Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 211

Tue, 03 Jun 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@sibson.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:38:52 -0400
Re: [Avodah] D'rabanan vs. D'oraita

>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.
> R' Marty Bluke

> ... 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<<
>  R' Toby Katz

And it just so happens that the amount of bitul needed to physically do
away with kashrut problem also does away with the timtum problem (or why
does bittul brov or bshishim work, and why any difference if it is
objectively poison)

BTW I don't think anyone holds the non-Jewish wet nurses milk is not
kosher - just not recommended due to timtum.

Joel Rich
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.

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Harv Perchere" <harvpech@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:07:08 -0400
[Avodah] Tone of Tehillim

I have been reading with great interest as a new subscriber the Avodah list
thread about
Tehillim, and their Tone.

IMHO, regarding tone, I think it's axiomatic, that once a group of people
are gathered together
for prayer for a severe situation R"L, it would be hard to change the nusach
mid-tune so to speak
then suddenly switch to something upbeat, once the call and response psukim
are being
read in a serious tone, which is certainly appropriate.  In other words,
there's probably
no such thing as ending on an up note.

Regarding the psukim we sing on Friday night in Kabbalas Shabbos, and how a
lot of those
pesukim are somewhat negative in comparison, ArtScroll Tehillim, in my
2-volume set
goes on in some detail listing many mefarshim who commentate on the nature
of these
kapitlach in the 90s that we sing on Friday night.

In short, the theme seems to be, Shabbos is M'Eyn Olam Habah, and therefore,
come, let's
realize that we are now zocheh to a taste of this, perhaps in contrast to
the Dor HaMidbar,
which may not have been.  I would be doing the ArtScroll's masterful job
injustice to
describe the myriad pshatim, further, but that's essentially the pshat in
the mix of
themes in these psukim.


Harv Pechere
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Doron Beckerman" <beck072@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:47:46 +0300
Re: [Avodah] tearing toilet paper on Shabbat

>> RDB:  I think it is if one is going to have to wipe his Ni'a on his
sleeve (which is problematic on Shabbos anyhow).
     RMK: Huh? What's the problem? <<

RDB: See Mishnah Berurah 302:(55) re putting a child on your lap without
something to block him potentially leaking on you. It's best avoided due to
a concern of one being Melaben the stain. Directly dirtying your garment
might be worse, though I could  hear a Sevara that if you are actively
dirtying the garment you are showing that you don't mind it being dirty and
will not be Melaben. It may be, though, that you'll see the actual stain and
regret your hasty decision.

>> RDB: And for sure if it is going to drip out of his nose it is under
kavod Habriyos. See Rashi to Shabbos 81b that even having something visibly
stuck between your teeth is an issue of Kavod Habriyos. RSZA is lenient even
on taking medicine is such a case when the Ni'a is leaking from his nose and
is an issue of Kavod Habriyos (brought in a footnote in SSK).
   RMK: Where is this footnote in SSK? <<

RDB: SSK 34:(52)

>>  Would the same thing apply to a cough, which is annoying to those around
you?  One shabbos a few weeks ago my allergies were particularly bad, and my
coughing was such that the person sitting in front of me in shul moved to a
different seat.  I think he was being hypersensitive, but according to what
you're saying, it may have been muttar to take Benadryl or something to
solve the problem. <<

If it's just him being annoyed, especially if you think he's being
hypersensitive, (and therefore there is no objective reason for you to be
mortified) I'm not sure that falls under K'vod HaBriyos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Doron Beckerman" <beck072@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:51:52 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Long payos (was: [Arevim] Hostu nochgeschaut]

RHM writes:
>> But over the last few decades, it has increasingly become the custom for
non Chasidic Charedi Bachurim to grow out their peyos, trim them, and put
them behind their ears.
 Is there a halachic basis for that? <<

I suggested a while back on the "Yeshivishe Payos" thread that the basis for
this was the interpretation of the Aruch and the Rashba (along with other
Rishonim) to  the Gemara in Berachos regarding "Zakancha Megudal", that
growing a long beard was a way of counteracting those who took it off
entirely. Same would apply to long Peyos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: T613K@aol.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:50:35 EDT
Re: [Avodah] D'rabanan vs. D'oraita


RMM appended my name to the following quoted material, but I did  not write 
it (although I don't disagree with it).  I'm particular  about my writing and 
like to be praised or blamed for my own writing, not for  anybody else's.
==begin quoted material==


> ... 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<<
==end quoted material==

RMM then  commented:  
>>We also all know that RSRH loves  symbolic/educational
interpretations of mitzvot....

In Bamidbar  Rabbah, Parshat Chukat, a gentile asks Rabbi Yohanan about
the ritual of the  parah adumah. Rabbi Yochanan makes something up
about magic and hocus-pocus,  and the gentile leaves..... The mitzvah is 
purely symbolic and
educational,  without any intrinsic spiritual  reality.<<

My feeling is that RMM is  reading too much into Hirsch.  Shlomo Hamelech 
said -- precisely about  parah adumah -- "Amarti echkama vehi rechokah mimeni."  
So it seems  doubtful to me that RMM has plumbed the depths of what Shlomo 
Hamelech wrestled  with.

--Toby  Katz

**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:36:45 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Safeiq Sefirah

R' Samuel Svarc suggested:
> I think the answer is how "chashuv" the thing is. Similar
> to Megilas Esther that can be heard even though the general
> rule is "trei koli lo...". So too here, "mashiv haruach" is
> a daily thing for many months, a person will not remember.
> Sefira is (relatively) short and "exciting", a person will
> remember.

This logic makes sense to you and it makes sense to me. But if it had made
sense to Chazal, they would not have prohibited various activities prior to
Bedikas Chometz, from the fear that we'd forget to do it.

(Ditto for lots of other mitzvos; I just think that Bedikas Chometz is among the most likely to be remembered.)

Akiva Miller

Click here to find old friends, lovers or family.

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:47:00 -0400
[Avodah] Mood of Tehillim

But I have a question about the first psalm:
(Psalm 95).  It starts of with a resounding "Come! Let us rejoice!" but
ends on "and I swore in My wrath that they shall not enter the land of
contentment." Frankly, if I were the one putting Kabbalat Shabbat
together, I'd be tempted to leave out the last few verses of that Psalm.
Of course, I'm sure I could find some good reasons to include it. Do you
know of any commentator who talks about this?

I don't know of any commentator off hand but I have my own thoughts.
Just like you break the glass at a chasana and when building a new house
leave an area unfinished, so too, for Kabbalas Shabbos, the last  
it the broken glass.

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:27:25 -0700
[Avodah] greatest nassi

[not my pshat]  was  netanel ben tzuar, who used his day in the spotlight 
[#2], to not one-up the korban of nachshon, which would have led to an 
economic  spiral.
another reason to lest all 12 in detail---- the RBSO  rewarded them for 
setting a good economic example for klal yisrael....
a lesson ledoros not yet learned......

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:37:18 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Kabbalat Shabbat poetry

I don't know about RPS's observation, but this gives me an opportunity
to point out something I noticed years ago about the transitions
between Psalms 96-97 and 98-99.  The first time Hashem judges with
"emunah", i.e. chesed.  Therefore He comes twice, with enthusiasm, and
the result is "tagel ha'aretz". The second time He comes with "mesharim";
this time He comes only once, with less fuss, as in "smol doche" with
the "yad rafeh"; and the result is "yirgezu amim".

Now I'm not proposing this as actual pshat; I think of it more as a
mnemonic for not getting lost between these two transitions when
davening without a siddur; but it is interesting.

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

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:09:09 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Fish and milk

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

>    1. what in the context of the Darchei Moshe forces you to say his
>       statement is NOT a reference to scribal or printer error?

The original din in the Tur is that fish that was cooked in milk is
mutar, i.e. that the issur of basar bechalav does not apply to fish.

The BY comments that the Tur here means there's no issur of basar
bechalav, but not that it's actually permitted lemaaseh, because
there's another unrelated issur: that of sakanah.  So in practise
fish and milk is in fact forbidden, but for a completely different
reason, and thus the Tur's point is valid.

The DM comments "nitchalef lo basar bechalav".

Now it is absolutely impossible that the BY originally wrote, or
even meant to write, "fish and meat", because if so what's his point?
The Tur is talking about fish and milk, not fish and meat.  The issur
(mipnei sakana) on fish and meat doesn't in any way contradict the Tur.
The BY must have written "milk", and meant "milk".  No later copyist
introduced this error, if error it is, and nor did the BY's hand slip
and write a different word than his brain was telling it to write.
And the DM cannot mean that.  Rather, the DM means that the BY, when
he wrote this, had actually confused meat and milk, and thought at
that moment that the issur sakana was on fish and milk, rather than
fish and meat.

>  2. There is no mention in any of the Rishonim AFAIK re: davening
>  arbis late for Shavuos?nevertheless  the Taz mentions it. Why
>  can't the BY be adding/manufacturing  a new halacah/humra/minhag?

Indeed, those who defend this BY say exactly that.  That the BY was
referring to a different sakana, besides the one from mixing fish
and meat.  The Pachad Yitzchak cites medical evidence that there is
indeed such a sakana, and says this was what the BY had in mind.

There's a slight difficulty with this, because the BY explicitly
references the siman in OC where he mentions the sakana from mixing
fish and meat.  In that siman there is no mention of milk.  That's
why the DM says what he says.  But one could answer that the BY
didn't mean that the issur is explicitly mentioned in that siman,
but that a *similar* issur is mentioned there, and *just as* one
may not mix fish with meat, as said in that siman, so *also* one
may not mix it with milk.  In modern footnoting convention, one
might say, the BY would have written "cf" or "re'eh" before the
siman number, rather than "km"sh".

One may also say that Occam's razor tends toward the DM's answer,
to ascribe the BY to a mistake rather than invent a new sakana that
we've never heard of elsewhere.

In practise, most Sefardim seem to follow this BY, at least to some
extent, while among Ashkenazim AFAIK only some Chasidim do so.  I
speculate that the Chasidim copied this practise from Sefardim,
along with many other practises.

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

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:36:08 -0400
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] 40 Years Ago

Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> BTW, what was a magreifah, and could it be related to the bagpipe?
>> (Serious answers on Avodah, please.)
> Possibly a kind of water-powered organ. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_organ

She'elas tam: mimai that "magreifah" was a musical instrument?
I had always assumed it was the tool used for terumas hadeshen, and
the sound came from the Cohen dropping it on the mizbeach, or banging
it against the mizbeach.

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

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:40:57 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Sign of Strength

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 04:24:37PM -0400, cantorwolberg@cox.net wrote:
> : Only then will Jerusalem will be what its name means ??? Yeru, Aramaic
> : for city, of Shalom, Peace, and also, (since Shalom is one of God's Names)
> : [city of] God.
> It's a stretch, IMHO, to associate "Yeru" with "Ur" (as in: Ur Kasdim).
> Two years ago <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/05/yom-yerushalayim.shtml>
> I suggested the name of the city was a portmanteau of Avraham's words,
> asher yei'amer hayom "behar Hashem YEIRA'EH" with Malkizedeq melekh
> SHALEIM's message of shalom and sheleimus.

I don't recall you saying it, but isn't that what everyone says?
Seriously, I recall learning that in primary school, and it never
occurred to me that it wasn't common and uncontroversial knowledge.
Isn't that why it's spelled with no yud before the mem?

Though it would be the first half of the pasuk you quote, "And Avraham
named the place 'Hashem Yir'eh'", that matters, not the reason why he
did so.  And what matters about Malkitzedek is not his message of peace
but the name the city had in his day.

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


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 211

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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

< Previous Next >