Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 207

Mon, 02 Jun 2008

• 1. Re: omer - Rihal (zviLampel@theJnet.com)
• 2. Re: omer - Rihal (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: D'rabanan vs. D'oraita (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Ratio of B'chorim (Gershon Dubin)
• 5. Safeiq Sefirah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Mood of Tehillim (Micha Berger)
• 7. cooking eggs in milchig or fleishig pot (Eli Turkel)
• 8. first mention in the Torah (Silverman, Philip B)
• 9. Re: Mood of Tehillim (Saul Guberman)
• 10. Re: Mood of Tehillim (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Office Coffee machine (Micha Berger)
• 12. D'rabanan vs. D'oraita (Allen Gerstl)
• 13. Re: cooking eggs in milchig or fleishig pot (Gershon Dubin)
• 14. powers/responsibilities of nesiim of shvatim (Rich, Joel)

Re: omer - Rihal

Rabbi Folger wrote:
>Rabbi Avun remarked a difficulty, without telling us
what was fact and what logic, without even telling us
if he knew the details or if it 
was supplied in the beit hamidrash, and then
proceeded with a very brief 
answer.<

Sorry, I don?t follow. He made an observation based
on calendrical logic that Erev Pesach must have
fallen out on Shabbos within the Bnei Besayra?s
experience. His problem was that therefore they
should have remembered what the practice was, yet the
Braissa/Tosefta he was commenting on said explicitly
that the halachah was ?niss-almah? from the Bnei
Beseyra. His answer was brief and to the point.

RAF:
>The wording you suggest  [I had written: According
to Rabbi Folger?s suggestion, Rebbi Avoon?s query
should be something to the effect of 
?V?lamma lo karra kol kach shannim,?--ZL] is just not
common in the talmudim.<

Well, not ?kol kach shannim,? but certainly ?kammah
Shannim.? Here are a few examples:

K?reesus 27a: Amar Rebbi Yochonon, Kammah shannim
gidale zeh bay-nay-nu, v?lo shamma halacha zu
mi-menni?!...Amar Rebi Yochonon, Harei kammah shannim
gidalnu b?vaid ha-medrash v?lo shammanu halacha zu.

Shabbos 83a: Said Rebbi Yehuda said Rav: A person
should never keep himself away from the Beis Medrash
even one moment, sheh-harei kammah shannim this
mishna was taught in the Beis Medrash, and its ta?am
was not revealed until Rebbi Hannina ben Aklavia came
and explained it.

Eruvin 19a: Mah Mizbach HaZahav...amad kammah shannim
v?lo shalta bo ha-ohr....

Sanhedrin 91a: Sheh-harei kammah shannim sheh-lo
avad-sunu...

So, if Rebbi Aboon?s intention was to ask, "ought it
not to be impossible for such a long 
time to pass without the 14th falling out of Shabbat?
And yet, how come this 
hadn't happened in such a while?" he should have said
?kammah sh?nay shvee?ees avru sheh-hayya chal
yud-daled yachol lih?yos b?Shabbos, v?lamma lo chal
yud-daled b?Shabbos,? not ?ha-lo ee-efshar l?shnay
sh?vee?ees sheh-yachol yud-daled lihyos b?Shabbos,
v?lamma niss-almah halacha may-hen.?

Zvi Lampel

On Sunday, 1. June 2008 21.36:17 zviLampel@theJnet.com wrote:
> And yet, how come this
> hadn't happened in such a while?" he should have said
> ?kammah sh?nay shvee?ees avru sheh-hayya chal
> yud-daled yachol lih?yos b?Shabbos, v?lamma lo chal
> yud-daled b?Shabbos,? not ?ha-lo ee-efshar l?shnay
> sh?vee?ees sheh-yachol yud-daled lihyos b?Shabbos,
> v?lamma niss-almah halacha may-hen.?

Your argument is indeed very good, but I'd like to point out that there is a 
plausible difference: should vs. could. You ask, he should have asked that it 
should have fallen out of Shabbos, while he stated it should not be possibly 
not to fall out on Shabbos [and yet it did]. With these four words in square 
barckets I believe that we have fixed Rav Avun'd statement.

That said, your argument is valid indeed.

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

 
 
From: "Marty Bluke" _marty.bluke@gmail.com_ (mailto:marty.bluke@gmail.com) 

>>The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah Siman 81 paskens that a Jewish  baby
is allowed to have a non-Jewish wet nurse, however the Shulchan  Aruch
says that you shouldn't do it because the non-kosher food will  harm
the baby spiritually. 
 
... In any case, we
see clearly from the Ran that non-kosher is  objectively poison and
harmful even if you eat it  b'heter.



....We see clearly that this idea that any non-kosher food is  metamtem
halev, meaning it has intrinsic effects, even if eaten  b'heter<<


 
 
>>>>>



I've long noticed that vegetarians often become ba'alei teshuva or to put  it 
another way, many BTs have a history of having been vegetarians.  I have  
long believed that since they were willy nilly keeping kosher, their neshamos  
were purified and were more open to accepting the Torah.  (No, I'm not  a 
vegetarian.)


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





**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&;?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080601/0b092cf9/attachment-0001.htm>

See Maayan Beis Hashoeva (Rabbi Schwab) on Bamidbar.   Besides the
observation concerning the bechor ratio,he
also makes an observation concerning the high proportion of benei Levi
who were between 30-50 years of age.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
 
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:14:02 -0400 Henry Topas <htopas@canpro.ca> writes:
> 1. Am I miscalculating?
> 2. Can anyone direct me to the proper m'komos where this might be
> discussed?
____________________________________________________________
Never lose valuable data again! Click now for reliable data backup!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mESoouUNsWESuXL7h9ywlHz2ZIZp3fHqG6nLjqnUM9MdcxE/

My 13 yr old boys and I were learning KSA yesterday, and one of them
asked the following question:

According to the KSA, if you are unsure if you counted yesterday or not,
you can continue counting with a berakhah. Chasing it down a little, the
reasoning seems to be sefeiq sefeiqa -- safeiq whether omer is one
mitzvah or many, and even if one mitzvah, safeiq wehther or not you
broke the chain.

So, Zack asked: We know from "mashiv haruach" the rule that if you
haven't been saying something 30 days I should assume I didn't say it.
To the extent that we override safeiq berakhos lehaqeil and require
repeating.

So why do we say there is a S"S, the second safeiq has a chazaqah -- day
1 to 30, assume it was missed, day 31 onward, assume it wasn't. And
therefore if someone isn't sure if he counted on day 15, why doesn't he
have to skip the berakhah?

I might ammend his question. It's not 30 days but 90 repetitions. And
therefore the entire omer would fall under the question.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

When r"l we need to say tehillim, the tune is usually a sad one. Things
aren't going well for some choleh or in the matzav, and we are pleeing
with HQBH.

Is this really correct? (And among Chassidim, is this historically
accurate?)

Perhaps when one reads "Hashem, shimah beqoli". But what about something
like "Eileh barekhev"? Isn't the point of the pasuq that David haMelekh
got security from knowing Who is the Magen David? And why are we crying
when we recall the unity of Kelal Yisrael whose paragon was Moshe's joy
when annointing Aharon in "Hinei mah tov"?

Much of the Tehillim we recite be'eis tzarah (yehi Ratzon that I should
have written "recited") appear to be words of strength and comfort,
not baqashah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

If one cooks a hard boiled egg in a fleishig pot can it be eaten
together with milk
and vice-versa? i.e,. was is the halachic status of the shell?


-- 
Eli Turkel

I wrote:

>"We have a tradition that if we wish to discover a concept's meaning,
we
should look at the first time it is mentioned in the Torah."

> I found the above statement at a fine yeshivah's website. I've heard
it
several times, and have seen some interesting examples, but can
someone tell me the source of the tradition, or of a scholarly treatment
of the subject?
>>>

So far, the consensus among my rabbi-friends is that this concept is
written about by R. Tzadok Hacohen mi-Lublin (sefer and page number,
anyone?), though they weren't able at the time to tell me whether it
goes back any further. 

Phil


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> When r"l we need to say tehillim, the tune is usually a sad one. Things
> aren't going well for some choleh or in the matzav, and we are pleeing
> with HQBH.
>
> Is this really correct? (And among Chassidim, is this historically
> accurate?)
>

To me, this is all situational dependent.  The tehillim of Hallel, Kabbalat
Shabbat & before bentching are all upbeat tunes. The Mizmor L'David sung at
Sueda Shilshit is not sung upbeat.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080602/be7b7fc8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Saul Guberman wrote:
: To me, this is all situational dependent.  The tehillim of Hallel, Kabbalat
: Shabbat & before bentching are all upbeat tunes. The Mizmor L'David sung at
: Sueda Shilshit is not sung upbeat.

I see I failed to be clear.

When we say Tehillim in an eis tzarah, we assume the point is to plea
with the A-lmighty for help. It would seem that a number of the regular
choices, though, are really more aimed at getting strength from knowing
He is there for us. "Hashem Tzevakos imanu, misgav lanu..." And yet we
still say them in a sad, rather than reassuring, tone.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

I spoke to two rabbanim about it: R' Chaim Davis (founder of the Toronto
Community Kollel, the Yeshiva Gedola of Passaic [where R' Meir Stern is
now RY] and Passaic's Beis Medrash laTorah) and R' Jack Love (who
teaches halakhah at YCT).

My first conversation with RCD focused on the question of whether there
is zei'ah (which I mis-called "hevel") without boiling. This was the key
issue to RJL as well.

My second conversation with RCD focused on whther the vapor would be
yad soledes bo (simple experiment shows it wouldn't -- hold your hand
a fraction of an inch above the cup) to treif-up the coffee maker anyway.

RJL pointed me to sources.

Rama 92:8 appears to limit the problem of zei'ah to a pot used as a lid,
and there the zei'ah is yad soledes.

The AhS (108) says the Rama is only writing about thick steam. (That being
the point of a lid.) This might be an issue with a microwave, though,
because the walls can get dripping wet. But I don't know of anyone who
still (now that their workings are better known) says microwaves don't
need kashering.

The coffee machine is okay.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:02:32 +0300
From: "Marty Bluke" 
Subject: Re: [Avodah] D'rabanan vs.

>R' Michael Makovi wrote:
>>I don't really like the model of mitzvot having intrinsic effects
>>onthe>>universe. For example, when I eat treif, or when I put
>>ontefillin, I don't>>really think anything spiritual is
>>happening in the universe.

>Eating non-kosher it would seem is intrinsically harmful for a
>person's>soul even if they eat it b'heter. The Ran in his Drashos
>says this>explicitly. ...

The following blogger discusses the differences between the Rambam and his
non-mystical approach and the Ramban and his school at their mystical
approach:  http://yediah.blogspot.com/ in many
of his postings and he apparently advocates the approach of the Rambam. 
The Ran was from the Ramban's school of thought. The reaction of the
mystics to the Rambam's non-mysticism was to publicly teach mysticism and
publish their mystical texts. 

Centuries later the positions of the Arizal and thereafter the Besht were
widely adopted (see Rav Aharon Feldman's article at http://www.zootor
ah.com/controversy/ravaharon.html in which he controversially states
that such has delegitimized the former position).

IIUC, the point of Rav Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff's lecture that was cited by
Michah in his Aspaqlaria article is that chassidim and others consider
gezeir and takkanot of the rabbanam as also having intrinsic mystical
effects and not as being merely being a siyag to de-oreitas. The position
of the Rambam is that mitzot do not have intrinsic mystical effects but
were given by HKBH to perfect us through our actions in olam hazeh. Of
course the Rambam would then say that by doing so and increasing our
knowlege of HKBH we improve our active intellects (our souls). So IIUC the
Rambam sees olam hazeh actions affecting our souls while the Ramban posits
direct other-wordly effects which then return to effect our souls. So the
Ramban sees the effects as being mediated through a mystical universe while
the Rambam sees the effects as being directly upon our souls and without
any such mediation.

Eliyahu

<<-- "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
If one cooks a hard boiled egg in a fleishig pot can it be eaten
together with milk
and vice-versa? i.e,. was is the halachic status of the shell?>>

The shell does not affect the status and it is a standard nat bar nat situation.

Gershon
_____________________________________________________________
Amazing travel deals.  Click here for a great deal on a Bahama vacation.
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nJs6ElZFXirTpsdQ7x8BUCh4xyCF0ENHKNGD9hUmLFMbN7E/?c
ount=1234567890

 
Does anyone know of any sh"ut or academic sources that discuss the
powers/responsibilities of nesiim of the shvatim?  In particular, how
would they interrelate with the melech or shofet? (e.g. how could the
shvatim refuse to go to war?)

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080602/d468efc9/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 207
***************************************

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..."