Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 230

Mon, 16 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: Vegetarians (torahm...@gmail.com)
• 2. Raw food on Erev Shabbos (I. Balbin)
• 3. Moda Ani (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 4. Re: Moda ani (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Raw food on Erev Shabbos (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Raw food on Erev Shabbos (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. Re: Using Company Time (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Vegetarians (Shayna Korb)
• 10. Re: Vegetarians (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: Vegetarians (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: having a melech: lechatchila or bideved??? (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (T613K@aol.com)
• 14. chukotav & rashi (Harvey Benton)
• 15. Re: Bereshit 23: 6-16 (T6...@aol.com)
• 16. Re: akeidah (T6...@aol.com)

<continuing from Areivim>

 Whilst on the subject of Tzaar ba'alei chaim, can anyone explain the
gemora on BavaMetzia 85a, that
says Rebbe was punished for telling a fleeing korbon, to go be a korbon?

 I never understood this gemora- What exactly did he do wrong? What
should he have done? Tzaar baalei chaim isn't classically understood
to require one
to not kill an animal just because it doesn't want to be killed.

 Thanks!

      Mike

I heard Rav Schachter mention (yutorah.org shiur on bishul b'shabbos) in the name of Rav Soloveitchik that there are two hanhogos for the following situation:

Erev Shabbos, just before licht tzinden, someone places a kettle containing
tap water on a Grufa uKtuma heat source. According to those from Lita, it
is mutar, presumably because the person is mesiach daas from the kettle. I
assume the same holds for placing a raw chicken in one our regular ovens.
(some put it in a metal box I believe so that there is no Mechze K'Mvashel)
The minhag of Galicia (and I assume the rest of Poland) is to be choshesh
to the Kasha by Rabbi A. Eiger on the Mechaber as brought in his comments
to the Mishna in Shabbos "Ain Zolin" on 19B in reference to the Rashbo in
Shabbos 36B where the Rashbo is also choshesh for "Shemo Yagis"

How are people Noheg (both for liquid (eg water) and solid (eg chicken, or perhaps cholent)?

Personally, we always make sure dry is machol ben drusoi or yad soledes ....

    Upon waking a woman should say "Moda ani le-fanecha, melekh hai ve-kayam..." 
    Sources: R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Halikhot Shlomo, Hilkhot Tefilla,
    sec. 2, Devar Halakha, no. 5; R. Efraim Greenblatt, Resp. Rivevot
    Efrayyim, I, sec. 37, no. 2; Siddur Rinat Yisrael, R. Solomon Tal, ed.;
    Moreshet: Jerusalem, 5743; ha-Siddur le-Bat Yisrael, Yeshivat Ohr
    ve-Derekh: Jerusalem, 5748; Siddur Tefillat Hana, R. Isaac Bar-Da, ed.;
    Ramat Gan, 5746; Siddur Hazon Ovadiah ha-Shalem, Yeshivat Hazon
    Ovadiah: Jerusalem, 5748; R. Isaac Yosef, Dinei Hinukh Katan uBar
    Mitsva, Kuntres Dinei Hinukh Katan, sec. 1. 
    Similarly, according to the Roedelheim Siddur Sfat Emet - which was
    probably the most widely used Siddur in the Orthodox communities of
    pre-war Germany - women should say Modah Ani upon waking up. The same
    is the text of Siddur Rinat Yisrael
--------------------------------
Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il
Cellphone: 972-54-7540761
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091115/7ecf4b7b/attachment-0001.htm>

 

>> I think this topic is a great example of "lo ra'inu aino  raaya" 
(absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). If we can't find any  siddurim 
which include "modah", one could easily argue that this says nothing  about 
how the women davened, but that it shows *who* used the siddurim. In other  
words, one could argue that women have been saying "modah" for ages, but that 
it  was passed on orally; if women were less literate than men, why bother 
printing  it in the siddur? <<

Akiva Miller

 
>>>>>>
 
You think women in general knew Hebrew grammar?  Doubtful.  
 
I was taught to say "Modeh ani" long before I could read or learn from a  
siddur what to say, and the thought of saying "modah" never entered my mind  
until the subject showed up here on Avodah in its first incarnation a few 
years  ago.  My mother said "modeh," her mother said "modeh" and who knows how 
far  back it went?  
 
If there was a time in the past when women said "Modah" why would that ever 
 have changed?  Mothers are the ones who get their little ones up in the  
morning.  
 
(If BTW it's true that the Gra thought "modah" was right, that is  
absolutely zero proof that women ever did what the Gra thought they should do --  he 
might well have been innovating something new, something that made sense  
logically but was not up until then the common practice.) (And the Gra  was 
big but we are not big, so if we can rely on him, good -- we'll see if RMB  
can come up with that citation -- but if not, we should not be getting uppity 
 ideas about changing things ourselves on the basis of our own logic.)
 

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



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091115/90c62fdc/attachment-0001.htm>

If the heat source is grufa uktuma, meaning you can no longer change the 
temperature, then why do you need mesiach da'at?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "I. Balbin" <Isaac.Bal...@rmit.edu.au>



>I heard Rav Schachter mention (yutorah.org shiur on bishul b'shabbos) in 
>the name of Rav Soloveitchik that there are two hanhogos for the following 
>situation:
>
> Erev Shabbos, just before licht tzinden, someone places a kettle 
> containing tap water on a Grufa uKtuma heat source. According to those 
> from Lita, it is mutar, presumably because the person is mesiach daas from 
> the kettle. I 

I never heard of anyone taking advantage of that heter lema'aseh.  Rav
Henkin z"l said one should not since (this is from memory) we are not
sure when "just before Shabbos" is, and therefore the likelihood is that
the food will be partly cooked by the time (real) Shabbos starts.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
 
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:46:57 +1100 "I. Balbin" <Isaac.Bal...@rmit.edu.au>
writes:
> I heard Rav Schachter mention (yutorah.org shiur on bishul b'shabbos) 
> in the name of Rav Soloveitchik that there are two hanhogos for the 
> following situation:
____________________________________________________________
Doctorate Degrees Online
Boost your career with an online doctoral degree. Enroll today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=Qt-QywmiM8S9wyx4qg0MFgAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAGJN8j4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyOQAAAAA=

>
> 1- The difference between a po'el and an uman -- how much are they paid
> to work certain hours, and how much is it by getting the job done. Most
> modern professins are somewhere in between -- if you aren't making a
> deadline but you put in some overtime to try, you're okay. Putting in
> the time but not getting work done or getting the work done on time but
> chatting on Avodah/Areivim for 6 hours out of 9 would both typically be
> grounds for dismissal. Our current employment agreements are therefore
> somewhere in the middle. Again, IMHO.
>
LK: I think there is an big difference between working hard enough to not
get fired vs. working hard enough for your employer to be happy with you vs.
working hard enough to get a big promotion. If we are halachically obligated
to work b'chol kocheinu, that's not simply making sure "you're okay".

>
> 2- Contracts vs expectations, today vs the gemara. In the days of the
> gemara, hand labor in the orchards meant not having the time to get out
> of the tree for minchah. Few of us are in those kinds of jobs. Also,
> there is usually a gap between the terms in the contract and the
> informal understanding of our business culture. How much to each of
> these -- the norm at the time the halakhah was codified, the norm today,
> and the contract you signed -- each play into my obligations toward my
> boss.
>
LK: This is where I am seeing a big conflict in halachic sources. On the one
hand a worker is patur even from full benching or a proper mincha if they
are supposed to be working, but at the same time the mishna in Bava Metzia
(brought down l'halacha by the Rambam) states that a company cannot force
their workers to work early/late if it's not minhag hamakom. Today, the
minhag is for sure not to work non-stop from 9-5 with no work later, however
I'm sure most (non-union at least) employers would be happy if you worked
100% the whole time.
I have heard in the name of R' Heineman that government employees are only
obligated to do 4 hours of actual work in a day, but have to verify this
(and hopefully get more information on this subject as well from him.)



> 3- Does it make a difference if it's an issue of geneivas akum?

 LK: Why would it make a difference if it's geneivas akum? The main story
brought (even in the shulchan aruch) about how to behave in business is
Yaakov Avinu working for Lavan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091115/4ebd0c96/attachment-0001.htm>

Rich, Joel wrote:
> Perhaps someone could clarify for me the mechanism of this neder (e.g. 
> how does one generation make a neder for another? Does it have to be 
> articulated as such? ...)
>
>   
See Hochmath Adam klal 102.

David Riceman
_______________________________________________
Which leads back to the gemara Pesachim 50b - about 2 lines on bnai bayshan
 who had to keep their fathers' practice because of kvar kiblu and the
pasuk shma bni-the commentaries differ on whether this is a chok or whether
it flows from the children "accepting" by acting that way when they reached
the age of mitzvot.  Huge nafka mina!
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.

Hello there,

I don't think the story is about the technical definition of tzar baalei
chaim, but rather our compassion towards animals even while doing things
that we are allowed to do. Even though the lamb was meant for slaughter, it
doesn't mean it wasn't still afraid or deserving of compassion because it
was afraid, so Rebbe's comment "for this were you born" is perceived as
heartless. His punishment is lifted when he saves some weasels from being
swept out of his house, another extra-halachic action. This one is perceived
as compassionate. So even though tzar baalei chaim might not require us not
to slaughter the animal, it seems that this view of compassion requires us
not to be callous to its plight.

KT,
Shayna
(who is actually writing an article about this gemara right now, comparing
R. Elazar b. Shimon's suffering to Rebbe's)

2009/11/14 <torahm...@gmail.com>

> <continuing from Areivim>
>
>  Whilst on the subject of Tzaar ba'alei chaim, can anyone explain the
> gemora on BavaMetzia 85a, that
> says Rebbe was punished for telling a fleeing korbon, to go be a korbon?
>
>  I never understood this gemora- What exactly did he do wrong? What
> should he have done? Tzaar baalei chaim isn't classically understood
> to require one
> to not kill an animal just because it doesn't want to be killed.
>
>  Thanks!
>
>      Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091115/38eb2e51/attachment-0001.htm>

torahm...@gmail.com
> can anyone explain the gemora on BavaMetzia 85a, that says Rebbe was
> punished for telling a fleeing korbon, to go be a korbon?

> I never understood this gemora- What exactly did he do wrong? What should
> he have done? Tzaar baalei chaim isn't classically understood to require
> one to not kill an animal just because it doesn't want to be killed.

Clue to the "sin" of Rebbe

What cured him?
IIRC he took rachmanus on a cat being swept awy by the maid

Working backwards, apparently it was Rebbe's lack of empathy for the
animal that was the isssue, not that he should have altered his fate

Digression:
RYDS once had to tell a couple composed of cohen and giyores that the
shidduch must be dissolved.

The story goes that he paced "all night long" wrestling with this.

His talmiddim asked: "Rebbe, what's the question? The Halachah is
straightforward!"

RYDS replied: "But HOW do I tell them..?"

Source: R Julius Berman at a Hazkara.

AIUI
Rebbe could not have altered the fate of the animal, but for his madreiga,
he lacked eampathy for the animal's fate.

I think few of us are on that level that we can really see that as a
"character flaw". It was aisi a factor of being rabbeinu haqaosh.
Nevertheless we can still learn empathy for the suffering even for
the inevitable.

KT
RRw
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

torahm...@gmail.com wrote:
> <continuing from Areivim>
> 
>  Whilst on the subject of Tzaar ba'alei chaim, can anyone explain the
> gemora on BavaMetzia 85a, that says Rebbe was punished for telling a
> fleeing korbon, to go be a korbon?

Rebbi couldn't possibly have confronted a fleeing korbon.  He never
saw a korbon in his life.   The calf was fleeing an ordinary shechita.


>  I never understood this gemora- What exactly did he do wrong? What
> should he have done? Tzaar baalei chaim isn't classically understood
> to require one to not kill an animal just because it doesn't want to
> be killed.

The objection seems to have been to his lack of sympathy.  We're told
his words, but not the tone of voice in which he said them.  Also, a
rosh sanhedrin, in whose hands people's lives potentially rest (even
though in Rebbi's day capital cases were not heard), should have a
softer heart than most people; even ordinary sanhedrin members must
not be childless or too old, because such people tend to be harsh with
other people.  So it seems to me that what he should have done was pat
the calf and calm it down, and then quietly signalled to the people
from whom it escaped to come and take it gently, without frightening it.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

David Riceman wrote:
> Harvey Benton wrote:
>> Is having a melech a bidieved or a lechatchila?
>>   
> See Ibn Ezra Shoftim 17:15 s.v. "Som Tasim".
>
> David Riceman
>
And see Rabbi Hartman's footnote 14 in his edition of Gur Aryeh Noah 
10:8 (and, of course, what the Maharal says there).

David Riceman

 
 
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com

>>  Also see above that the Aruch Laner that states "New moon is never
visible in  the morning" <<

>>>>>
Those of you with scientific knowledge -- is this true?  

 
Re Ber. 19:23, Sodom was destroyed as the sun rose.  Rashi says  there it 
was the time when the sun and the moon are both in the sky (so that  
sun-worshippers and moon-worshippers would both see that their gods could not  save 
them). A/S in a footnote says, "Each day the moon rises and sets about  
fifty minutes later than the previous day.  In the middle of the lunar  month 
when the moon is full, it rises at about sunset and sets at about  sunrise.  
Thus, on the dawn of the sixteenth of Nisan, the day on which  Sodom was 
destroyed, the sun and the moon are both visible at dawn."  This  seems to 
indicate that only the full moon, but not the new moon, is visible  at dawn.  
 
However, see this picture that I found of the new moon apparently visible  
at dawn -- or perhaps this is just /before/ dawn and once the sun rises, the 
new  moon will no longer be visible?
 
 
_http://thegreenbelt.blogspot.com/2009/05/sky-watch-new-moon-and-mor
ning-sta
r-2.html_ 
(http://thegreenbelt.blogspot.com/2009/05/sky-watch-new-moo
n-and-morning-star-2.html) 
 

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




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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091115/abe29969/attachment-0001.htm>

this week's parsha mentions mitzvotav, chukotav and torotav; on chukotav, rashi mentions that they are things without reason, a gezeiras hamelech; 
(he gives as examples chazir and shatnez); do other meforshim agree with rashi that there are no reasons for these kinds of mitzvos? or is it possible
that there ARE reasons, but just don't know what they are???
hb


      

 


>> What is going on in these 10 pesouqim?....


.....Why  such a large concentration of SH.M.'A. in these pesouqim?

Do we find this  any where else?

If that wasn't enough we also have all these instances of  people talking
into ears.



This may sound silly but was  everyone deaf???



Any ideas? <<



Joey  Mosseri

 
 
 
>>>>>>>
 
A big part of it is Ephron making a big deal out of his supposed generosity 
 by talking "in the ears" of his clansmen and townspeople -- it highlights 
his  hypocrisy.  He really has no intention of giving Me'aras Hamachpela to  
Avraham as a gift -- on the contrary, he is greedy and wants top dollar -- 
but  he wants to appear like a paragon of generosity in front of his 
audience.  
 
And then part of it is that Avraham "hears"  -- REALLY hears -- what  
Ephron is /really/ saying -- and says, "Just as you said, here, I'm giving you  
400 shekels for your land."  Just as you said?  He said he was giving  it as 
a gift!  But Avraham /heard/ his real intention when he said  publicly, 
"It's worth 400 shekels."  
 
Actually Ephron way overpriced it but Avraham paid the full price and  
said, again in the ears of everybody -- a large public gathering, evidently --  
"I've bought this land and it's mine and my children's forever now, bought 
and  paid for in front of ("in the hearing of" -- "in the ears of") everybody 
here,  everybody who might possibly ever try to make a claim."  If there is 
any  spot in E'Y that absolutely totally and forever BELONGS TO US it is 
Me'aras  Hamachpela, the resting place of our Fathers and Mothers.  May  G-d 
curse the nations who try to take it from us, the bloody thieves.
 

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



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091115/657aafcb/attachment-0001.htm>

 

In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 224 dated 11/10/2009 R' Eli  Turkel  
writes: 



[1]  Rashi brings that the 2 "boys" (naarim) were Eliezer and  Yishmael.
Interesting that
after being evicted Yishmael is now a servant  of Abraham. Chumash itself 
only
notes that Yishmael came to Abraham's  funeral not anything in between.
Accepting the other midrash that Yitzchak  was 37 then Yishmael was 37+15=51
not exactly a "naar". Elizer was also  obviously not a "naar"

[2] One of the big questions is whether Abraham  lived in Hebron or Beer
Sheva at the time
and where was Sarah at that  time, seems like she was in Hebron and
Abraham in Beer Sheva.
-- 
Eli  Turkel

 
 
>>>>>
[1] The word "na'ar" seems to refer not only to a young person but to a  
person who is subordinate in some respect to the godol or zaken -- the  
servant, attendant or student is a na'ar, no matter how old.  See Shmos  33:11, 
where Yehoshua is called a "na'ar"  -- "Vediber Hashem el  Moshe...umeshorso 
Yehoshua bin Nun *na'ar* lo yamish mitoch ha'ohel."  
 
It is clear that Yehoshua is called a na'ar to indicate that he was Moshe's 
 subordinate, attendant and student.  
 
How old was Yehoshua at this time, when he is called a na'ar?  Well,  this 
is after the chet ha'egel and before the chet hameraglim.  In Yehoshua  
14:7, Yehoshua says, "Ben arba'im shana anochi bishloach Moshe eved Hashem osi  
miKadesh Barnea leragel es ha'aretz" -- "I was forty years old when Moshe 
sent  me to spy out the Land."  So when he was referred to as a na'ar,  a 
little bit before the incident of the meraglim, he was maybe 39 years  old.
 
[2] A casual reading of the pesukim makes it sound like Avraham was living  
in Be'er Sheva and Sarah was living in Chevron when she died!  Rashi  
anticipates this, apparently, because he talks at length, in two different  
places, about where Avraham lived and for how long -- showing that Avraham and  
Sarah did not actually live apart!
 
First you want to look at Bereshis 21: 33-34.  "Vayita eshel biVe'er  
Shava...vayagar Avraham be'eretz Plishtim yamim rabim."  Rashi says there  that 
Avraham lived in Chevron for 25 years, and then, after the destruction of  
Sedom, he moved away from that area and lived in Be'er Sheva for 26 years.   
Then he moved back to Chevron, twelve years before the Akeida.  Plainly,  
Avraham and Sarah were living in Chevron at the time of the Akeida.
 
Then you want to look at Ber. 22:19 where it says, right after the akeida,  
"....vayelchu yachdav el Be'er Shava vayeshev Avraham biVe'er Shava."  On  
the words "Veyeshev beVe'ere Shava" Rashi says, "Lo yeshiva mamash, sheharei 
 beChevron hayah yoshev" -- When it says, "He lived in Be'er Sheva" Rashi 
says  "Not actual living" -- i.e., he just stayed there for a while, maybe 
only a day  or two -- "because he was living in Chevron at the time."   Rashi 
here  again repeats that Avraham was living in Chevron at this time and had 
moved from  Be'er Sheva to Chevron already twelve years previously.
 
Now when just a few pesukim later, it says that Sarah died and that  
"Avraham came to Chevron to eulogize Sarah and to cry for her" -- Rashi fills in  
where Avraham came /from/ -- namely, from Be'er Sheva.  If at this point  
you remember (you are already in a new parsha, a week later, though it's only  
been a few  pesukim in the Chumash) --if you remember Rashi's whole  
cheshbon about Avraham living in Chevron and only going to Be'er Sheva for a  
short while after the Akeida -- you get a sense of the grief and shock that  
Avraham must have felt when he heard the news of his wife's unexpected death -- 
 and hurried home from Be'er Sheva to bury her and to mourn for her.   
Certainly when he left home with Yitzchak, he expected to be mourning a death -- 
 but he never expected that it would be his beloved wife's death that he 
would be  mourning!
 
(A question Rashi doesn't answer is, why did Avraham go to Be'er Sheva  
after the Akeida instead of returning straight home?  A helpful note in the  
A/S Chumash cites Ramban:  "He went there to give thanks to G-d at his  
eshel.")
 

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

--------------------
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20091115/14092b26/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 230
***************************************

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..."