichal, a law which the Rambam
apparently doesn't ever mention explicitly.

[0] Keilim 1:8, Rambam Beis Ha'bchirah 7:19
[1] see sources cited in the Sefer Ha'mafte'ah ibid.
[2] M'nahos 27b
[3] Bi'as Mikdash 9:7
[4] cited by Sefer Ha'mafte'ah ibid.

> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

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

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:34:13 -0500
Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

[snip]

> legitimate purpose there?  AFAIK only the QHQ was off limits to zarim
> (i.e. non-kohanim-gedolim), so that maintenance workers had to be
> lowered in in boxes.  The hechal, AFAIK, has the same din as the azara, 

But see the Tiferes Yisroel [0], who says that boxes are only required
if they are a viable solution, and they are not required otherwise [1].

[0] Keilim ch1 Yachin 65
[1] although he implies that the zar should only enter for a "zorech
gadol m'od", even via a box.

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

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

On 15/10/2007, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> My problem with saying "we follow ArtScroll" is just that; it means
> that the rav was being arbitrary (we are stocked with AS siddurim,
> so...) rather than following precedent or sevara. Personally, I am
> more irritated by the lack of sevara, but I accept your
> generalization.


Marc Shapiro writes regarding this on Seforim blog:



> Let me conclude with a story of one shul that refused to be run over by
> Artscroll. The year was 2001 and on Shabbat morning I was davening at the
> Rydniker Shtiebl on the Upper West Side which was across the street from my
> apartment. The late Rabbi Orenstein, who had studied in Kamenitz before the
> war, was the rav. It was one of those Shabboses where there is some
> confusion as to which Haftorah is read. Rabbi Orenstein told the reader what
> he should do, and someone called out that Artscroll says that we should read
> a different haftorah. Dr. David Diamond stood up, banged his hand on the
> bimah, and very sternly declared: "In this shul we have a rav, and we follow
> what he tells us to do. Artscroll is not the rav and Artscroll does not tell
> us which Haftorah to read!" With that he sat down, and never again did
> anyone dare ask a "kasha" on the Rav from Artscroll.

(
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/09/marc-shapiro-what-do-adon-olam-and-mean.html,
footnote 8)
KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071205/b8ceb2a2/attachment.html 

I most certainly concede. Live and learn and be modeh al ho'emes...

KT, CS,
YGB

Lisa Liel wrote:
> With all due respect, we do know of a massive flood at that time. 
> Genesis 11:8 says "Vayifetz otam", and Breishit Rabbah 38 says "Ein
> 'vayifetz', ela 'vayetzaf'.  Hetzif aleihem ha-yam, v'hetzif shloshim
> mishpachot meihem."  This is saying that 30 of the 70 nations were
> obliterated in a flood at the time of the destruction of the Tower. 
> And I've seen elsewhere (forgive me if I can't produce a source right
> now) where it's shown that the reason there are still 70 nations is
> that Abraham engendered 30 new ones (av hamon goyim in truth).  It
> seems clear that this Yerushalmi is speaking of that flood, and not
> the Mabul.
>   

RMB asked:
"Second, how can it be mutar for a zar to light the menorah if he was
already chayav misah for entering the bayis to light it?"
>>>

Simple (at least according to Rambam as Raavad says this is kosher only
bedieved) - the menorah would be transported by kohanim outside the
heikhal to the hatzer, lit by a zar and returned back to the heikhal;
see Biat Hamiqdash 9:7, which is in accordance with the Gemara's ruling
(Yoma 24b) that "hadlaqa lav avoda hi" and Rambam's position that as
opposed to nerot hanuka, hanaha osa mitzva with respect to the lighting
of the menorah in the bet hamiqdash; in fact, one may deduce that
according to Rambam there is no hiyuv gavra per se to light the menorah,
rather it is sufficient for the menorah to be lit (see Hiddushei HaGRa"H
al HaRamB"aM on this halakha; also see the Encyclopedia Talmudit's entry
on "Hadlakat Hanerot").

B'virkat Hanuka Sameah,
David Eisen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071206/11ad7e96/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 91
**************************************

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..."