Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 219

Fri, 13 Jun 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:17:25 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Tachnun

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>

> From Rosh Chodesh Sivan until the 8th of Sivan (Isru Chag) we do not say
> Tachnun. Some do not say Tachnun until the 12th of Sivan, and in the
> Diaspora until the 13th of Sivan.
> *Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 494:3, Piskei Tshuvos 494:9**
> *
> Do any of you not say tachnun until the 13th?
> Isru Chag sameach.
> ri

Cong. Beth Aaron in Teaneck does not say until the 13th AFAIK
OTOH Yekkes resume the day after isur hag

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:24:38 -0400
Re: [Avodah] 2nd day Y"T

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>

> 23 Nisan 5766
> *Keeping 1 or 2 days Yom Tov in Israel
> Rabbi Jonathan Blass *
> *Question:*
> A tourist from America, is there any rationale for him keeping only 1 day
> Yom Tov when in Israel?
> *Answer:*
> The Chacham Tzvi (Shu"t Chacham Tzvi 167)

Yashe Koach for the source

> believes that even a tourist should observe only one day of Yom Tov when he
> is in Israel. The rationale for this is that even when the calendar was set
> month after month by the Sanhedrin on the basis of witnesses who testified
> to seeing the new moon, someone who lived far from Jerusalem would keep a
> second day of Yom Tov only on those Yamim Tovim when he was at home and did
> not know when the new moon was seen. In a year when he was in Israel he
> would keep one day. Today, if the entire community outside of israel moved
> to Israel it would keep only one day for this reason.
> Most poskim did not accept the opinion of the Chacham Tzvi. Harav Shlomo
> Zalman Auerbach (Shu"t MInchat Shlomo I 19) explains the reason for this:
> the decision to keep a second day outside of Israel even at a time when the
> Jewish calendar is permanently set and no doubt exists anywhere in the world
> as to the Jewish date, binds the resident of "chutz laaretz" (lands outside
> of Israel) wherever he may be, even when he is in Israel.

This makes no sense to me
The Ruling is that:
"v'Atem minhag avoseichem bideichem" so keep two days.
There is no evidence that the tradition of keeping two days whilst in Golah
ever applied to a sojourner in Israel. There is simply no such Minhag
Avoseinu  [see below]

It is only the Rambam AFAIK who holds that the minhag avoseichem is actually
batel and this is a new piece of legislation-  hence the mimah nafsach of
nolad and of making an eruv tavshillin will not work leshitaso. OTOH
Leshitas all other poskim it WILL work [exempt RH of course]f which means
the original legislation WAS simply perpetuating the existing minhag.

It is also a fact that YT sheiin is considered and construed as a Minahg by
Rabbeinu Tam - in fact he uses THAT a precedent of making bracha on a
minhag.  According to the logic above, viz Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
(Shu"t MInchat Shlomo I 19) the bracha on Hallel of Rosh Chodesh MUST GO
because it is founded on YT sheini being "only" a minhag - yet one that
requires a bracha. adn that is how Rabbeinu Tam jsutifies a baracha on Halle
of Rosh Hodesh!

Again, that minhag was how to observe YT shein  IN THE GOLAH. The Hacham Zvi
is correct that this could not be a minhag hamakom in the tradtional sense,
because there is no minahg of how to observe YT sheini for a ben Golah In
Israel, unless their family were visitors.

And to think about it, Olei Regel from Bavel, would THEY observe YT Sheini?
I kinda doubt it . It seems logical to say that once in the prcincts of EY
the s'feika deyoma is not operative. But I do concede that the poskim seemed
to have ignored this principle.

Nosnim lo humra of the place he left just dos not seem applicable when the
underlying humra is based upon a position  in which the person is no longer
in viz. a place with a safeik.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:31:21 -0400
[Avodah] You be the Poseik: Are Two Kiddshumim Better Than

 Are Two Kiddshumim Better Than One?
OR To Make Kiddush or NOT to make Kiddush?


   1. There is a Friday Night minyan in a shul at a Nursing Home.
   2. The Minhag there is to make Kiddush at the Minyan in the shul.
   3. Recently, the few residents who DO attend this minyan want to have a 2
   nd Kiddush for themselves in the adjacent dining room after minyan.

 Q: Given the fact that the residents will be making Kiddush later anyway IN
THE SAME BUILDING- should Kiddush be made at In the Shul anyway?

Two Rabbis are in dispute on this issue: Rabbi Avraham [RA] & Rabbi Yitzchok

Rabbi Avraham says:Say Kiddush twice. First one in shul is due to Minhag
only. Second is a real Kiddush for residents.

Rabbi Yitzchak argues and says say only once in dining room, Since the
original Takkanah of Kiddush for orchim is actually being ignored by the
only people subject to it.

RA says that Minhag is to say, original Takanah is ignored, anyway.

RI says, does a shul say Kiddush twice on Sukkos once in the shul and again
in the Sukkah in order to keep up the minhag of saying in shul?

RA counters that re: Sukkah, it over-rides the Minhag

RI counters that given that those who benefit from kiddush in shul are
mochel this benefit it's a bracah levataah. That the second kiddush
over-rides th Minhag of first Kiddush. PLUS since in Yeshivos Kiddush is
said on presmies in dining room it exempts the minyan in Yeshiva from saying
Kiddush in the Beis Midrashl. This analogy exmpts Kiddush from shul given
that it will be repeated for locals in dining room.

RA counters, but not all those in minyan eat in dining room so for THEM
Kiddush in shul is neede.

RI counters that since the main takkanah is for Orchim in the shul, those
who daven there but do not eat there don't really count anyway. And since
the residents are taking the role of Orchim the Kiddush is levatalah.

And on it goes. So YOU make the call!
[NB: If you want you may post your answers to the comments section of

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
Posted By Rabbi Richard Wolpoe to
6/12/2008 09:22:00 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Silverman, Philip B" <Philip.Silverman@bcbsga.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:52:01 -0400
[Avodah] Hoshea verse

Maybe the chevra can answer a question I have on a verse in Hoshea.


"For the children of Israel shall remain for many days without king, and
without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without
ephod or teraphim..." -- Hoshea 3:4


The list of things we Jews will be without for generations appears to be
jumbled up. It mixes up things we're /sad*/ don't exist with things
we're /glad*/ don't exist.  Why is that?  (*If these assessments are
mistaken, let me know.)


I'll post verse 3:5, too, not because it's related to my question, but
because I particularly /like/ it:

"Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their
God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and
to His goodness at the end of days."





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

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:04:40 GMT
Re: [Avodah] D'rabanan vs. D'oraita

I wrote:
> I would [argue] that this applies only if both were Real
> Rabbis, that is to say, with Real Semicha -- which we do not
> have today. Today, they would both be affected the same way,
> though were can't be certain whether it was Rabbi X or Rabbi
> Y who was correct.

In the thread "derabban and deoraisa", R' Eli Turkel asked:
> Real Semicha makes a difference for a bet din, malkot or
> monetary fines why should it make a difference for Yoreh
> Deah type questions?

I admit that I could be wrong, but my logic is this: Without Real Semicha,
a Rabbi (Rav, Posek, Chacham, Gadol Hador, whatever) is just an ordinary
Jew who knows a lot of Torah. If he has Today's Kind Of Semicha, then he
also has permission from his teacher to answer questions about halacha.

But when he answers questions about halacha, he is simply telling us that
according to his view of things, the halacha ought to be this way or that
way. He does NOT have the authority to *obligate* us follow this halacha or
that halacha. That authority is given only to Beis Din. (I think it is also
given to the Av Beis Din, and I think it is a machlokes whether or not an
individual Musmach has this authority.)

There is a common misconception that if my LOR paskens l'chumra to me on a
given question, then I am obligated to do what he says or else I'll be
punished for it, and that if he paskens l'kula, then I have carte blanche
to follow his leniency. This is an urban legend; I have never seen or heard
anything to justify the above beliefs. (Anyone who cites the Teshuvas
HaRivash in support of it has seen a different version than I saw; from
what I've seen of the Rivash, he discusses Today's Semicha purely in terms
of a student having proper kavod for his teacher, and local rabbis staying
off each other's turf.)

None of the above should be interpreted as allowed everyone to pasken for
himself. A person should and *must* seek the counsel and advice of someone
who knows more Torah than he does. The only error is in considering that
advice to be *binding*.

Akiva Miller

Boost your online security with a personal firewall. Click here!

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:47:13 GMT
[Avodah] Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara?

Rashi (B'haalos'cha 12:1) quotes Rabi Nasan: "Miriam was at Tziporah's side
when they told Moshe, 'Eldad and Medad are having nevuah in the camp.' When
Tziporah heard, she said, 'Oy to their wives! If they get nevuah, they'll
separate from their wives, like my husband separated from me.' That's how
Miriam knew."

Was it Lashon Hara for Tziporah to say this to Miriam? It sure sounds like a complaint to me.

If it was not LH, why not? And if it was, then are there any Chazals which take Tziporah to task for this?

Akiva Miller

Free information - Learn about Email Marketing. Click now!

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Stuart Feldhamer" <stuart.feldhamer@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:58:30 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Hoshea verse

You're reading it correctly, except the distinction is more between good
things and bad things.  Essentially the Jews are being compared to a wayward
woman who is cheating on her husband.  Hoshea is furthermore being
symbolically asked to take a wife who will be unfaithful to him, just as the
Jews are unfaithful to Hashem who loves them. Hoshea is then to tell her
that she can no longer sleep around, but he will also not be with her. The
nimshal in pasuk 4 (which you quoted) is that in the future, the Jews will
not have either G-d or their avodah zarah to lean upon. They will realize
that the avodah zara is worthless and G-d won't help them either. Sort of
like a parent that says, "well if you can't make up your mind, then you'll
get neither". Then eventually they will finally realize that they should
have been faithful to G-d all along (Pasuk 5).




From: avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Silverman, Philip B
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:52 AM
To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
Subject: [Avodah] Hoshea verse


Maybe the chevra can answer a question I have on a verse in Hoshea.


"For the children of Israel shall remain for many days without king, and
without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without ephod
or teraphim." -- Hoshea 3:4


The list of things we Jews will be without for generations appears to be
jumbled up. It mixes up things we're /sad*/ don't exist with things we're
/glad*/ don't exist.  Why is that?  (*If these assessments are mistaken, let
me know.)


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

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:03:39 -0400
Re: [Avodah] An old Pshat and a Question About Milchig on

>> The Malochim protested that the Jews should not be given the Torah.

> ===================================



> And this you understood? Do malachim have free will to protest hkb"h's 

> actions?

> KT

> Joel Rich


Why would you think otherwise? Besides for all the places where it says that
they did actually disobey or could (fruit trees, by kol nidrei, etc.), what
is the sevara not that way? AFAIK, only that the malachs knowledge is on a
much clearer level, but this doesn't preclude them from choosing to disobey.





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


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 219

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 >