Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 44

Mon, 21 Mar 2011

• 1. Soft Matza in the MB ShA HaRav and the A HaShulchan, Siman 486 (Meir Rabi)
• 2. Re: Aveinu Malkenu at Mincha on Taanis Esther (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: RAMBAM on Songs and Using Hebrew (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: RAMBAM on Songs and Using Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 5. Eating Pesah Sheni (Richard Wolberg)
• 6. Re: More Examples of "Minhagim" That Lead to Kulos (Danny Schoemann)
• 7. Re: Zechor/zachar (Danny Schoemann)
• 8. Re: RAMBAM on Songs and Using Hebrew (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: who is going to Gehenim (SBA)
• 10. Re: Soft Matza in the MB ShA HaRav and the A HaShulchan, Siman 486 (Akiva Blum)
• 11. Re: RAMBAM on Songs and Using Hebrew (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 12. Relationship Between Mordechai and Esther (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Zechor/zachar (D&E-H Bannett)
• 14. Re: Sobering Thoughts for Purim (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Soft Matza in the MB ShA HaRav and the A HaShulchan, Siman 486 (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Soft Matza in the MB ShA HaRav and the A HaShulchan, Siman 486 (Micha Berger)

R Micha commented that he "had a hard time believing that the MB and the AhS
assume soft matzos"
I dont know what you mean R Micha. Do you mean that you are not sure that
what they say refers to soft Matza?

I also don't understand R  Mich'a comment, "The SA haRav (SAhR) I found
more plausible, since matzos in his day were probably still too thick be lack
squeezability and still be chewable -- and he does mention "afilu hi rakah
va'asuyah kisfug" (se'if 2)."
They all use the words, "afilu hi rakah va'asuyah kisfug"

Reb Micha's comment, "The MB is at s"q 3, and the Ahs is se'if 2. Both
mention sefugim, even though I can't believe Ashkenazim were still using
spongy matzah in their day."
I was not suggesting that they used soft Matza, neither was I suggesting
that they were NOT using soft Matza.
I simply wished to point out that theses Acharonim had no hesitation in
mentioning Soft Matza at all. They did not see any reason to consider that
Soft Matza should NOT be used.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110320/33db49c2/attachment-0001.htm>

I find two problems/questions about your story:

1) You changed your minhag based on an email discussion? Did you consult 
with your rav before changing?
1) You choose to ignore minhag hamakom based on a conversation that you had 
with RS years ago? Maybe what he meant was only relevant to tachnun?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>


> Yesterday I learned that Minhag Frankfurt says Aveinu Malkenu only during 
> Aseres Yemei Teshuva.  This is the original Ashkenaz minhag.
>
> The shul where I davened mincha yesterday did say Aveinu Malkenu at 
> Mincha. However, I did not. I did not make it obvious. I stood, held my 
> siddur but did not say Aveinu Malkenu.
> 

At 04:05 PM 3/18/2011, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:00:38AM -0700, Gershon Seif wrote:
>: How would the Rambam explain how they communicated with one another
>: in biblical times? Did they only speak Lashon HaKoesh for refined
>: purposes? How did they conduct business? In some other language? I
>: doubt it.
>
>Well, the language of Avraham's homeland was Aramit. And there is such
>a concept in Chazal that we always had Aramaic as a second language.
>Perhaps this was one of the medrashim the Rambam didn't consider too
>fantastical to take literally?
>
>:-)BBii!
>-Micha

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language  Aramaic 
has been around for 3000 years.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110318/7bd26eb0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language  Aramaic has 
> been around for 3000 years.

What Yaaqov avinu calls Gel Eid, Lavan called Yigar Sahadusa (Ber 31:47).
Note also he does this invoking "the G-d of Avraham and the got of Nachor,
yishpetu veineinu Elohei avihem". (v. 53) This indicates that the language
of the alter heim of Avraham, Nachor and Terach was Aramaic.

The academics date Aramaic to 10th cent BCE because the oldest found
inscription dates to then. A basalt stele found at Tel Dan in the Galil.
That still leaves open the very real probability that the language was
significantly older.

The Seder Olam's dating places Avraham's birth at 1813 BCE (1948 AM).
It would mean a 900 or so year history of Aramaic that isn't yet
documented.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

> The sugya in Pesahim 88b-89a assumes that someone who has eaten
> Pesah rishon may not join a group of people eating Pesah sheini.
> My havrusa and I have no idea where this prohibition comes from.
> Any suggestions?

Would it be like making a motzi twice?
Perhaps it is looked upon as a b'rocho l'vatala.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110319/ea6173ed/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB states:
> Yekkes are nohagim to follow Beis Shammai (!) and wash before Qiddush,

It's not only the Yekkes, it's the Remo in 271:12

As to why he seems to go like Beis Shammai is a Machlokes Rishonim -
and http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/11/triumph-of-textualism.html
has some details.

> a qulah WRT hefseiq.

Punkt verkehrt! We have no hefseiq between washing and HaMotzi; same
way you have no hefseiq between HaGofen and drinking the wine. :-)

A Freilichen Purim - ????nd ?dd??

- Danny, in Jerusalem

> First, my understanding is that most shuls read it the "incorrect" way first, and then they "correct" it.

That's no longer frum enough and nowadays "they" have started reading
it correctly till the end and then repeating the entire last Posuk.

("They" = Yeshish Charidim in Jerusalem)

They also started this dual reading during the Krias HaTorah on Purim;
once they start repeating the last Posuk they will have solved the
"problem" of reading only 9 Psukim on Purim.

> Second, don't most shuls do this (or something very much like it) twice during Megillas Esther?
>
> 8:11 is read with "laharog" and then "v'laharog"
> 9:2 is read "bifnayhem" and then "lifnayhem"
>
> I find it noteworthy that (just like zaycher/zecher) neither of these
> variants is noted in the "kri/ksiv" section of any Chumash I've seen,
> and I've wondered if their origin is in the same time/place as that of
> zaycher/zecher.

I doubt it, because where I grew up (in a Yekkish shul; Adas Jeshurun
of Johannesburg) we did have this dual reading in the Megilla, but not
in Zochor.

- Danny, in Jerusalem

On 19/03/2011 11:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> The Seder Olam's dating places Avraham's birth at 1813 BCE (1948 AM).

Nitpick: the Seder Olam's calendar is two years behind ours; it starts
with a "year zero" at Adam's creation, and the year 1 starts on Adam's
1st birthday, 2 on his 2nd birthday, etc.   Our calendar has no year 0,
and starts the year 1 at the creation of the world on 25 Elul (or if
you like at the hypothetical Rosh Hashana 11.8 months earlier).  Thus,
Adam was created on 1 Tishri in the year 2, and his first birthday was
on 1 Tishri 3.  Therefore in our calendar Avraham was born in 1950,
and in the Gregorian calendar it was 1811 BCE.


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

From: Micha Berger 
: SBA wrote:
>: The gemara gives the reason for earthquakes  (and tsunami) happening - when
>: Hashem remembers His children suffering amongst the Umos Haolom, he is
>: "morid shtei dimaos leyam hagadol - vekolo nishma misof haolom v'ad sofo"

>: So may we quote this gemara when discussing earthquakes??

> It depends how.
> Explanations that involve the many dying for the sins of a few not only defy
> the whole thrust of seifer Iyov, as would any other explanation.

> In addition, any notion that 10s of thousands of people who never heard of
> two boys in jail died, and countless mores injured, lost everything they
> owned, etc... because of their country's sins defies "haShofeit kol ha'aretz
> lo ya'aseh mishpat?" Hashem was willing to save the entire Sedom vaAmora
> region for the sake of a few tzadiqim.

Here's what Chazal say (quoted by Rashi in Parsha Bo) BK 60:
"Kivun sheniten reshus lamashchis - eino mavchin bein tzadikim lereshaim,
velo od  ela shemas'chil min hatzadikim techila"

 


  _____  

From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Meir Rabi
Sent: Saturday 19 March 2011 4:21 PM

 
I was not suggesting that they used soft Matza, neither was I suggesting
that they were NOT using soft Matza. 
I simply wished to point out that theses Acharonim had no hesitation in
mentioning Soft Matza at all. They did not see any reason to consider that
Soft Matza should NOT be used.



 
I would just like to point out that the MB does say that our minhag is to
use thin matzos. 451:111
 
Akiva

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110320/631934b7/attachment-0001.htm>

Personally, I think that the RAMBAM is speaking of the common language
versus the higher use of language, especially for chutzniks like those of
the Babylonian exile who spoke Aramaic, commonly and Hebrew for a higher
purpose, or for the Rambam, Arabaic commonly, or Hebrew for a higher
purpose, or for a good section of European Jewry who spoke in Yiddish among
themselves, and Hebrew only for a higher purpose. In other words, the song
of the common language which inspires can certainly be more suitable than a
Hebrew rap song played on the Israeli Gagalatz radio channel. And it goes in
the reverse as well. There is a section in Mesecate Berachot which follows a
similar train of thought concerning saying the Shema in a language other
than Hebrew.

I would disagree, however, with the original post that inferred that
non-Jewish inspirational songs should be considered acceptable. This might
be true for some portion of them, but we certainly cannot make a blanket
statement in that area, since the intent of the song should always be
brought to question for appropriateness, which is, in my opinion, more
important than the words. 

Purim Semeach
Eliyahu Grossman
Efrat, Israel


 
<-----------[Snipped Original]---------------------->
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:05:27 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RAMBAM on Songs and Using Hebrew

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:00:38AM -0700, Gershon Seif wrote:
: How would the Rambam explain how they communicated with one another
: in biblical times? Did they only speak Lashon HaKoesh for refined
: purposes? How did they conduct business? In some other language? I
: doubt it.

Well, the language of Avraham's homeland was Aramit. And there is such
a concept in Chazal that we always had Aramaic as a second language.
Perhaps this was one of the medrashim the Rambam didn't consider too
fantastical to take literally?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

I was under the impression that Mordechai was 
Esther's uncle.  However, the following is from http://tinyurl.com/4g6xh7q

Misconception: Mordechai and Esther, the Purim heroes, were uncle and niece.[1]

Fact: According to Megillat Esther, Mordechai and Esther were first cousins.

Background: This is a widespread misconception, 
even found in the renowned midrashic compilation 
of Louis Ginzberg. For example, in Legends of the 
Jews Vol. IV, page 387 he writes: ?This lively 
interest displayed by Mordechai in Esther?s 
physical and spiritual welfare is not wholly 
attributable to an uncle?s and guardian?s 
solicitude in behalf of an orphaned niece.?[2]

Yet, the relationship between Mordechai and 
Esther is explicitly described twice in the book 
of Esther. In Esther 2:7 the characters of 
Mordechai and Esther are introduced, and Esther 
is described as Mordechai?s bat dodo [3] ? his 
uncle?s daughter, i.e., Mordechai?s first cousin. 
In Esther 2:15, when Esther is called to the 
king?s palace, her lineage is given as: Esther, 
the daughter of Avichayil, Mordechai?s uncle, 
i.e., she was Mordechai?s first cousin. The 
Targum Sheni elaborates further by specifying 
that it was Mordechai?s father and Esther?s father who were brothers.

There is an additional relationship found in the 
midrash. Rashi (on Esther 2:7) cites the Talmudic 
(Megillah 13a) exegesis that Mordechai not only 
raised, but later married, Esther.[4] The Talmud 
(Megillah 13b) further derives from Esther 2:20 
that they actually lived as husband and wife even 
subsequent to Esther?s being taken to the royal 
residence, up until the time she voluntarily went 
to Achashverosh.[5] However, these rabbinic 
interpretations supplement the straightforward 
meaning of the text, and do not contradict it. In 
contrast, I have been unable to find any 
traditional source that says that Mordechai was 
Esther?s uncle, for to say so would contradict the text.

A possible source for this common misconception 
may be that two old, non-Jewish, translations, 
the Old Latin (3rd-5th century) and the Vulgate 
(ca 390-405 CE) actually have the uncle-niece 
relationship. In the Vulgate, verse 2:7 states 
that Mordechai raised the daughter of his 
brother, and in 2:15 it identifies Esther as the 
daughter of Avichayil, the brother of Mordechai!

This error may have crept into these translations 
because the even older Greek Septuagint uses the 
phrase ?father?s brother? instead of a single 
word ?uncle? as used in the Hebrew. If this was 
then the source text used for the Vulgate, it is 
possible that the translators accidentally left 
off the word ?father?s? and ended up with Esther 
being Mordechai?s niece ? daughter of his 
brother. The Catholic tradition was then based on 
the faulty Vulgate, and it is possible that the 
common Jewish misperception was influenced by that belief.[6]

An alternate, simpler source is also possible. It 
may be that because Mordechai adopted and raised 
Esther as his daughter, he is perceived as having 
been much older. Hence the uncle-niece rather 
than the first cousin relationship comes to mind. 
In addition, the phrase ?dod Mordechai,? used to 
describe Avichayil, Esther?s father, could 
actually trigger the association of the way one 
would call their ?uncle Mordechai? as ?dod 
Mordechai,? a nickname Queen Esther would 
technically not have used for her cousin Mordechai!

______________________
Notes

1. I would like to thank Michael Segal for 
assistance with researching this topic.
2. In IV: 384, Ginzberg wrote: ?In Hebrew it 
means ?she who conceals,? a fitting name for the 
niece of Mordechai...She herself had been kept 
concealed for years in the house of her 
uncle....? In IV: 388 he wrote, ?At the advice of 
her uncle, Esther....? There are no supporting 
footnotes for the relationship given.
3. A scriptural proof that ?dod? is father?s 
brother can be found from Leviticus 18:14.
4. This exegesis is already found in the 
Septuagint (Esther 2:7) which reads: ?When her 
parents were dead, he [Mordechai] brought her up 
as a wife for himself ...? Some modern 
commentators suggest that the Greek translator 
may have misread ?bayit? instead of ?bat,? a 
difference of a small yud. It is more likely he 
was familiar with the already well-known oral 
tradition that was later recorded in the Talmud.
5. They were originally permitted to remain 
together because a woman, other than the wife of 
a Kohain, who is forced to have relations with 
another man remains permitted to her husband 
(Ketubot 51b; Shulchan Aruch, EH 6:10-11). 
Esther?s living with Achashverosh was considered 
to be under duress (see Tosafot Ketubot 51b s.v. 
asurah . See also Tosafot Megillah 13b s.v. 
v?tovelet, about what Esther did to avoid 
ambiguous paternity). The Talmud (Megillah 15a, 
based on Esther 4:16) explains that from that 
fateful day when she voluntarily offered herself 
to Achashverosh as part of her plan to save the 
Jews, she was no longer permitted to return to 
Mordechai, and that was a personal sacrifice she made for her people.
6. See for example The Catholic 
Encyclopedia(5:556) that gives the relationship as ?uncle (or cousin).?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110320/cad7998d/attachment-0001.htm>

Re:  << I find it noteworthy that (just like zaycher/zecher) 
neither of these variants is noted in the "kri/ksiv" section 
of any Chumash I've seen, and I've wondered if their origin 
is in the same time/place as that of zaycher/zecher.>>

You won't find lifneihem/bifneihem or v'laharog/laharog on 
any k'tiv/kri list because they are not a ketiv/kri.  Every 
accurate k'tav yad as well as the written mesorot state that 
the words are lifneihem and v'laharog.  The source of the 
incorrect versions is the Venetzia mikraot gedolot of 1525. 
Of course ben Hayyim must have copied these errors from an 
older inaccurate source.

As to zeikher/zekher, I refer you to the excellent articles 
by R' Mordekhai Breuer, R' Yhtzhak Penkovsky, and Yossi 
Peretz all of which show what has always been quite obvious. 
There is no real basis for the zekher reading.
Evidently, R' Hayyim Volozhiner knew what he was talking 
about when he wrote in Ma'asei Rav that the Gra did not say 
zekher with a segol under the zayyin.  The double reading 
developed gradually and, thanks to the, MB has lately spread 
rapidly in the Litvish yeshiva world.

And if you want to double read zeikher/zekher, the words, 
the phrases or the sentences, please do not read zeikher 
first because you are then going to "correct the error" by 
reading it the wrong way the second time.

If your megilla is an Ashkenazi one with the incorrect 
bivneihem/laharog, correct yourself by repeating. If your 
megilla is correct, there isn't much in read as written and 
then "correct" with the incorrect. There would be even less 
sense in reading incorrectly first  and then correct by 
reading as it is written.



David 

I have been wondering something for a while...

Rava famously says "chayav inish livsumei.." (Megillah 7b) and that's
quoted by rishonim and acharonim. And even attempts to pretend minhag
Yisrael saba was not to take this phrase as being about getting snockered
do so by posing new translations for "chayav" (after all, it's not a
5th mitzvas Purim), "livsumei" (to sweeten) or "ad delo yada" (until
you sleep, ad velo ad bichlal, etc...)

The part that I don't understand is that the gemara doesn't end there,
though. The gemara continues with the story of "qam Rabah shechiteih leR'
Zeira". Reading the gemara naively, I would have concluded the masqanah
is not to hold like Rava.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 01:20:48AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: R Micha commented that he "had a hard time believing that the MB and the AhS
: assume soft matzos"

: I dont know what you mean R Micha. Do you mean that you are not sure that
: what they say refers to soft Matza?

No, I'm saying I find it startling they bother to discuss soft matzah. It
was almost certainly out of use among Ashkenazim for decades before
they wrote.

Frankly, I think your problem is that you assumed I'm writing a polemic
against your position. No, I'm just sharing what I found looking up the
sources you gave. Lemaaseh I generally order soft matzos for the seder.

...
: They all use the words, "afilu hi rakah va'asuyah kisfug"

Yes, because it's an idiom, "belilah rakah kisfug" or "haasuyah kisfug",
etc...

...
: I simply wished to point out that theses Acharonim had no hesitation in
: mentioning Soft Matza at all. They did not see any reason to consider that
: Soft Matza should NOT be used.

I don't think you can prove much from it. After all, one could in theory
require eating enough cracker-matzah so that it would compress to a
kezayis. They would still use the term "afilu hi rakah va'asuyah kisfug"
because that's the jargon since before the norm switched.

The issue here is really proving that a change in norm doesn't
automatically mean the establishment of a minhag against the new norm.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 03:21:45PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
: I would just like to point out that the MB does say that our minhag is to
: use thin matzos. 451:111

I don't see it there.

I'm looking in particular to see if the MB says there is a minhag, or just
that's the metzi'us. (As per my previous post.) But in any case, I see no
mention of matzos thin enough to have to be crackers at all in 451:111,
just the implication that it's something thin enough to worry about folds.
(Something true for 2" thick matzah as well!)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 44
**************************************

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..."