Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 235

Sun, 22 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (Micha Berger)
• 2. How could They? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: Are there halachic issues with using the Mormon fmaily history web site? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (Chana Luntz)
• 5. halachic attitude to the convicted (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 6. Re: Yeish E'echol, Yeish Le'esor (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Raw food on Erev Shabbos (Isaac Balbin)
• 8. Esav (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Are there halachic issues with using the Mormon fmaily history web site? (Simon Montagu)
• 10. The Principal Place of the Shechinah is on Earth (Yitzchok Levine)
• 11. Re: Are there halachic issues with using the Mormon fmaily history web site? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Was Esav a Rasha in the womb? (Marty Bluke)
• 13. Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (Heather Luntz)
• 15. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

I would argue that the role minhag avos plays today is not innovation,
it's a special case. It's that we're in a period when new communities
are coalating.

When a bunch of Jews ended up living together in Ashkenaz 12 or 13
centuries ago, did they all do the same thing? Which same thing? The
practices of Italy? Israel? The few who came from Bavel because they
had exposure to the geonim?

Until a Minhag EY, Minhag America, etc... emerge, there is no minhag
hamaqom to conform to. Wait more time after the Shoah and the expulsion
from Moslem Lands, and I expect we (or more likely our grandchildren)
will be conforming to local minhagim...

... unless bayis Shelishi, a Sanhedrin and telecommunication mean that
there will be only one minhag globally on almost every issue.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

1 P. Hayyei Sarah:
How could Eliezer eved Avraham commit "nichush"?

[See Sefer Hareidim 24:51]

2 P. Toldos:
How could Yaakov [ish emes] deceive his own father Yitzchaq?

Answer: In both cases they could rely on Prophecy for heter "b'Toras
horo'as sha'ah"

1 Eliezer relied upon Avraham's guarantee:
"Hashem ...yishlach mala'acho ittach". Eliezer knew a Mal'ach was
supervising him, so his Nichush was "kosher" only within that context

2 Yaakov was told by Rivkah. And Rivkah had been told by n'vu'ah ...sHein
goyim..v'rav ya'avod tz'air. This prophecy enabled Rivkah to "force"
the issue with a deception as a ho'or'as sho'oh in order to conform to
Hashem's word

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

R' Zev Sero made several arguments for Mormons not being Avodah Zara, and thus there being no prohibition of using their resources.

I don't know enough about it to support or dispute what he wrote; I just
want to add another factor, and that it to separate what *we* do with the
information that *they* make available (which is what RZS wrote about),
from what *they* do with the information that *we* make available.

For example, it is my guess that in the course of using their resources, it
is likely that at some point one will tell them, "My name is ABC, and I'm
looking for information about my father's mother, whose name was XYZ."

I have heard that it is a goal of the Mormon church to accumulate as much
of this information as they can, because at a certain point, when they have
enough genealogical information about a person, they baptize that person by
proxy. To me, this is a good enough reason to avoid giving them any
information whatsoever, even if it is mutar to use the information they
make available.

It would not be good Public Relations for the Mormons to state their
intentions as bluntly as I've put it, but subtly-veiled references to it
can be found, if one looks hard enough, for example at http://en.wikipe
dia.org/wiki/Family_History_Library  (I also concede the possibility
that I've been the victim of a nasty urban legend, but I am not
sufficiently motivated to bother researching that possibility.)

Akiva Miller



____________________________________________________________
Can you Cook as a Career?
Free info on Le Cordon Bleu chef certification degree courses near you
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=09jzQnqcPgXYqz8Mx7LHdwAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAPT9VD4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAlkAwAAAAA=

RRW writes:

> By obligating herself, a woman is not creating an obligation 
> to DO, but to conform to the HOW whilst doing.
> 
> Similar to sh'chita and arba kanfos. A Jew is permitted to 
> kill an animal w/o shechita, but when performing sh'chita a 
> Jew must conform to Hilchos Sh'chita.
> 
> AISI, it's this submission to the rules that encompasses 
> "tzivanu" implying the HOW, as opposed to implying a 
> necessity to perform.
> 
> EG Therefore a woman may not hear a cow's horn on RH since it 
> fails to effect any mitzvah therefore it violates muktzeh, etc.
> 
> And AFAICT When a woman does s'micha on a Qorban, she must 
> also follow those rules, even thought its only r'shus

The problem is that, as I indicated in my previous post - this is *not* true
according to Tosphos (although it may well be true according to the Ra'avad
and Rashi).   Tosphos in Chullin 85a d'h nashim somchot reshut hold (as per
what would seem to be the straightforward reading of the gemora in Chagiga)
that while men do smicha with full strength, women only float their hands on
the korban. Thus they were not violating the d'orita prohibition of working
with kodshim, but rather were (or would have been absent this limud) only
violating the rabbinic prohibition of looking like one was working with
kodshim.
So your explanation specifically does not work with Tosphos as the how is
indeed different.  

> So for ashkenazim
> Reshus implies no obligation, voluntary
> 
> tzivanu implies complying to the applicable Halachos, [which 
> for women may be a voluntary complicity]

And yet the usual basis for the Ashkenazi women blessing on mitzvos aseh
shehazman grama is Tosphos, specifically the Tosphos I cited in Rosh Hashana
33a0.

BTW getting back to the original question, is the Tosphos allowing a
blessing on Hallel and the Tosphos allowing women to bless related, there is
(despite my previous answer) one key linkage, which is that one needs to
hold, as Tosphos does explicitly in that Tosphos on Rosh Hashana 33a, that
making a bracha shein tzricha is an issur d'rabbanan, and the limud in the
gemora is just an asmachta.  Because if you hold it is an issur d'orisa, as
many of the Sephardim do, then you are going to be a lot more nervous about
allowing brachos in more doubtful situations like these).

> KT
> RRW

Shavuah tov

Chana

let me see if i understand this.   if halacha does not  recognize  any of 
the following  as  incarceratable offenses --  and i am not aware that 
jail is in shulchan aruch for  these:  smuggling, sex abuse, tax evasion, 
murder--    then  we  see these victims [  ie  the convicted]  as as 
having been halachically  wronged; and we pray for their release.....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091120/547ba570/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Rich Wolpoe asked:
> What is the best way to translate "Yesh le'echol?"
> And "Yesh le'esor?"

I don't remember where I got this, but I've always understood it as
shorthand for "yesh taamim l..", "there are reasons to..." To shorten it
even further, "One ought to..."

It is used as advice, as a recommendation. It is a much *less* emphatic
phrase than a simple present tense verb (O"C 51:1 omrim Baruch She'amar) or
future tense verb (O"C 1:1 yisgaber ka'ari) which means "This *is* what we
do."

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Are you an Iron Chef?
Get info for hospitality, catering, pastry. Over 100  programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=zxPdFpSs0mXLak-us8Cr0QAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAPYoXD4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAMAAAAAA=

> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:09:50 +0200
> From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
> 
> If the heat source is grufa uktuma, meaning you can no longer change the 
> temperature, then why do you need mesiach da'at?

You probably don't according to those who matir, or rather, we aren't choshesh.

Perhaps the Osrim, viz R' Akiva Eiger on that Mishna, also feel that they
might move it to a "better" heat source because it won't be warm enough for
a cup of tea on Friday night?

I'm not sure. What surprised me, though, was that I had always thought that
everyone ensured liquid was yad soledes and davar gush was M'achol Ben
D'rusoi (according to Chananya) 

It seems I was ignorant, though, because I was advised that in Israel it is
common amongst Haredim to have a raw chicken in an oven (in one of those
metal boxes) just before Shabbos.

I take Gershon Dubin's comment from Rav Henkin that we don't know exactly
when Shabbos starts, but even so, I couldn't imagine that the chicken would
be 1/3 cooked (let alone 1/2) when shabbos comes in, nor could I imagine
that the kettle gets to Yad Soldes (45 approximately) if it's on a plata
for the 1/2 an hour of safek time. On a blech, yes, provided that it's up
high, but presumbaly it's on a very low flame so in the case of davar lach
I'll concede it might occur.

Following on from the OUs webcast on cooking for shabbos, I sent the question into Rav Belsky and Rav Shechter to get their opinion.

A Rav I know said that he normally ensures that his cholent is Ma'achol Ben Drusoi, but if he's pressed for time, he will put it in raw.

All this is according to Ashkenazim, of course. Sferadim don't pasken this way (they are more meikel in Bishul in general).

In discussing Esav=Edom we have to distinguish between various eras.
In the chumash Esav is not painted in such black terms. Though he has
his faults he does everything for his father and sincerely wants the berachot
and eventually makes up with Yaakov.

In midrashe chazal Esav=Edom (=red=blood) is identified with Rome the enemy
and the picture darkens. Many of Esav's better deeds are then re-interpreted
as not what they seem or insincere. However, even here bereshit rabbah
quotes R. Shimon ben Gamliel that the kibud av of Esav was 100 times greater
than that of RSBG. ie  Esav had good deeds and we can learn from them
(similar to other stories in the gemara about the great kibud av of
other gentiles).

In a shiur I learned today about a piyut of R. Yaanai (lived under the
Byzantine empire)
that really attacks Esav. The lecturer explained the difference that
by then Esav=Edom
represented not just the physical enemy of Rome but rather the
spiritual enemy of
Xtianity which would be completely evil. This continues through the time of
rishonim like Rashi.

Thus over the centuries Edom has been associated with various enemies
and depending
on the enemy the picture of the Torah Esav has changed.


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:04 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com
<kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:

> I have heard that it is a goal of the Mormon church to accumulate as
> much of this information as they can, because at a certain point, when
> they have enough genealogical information about a person, they baptize
> that person by proxy. To me, this is a good enough reason to avoid
> giving them any information whatsoever, even if it is mutar to use the
> information they make available.
>
> It would not be good Public Relations for the Mormons to state their
> intentions as bluntly as I've put it, but subtly-veiled references to
> it can be found, if one looks hard enough, for example at http://en.w
> ikipedia.org/wiki/Family_History_Library ?(I also concede the
> possibility that I've been the victim of a nasty urban legend, but I
> am not sufficiently motivated to bother researching that possibility.)

As far as I know this is true, and the Mormons don't make any
particular secret of it -- it is the reason why they accumulate
genealogical data in the first place.

It certainly gave me a queasy feeling when I saw in their database
that various of my ancestors had already been posthumously "baptized"
by the Mormons, but why should we really care? I don't see that
whatever ceremony is involved has any actual halachic significance.

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 28

10 Ya?akov left Be?er Sheva and set out for Charan.

Ya?akov goes forth in order to establish a Jewish home, and to achieve
this he needs only the resources inherent in his own personality. Thus
begins the story of Ya?akov, for everything that follows revolves around
the establishment of that home. Ya?akov was the first to give expression
to the idea that God is to be sought within the home. He was the first
to articulate the profound idea of Beis Elokim 
(below, v. 17), Beis - El (below,
v. 19 and 35:15), ?the house of God,? which essentially means: The
sphere in which man blossoms and thrives, the place to which he brings
all that he acquires and in which he acts and builds his life ? that sphere
is the greatest and nearest place for the revelation of God.

Ya?akov fulfilled in his life what Noach had envisioned at the new
beginning of human history: Whereas the culture of Yefes ennobles
men?s souls through the sense of beauty, the mission of Shem is ?to
pitch tents in which the Shechinah may dwell.?

The Sages of Israel have expressed an idea that contains within it a
complete worldview: Ikar Shechinah b'tachtonim, 
?the principal place of the Shechinah
is on earth? (Bereshis Rabbah 19:7); or: ?The angels laugh at
those who raise their eyes toward heaven, imagining they have to seek
God up above? (Sefer Chassidim, 18, end); or: ?He who is walking out of
doors while studying, and interrupts his study and says: ?How beautiful
is that tree!? or ?How beautiful is that field!? (thus revealing that, for
him, the study of human life and its beauty when lived in accordance
with God?s Will does not overshadow the beauty of nature) is regarded
as though he has forfeited his own soul? (Avos 3:9).

These and similar statements are a legacy to us from the spirit of
Ya?akov. Under the influence of the culture of Yefes, man flees from
ordinary, ?prosaic? life and takes refuge in the beautiful ?poetry? of
nature. The heirs of Ya?akov find God and His Shechinah first and
foremost in the home. Herein lies the difference between the spirit of
Judaism and non-Jewish culture.

Thus Ya?akov left Be?er Sheva and set out for Charan. Be?er Sheva
was of great significance to Yitzchak. There he saw that Gairus was imminent,
though Avdus was still distant, but there he also found not only
peace and quiet but also honor and recognition. Ya?akov willingly gave
up this Be?er Sheva of peace and honor, and set out for Charan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091122/27f282ca/attachment-0001.htm>

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> I have heard that it is a goal of the Mormon church to accumulate as
> much of this information as they can, because at a certain point, when
> they have enough genealogical information about a person, they baptize
> that person by proxy. To me, this is a good enough reason to avoid
> giving them any information whatsoever, even if it is mutar to use the
> information they make available.

Why?  I have never understood why people get so upset about this Mormon
practise.


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

The Maharal says the following about Esav (Gur Aryeh on the pasuk
Vayisrotztzu habanim):
"shein yetzer hara ba ela achar leida ... aval kan mah she asa Esav lo
bishvil yitzro ela mipnei shehaya Esav rotzeh latzeis lashuv el mino
v'tivo"

My translation:
"The yetzer hara does not come into a person until after birth ...
therefore here what Esav did [to try to get out and go to the house of
Avoda Zara] is not because of his yetzer hara rather because Esav
wanted to go back to his essence"

Where is the free will here? Esav did not yet have a Yetzer Hara yet
he wants to go to Avoda Zara?

How do you understand this Maharal?

> So your explanation specifically does not work with Tosphos as the how is
> indeed different.

Aderabbah They have to conform - but there is just a limit on the how
to conform due to sh'vus.

I think the principle works fine absent the sh'vus issue. See my point
about cow's horn.


> And yet the usual basis for the Ashkenazi women blessing on mitzvos aseh
> shehazman grama is Tosphos, specifically the Tosphos I cited in Rosh Hashana
> 33a0.

Maybe so - but BY consistenly quotes the Ran not Tosafos. I'm not sure
if Ran's construction is identical to Tosafos or not.

> BTW getting back to the original question, is the Tosphos allowing a
> blessing on Hallel and the Tosphos allowing women to bless related, there is
> (despite my previous answer) one key linkage, which is that one needs to
> hold, as Tosphos does explicitly in that Tosphos on Rosh Hashana 33a, that
> making a bracha shein tzricha is an issur d'rabbanan, and the limud in the
> gemora is just an asmachta.  Because if you hold it is an issur d'orisa, as
> many of the Sephardim do, then you are going to be a lot more nervous about
> allowing brachos in more doubtful situations like these).

Maybe so but maybe lav davka

See kaf hachayyim on
The following controversial brachos

Seder 4 cups: 2 Vs. 4 brachos

Tefillin 1 bracha or 2 (also in ben ish chai)

Kaf Hachayyim notes: that b'makom sheyeish minhag, that "s'feiq brachos
lekulah" is waived.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

>> So your explanation specifically does not work with Tosphos as the how
>> is indeed different.

> Aderabbah  They have to conform - but there is just a limit on the how
> to conform due to sh'vus.

Not a Shvus - Tosphos is also explicit that a shvus is waived, it is just an
issur d'orisa that is not, according to them waived.

And I can't see how you can say that *they have to conform* when the case in
question, ie smicha, they do not conform, floating ones hands over a korban
is not the same as pressing down with all one's strength.

> I think the principle works fine absent the sh'vus issue.  See my point
> about cow's horn.

Well in the case of Rosh Hashana, there is in fact a shvus, not to blow a
shofar unnecessarily, something Tosphos holds is waived.  And for the
Ra'avid the principle seems to be more far reaching namely:

????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????
???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?"? ???"? ???"? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??
???? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?"? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??' ???
??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????
?"?

- for those who cannot read the Hebrew, smicha reshus: afilu smicha gedola
muteres benashim shekach natna betorah l'anashim chova ul'nashim reshus
dumya d'anashim l'kol mitzvos aseh she hazman grama af al pi sheyesh ba
issur torah k'gon tzitzis shel techeles l'nashim.

Or in English, on the phrase smicha reshus that even the great form of
smicha is permitted for women because this is what was given in the torah
that what for a man is an obligation for a woman is "reshus" and the women
are like the men for all positive mitzvos dependent on time even though
there is in them a prohibition of the Torah like with techeles of tzitzis
for women.

And he then goes on to explain (in a portion I haven't transliterated) that
the gemora in Chagiga where it is talking about allowing women to float
their hands on the korban is talking about where the women did not actually
have a portion in that korban, and nevertheless, they were allowed to float
their hands on it because of the nachas ruach d'nashim [perhaps translated
as giving women a good feeling] but that where the korban was actually
theirs, the Ra'avid holds that they did smicha in exactly the same form as
the women.

Thus for the Ra'avid, it is not just that the women do it in the same form -
according to the Ra'avid there is an underlying principle of Torah that
where it is a chov for a man, the Torah specifically gives reshus for a
woman, something that it seems to me goes beyond your principle and seems to
characterise it as a kind of mitzvah kayemes.

>> BTW getting back to the original question, is the Tosphos allowing a
>> blessing on Hallel and the Tosphos allowing women to bless related, there is
>> (despite my previous answer) one key linkage, which is that one needs to
>> hold, as Tosphos does explicitly in that Tosphos on Rosh Hashana 33a, that
>> making a bracha shein tzricha is an issur d'rabbanan, and the limud in the
>> gemora is just an asmachta.  Because if you hold it is an issur d'orisa, as
>> many of the Sephardim do, then you are going to be a lot more nervous about
>> allowing brachos in more doubtful situations like these).

> Maybe so but maybe lav davka

> See kaf hachayyim on
> The following controversial brachos

> Seder 4 cups: 2 Vs. 4 brachos

> Tefillin 1 bracha or 2 (also in ben ish chai)

> Kaf Hachayyim notes: that b'makom sheyeish minhag, that "s'feiq brachos
> lekulah" is waived.

Could you give me a cite to these in the Kaf Hachayim (I can guess where
these might be, but it would be easier if you help me find them).
The Ben Ish Chai does indeed say similarly ie that b'makom sheyeish minhag,
s'feiq brachos lehakel is waived, but the place I am familiar with him
saying it is in relation to tzitzis, and specifically a blind person saying
a bracha over tzitzis (he mentions it in the Ben Ish Chai under Lech Lecha,
but his main discussion is in Rav HaPoelim Orech Chaim chelek 2 siman 7) -
and there he is only saying prepared to say it in a case where very much the
dominant view is that a blind person should say it, not one where there is a
real machlokus, and specifically where it does not go against Maran.

And of course, the Ben Ish Chai is also the source usually cited to
allow Sephardi women to make brochos over mitzvos aseh shehazman grama,
and while I am yet to see this inside (I really should go looking for
it) his reasoning for this is generally cited (ie I have only heard
this orally) to be based on a dream of the Chida (who apparently had a
dream that women should say brochos). As you can imagine, certain other
Sephardi poskim are not happy about dreams being the basis for psak
(on the grounds of lo b'shamayim he).

And, as far as I am aware, the general practice amongst Bagdadi Jews
is to make only one brocha on tephillin and two on the four cups, so
I am not sure with regard to which minhag the Ben Ish Chai and the Kaf
HaChaim would be referring.

Regards
Chana

Chana
> And I can't see how you can say that *they have to conform* when the case in
> uestion, ie smicha, they do not conform, floating ones hands over a korban
> s not the same as pressing down with all one's strength.

They're still conforming to the parameters of Hazal.
As far as I'm concerned the fact that as per Tosafos this is a single
p'rat that is gender specific is still notwithstanding

Truly optional means conformity is unnecessary. Here it means that a
quibble is required due to a 2ndary issue of sh'vus.

Regardless, this is a strawman.

I quoted BY quoting the Ran. I'm not sure that Ran's take is identical
to Tosafos or deviates as per Raava"d. At any rate Somchos Reshus
implies performing a mitzvah so as to fulfill an obligation that iis
not a requirement which is to Sephardim oxymoronic

So to Ashkenazim it's not because they are complying to halachic
strictures - see my point from sh'qalim

The fact that the strictures may vary due to ezternal reasons
(viz. Sh'vus) is at most a quibble or aisi kind of a red herring.

So women are told to press down gently. OK so if fails that criteria
of really baring down, but all other criteria [the kind of animal, the
timing the location] still require halachic cofrmity. EG does Reshus
imply in her house? While t'mei'ah? After shechita? I think not.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 235
***************************************

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..."