Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 68

Sun, 01 May 2011

• 1. Re: Question regarding "hoiche kedusha" (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. ain od milvado (Harvey Benton)
• 4. Re: ktuba of son of non jewish father (Daniel Israel)
• 5. our way of (roundabout) speaking (Harvey Benton)
• 6. BaOmer vs. LaOmer (Dov Kaiser)
• 7. Re: Birchos ha-re'iyah (Daniel Israel)
• 8. Killing the Mekalel (Micha Berger)
• 9. royal wedding (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: What's the source for calling People for an Aliya to the T (Danny Schoemann)
• 11. Re: ktuba of son of non jewish father (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: ktuba of son of non jewish father (menucha)
• 13. Re: Seven Days You Shall Eat (Machine) Matzos (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: RSRH on nature of Torah; implications for Dox vs. Prax (T613K@aol.com)
• 15. Re: royal wedding (Dorron Katzin)

On 30/04/2011 10:40 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> I've been davening Mincha lately in a minyan that does a "hoiche
> (hohche, heicha, whatever) kedusha (Nussach Ashkenaz).  I'm wondering,
> though, if the Sh"Tz should be saying "Atah Kadosh" or "L'dor Vador"
> after kedusha -- is the switch related to Chazaras HaSha"Tz (which isn't
> happening) or to kedusha?

Lich'ora it's related to kedusha; why should a bracha in chazaras hashatz
be any different from what it is in the silent ShE?   But in any case,
this isn't a halachic question.  Al pi din Ledor Vador can be said in the
silent ShE (as nuasch Italiani does), and Ata Kadosh can be said in the
chazaras hashatz (as nusach Sefard does).  Switching between them is only
a minhag of nusach Ashkenaz; so even if he gets it wrong he's yotzei.


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

R' Meir Rabi asked:

> If the Kinyan was not completed correctly or the rabbi did not
> get to make the sale until past the time or whatever, would there
> be ANY real problem? After all, as far as the original owners of
> the Chamets are concerned, the rabbi's congregants, they are
> utterly divested from their Chamets interms of what the Torah
> demands that they deem it to be of no relevance to them and also
> as far as Takonas Chazal is concerned, they have been bodek and
> MeVaEr to meet all requirements.

What makes you say that they are divested from their Chamets? It seems to
me that they *planned* to divest themselves of it, but never followed
through on it. More accurately, it is the Rabbi who dropped the ball, but I
don't know why that would make a difference. The bottom line as I see it
is: (1) Regarding the fact that the owner did bedikah, I don't see much
difference between a RMR's case, and a bagel which the owner saved to eat
for breakfast on Erev Pesach and then forgot to eat. (2) Regarding the biur
(meaning the bitul, I presume), I have always presumed that the bitul
specifically excludes the chametz which is to be sold, because if it was
included that would make a farce of the sale, and/or buying it back later
would make a farce of the bitul.

My guess is that in RMR's case, the owner would be unquestionably guilty of
owning the chametz on Pesach. However, if this was totally due to the rav's
error, then I can easily imagine that the *penalty* of the chametz becoming
forbidden *might* not apply, because he did make a good faith effort at
getting rid of it -- and maybe that's what RMR meant to begin with.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Groupon.com Official Site
1 huge daily deal on the best stuff to do in your city. Try it today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4dbcdf6f91ea61a6601st06vuc

Is it possible that the concept of ain od milvado is:
1. true but not understandable to our finite and non-contradictory accepting 
minds (e.g. how can there be an "I" or "Id" or yesh, when everything is Hashem?)
2. true but has at least one exception (namely bechira)
3. true but has no practical applications to us, since it doesn't absolve us of 
choosing to do good (and not evil) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110430/8efff311/attachment-0001.htm>

On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 29/04/2011 10:54 AM, menucha wrote:
>> The chatan is distraught at the thought of his father not being
>> mentioned, and by the fact that this is not "the normal way of  
>> writing a
>> ketuba".
>> There are definitely issues here of not getting the chatan "turned  
>> off
>> to judaism" etc.
>
> Is he upset at the very idea that the ketuba will be written  
> differently,
> that halacha regards his circumstances as different, or is it just  
> that
> he's afraid of being embarrassed if it's read out loud?  Because if  
> that's
> the problem, there's a simple solution: whoever reads it under the  
> chupah
> should skip the fathers' names on both sides.  Nor is there any  
> need at
> all to have the ketuba framed and put on the wall for all to see  
> (another
> very modern "tradition" that has no more basis than lining up for  
> pizza on
> motzaei yom tov).

Seconding RZS's response here: if the issue is embarrassment due to a  
public presentation of his non-standard yichus, the well known  
solution is that no one other than the mesader kiddushin, eidim, and  
whoever reads the ketubah actually need to see what is written in  
it.  The reader can mumble, or slightly change the text by the names  
so as to avoid embarrassment, and the ketubah never has to be  
displayed.  (Which also saves money on buying a fancy ketubah; a  
simple pre-printed form or even something typed up by the Rav's  
secretary is fine.)

OTOH, if what is bothering him is the fact that the halacha does not  
recognize his father as belonging on the ketubah, then IMHO we are in  
the territory beyond not turning someone off, and into not  
accommodating fundamentally problematic ideas.  Of course such issues  
have to be judged on a case by case basis, but at some point it  
becomes appropriate to confront someone and point out where there  
notions have deviated from a proper Torah perspective, even at the  
risk of alienating them.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dan...@kolberamah.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110430/4b41c159/attachment-0001.htm>

many frum peopele (especially R"L) when having difficulties in life say things 
like "IY"Hashem" or "God Willing" or R"L, Lo Aleinu, Hashem YeRachem, "Amen" (in 
a loud voice) or "Al Tiftach Pech", etc., instead of just plain speaking and/or 
answering a simple question.
Case in point:  Q. How are you feeling? A. Baruch Hashem.
The question was never really answered. 
(Hashem is and should be blessed (IMO) no matter how we are feeling at the time, 
and yes it is true that things could always be worse (or better)....but why does 
saying "Baruch Hashem" answer the question/issue at hand???
My question is, are these mannerisms of speaking 1. done out of irrational fear, 
2. done to "Al Tiftach Peh" 3. done for other halachic/kaballistic reasons. 4. 
done because of common parlance that has developed over the years. 5. done 
because of superstitions real/imagined. and finally,  5. should all/some of them 
be eliminated??
thanks much, 
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110430/e56f5cc4/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
<<The MB (489 s"q 8) says "ba'omer" is rov posqim, but the issue is only lekhat-chilah since you don't need to actually say either.>>
 
Just to correct the record, the MB says that la'omer is rov posqim.
 
Kol tuv,
Dov Kaiser                                        
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110501/9abb3ae5/attachment-0001.htm>

I've noticed in some circles a reluctance to saying shechechiyanu due  
to fear of brachos l'vatalos.  I think it is the same thing.  Perhaps  
also related is our insistence on numerical shiurim for k'zayis,  
reviis, etc.  (R' Belsky said in the OU pre-Peach webcast that the  
way people figured out a the shiur k'zayis in the past was to "eat  
what they thought was a k'zayis, and then a little bit more.")

Hesitant as I am to argue with contemporary poskim, I agree that it  
seems that the individual's response to the the specific situation  
should be the main factor (which is how the Rav here has advised me  
regarding shechechiyanu), and that if the psak effectively eliminates  
the bracha from ever being said, then something is not right.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dan...@kolberamah.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110430/48fba987/attachment-0001.htm>

How does the meqalal get killed? They held him in jail until they could
ask a shaylah, so it wasn't kana'im poge'im bo. There couldn't have been
hasra'ah -- the pasuq was only written in /response/ to the event! If
it was a one time event because Hashem said so, then how does it follow
up with "Ve'el BY tedabeir leimor: Ish ish ki yeqalel..."

Last, a more general question... how does the death penalty for qilul
hasheim lead into the death penalty for murder and then ayin tachas
ayin? In what way is this middah keneged middah?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 12th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  forces the "judge" into submission?

Anyone know of a heter for chiedf rabbi R. Sacks to attend the royal wedding
in Westminster abbey.  I am less bothered that it is a church but rather
that the
entire wedding ceremony is a religious act with use of a cross and prayers
of the couple.
One could argue about "shalom malchut" but I am not sure that the royal
family
would be overly bothered by the absence of the chief rabbi but I defer to
our
British colleagues on that issue.  He is also a lord but that does not seem
enough of a heter

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110501/c210ca81/attachment-0001.htm>

> From: Aryeh Herzig <gurar...@gmail.com>
> ?Shulchan HaTahor 139:3 :
>
> It is very important to be very exact using the proper name of a person and
> of his father when giving him an Aliya.
> This is because the Shoresh Neshama of every Jew is in the Torah

1. Could somebody elaborate / explain this to the laymen amongst us?

2. Which Shulchan HaTahor is this? Google reveals multiple books
sharing the same name.

- Danny, still trying to master the basics before delving into the mystical.

 
 
From: menucha _m...@inter.net.il_ (mailto:m...@inter.net.il) 

a kallah who is  modern orthodox from birth is marrying a son of a jewish
mother and non  jewish father.  They were told that the chatan's name in

the ktuba would be written as (names are being changed) David ben  Malka
bat Dov, i.e him the son of his jewish mother, who is the daughter  of
dov her jewish father.


The chatan is distraught at the thought of his father not  being
mentioned, and by the fact that this is not "the normal way of writing  a
ketuba".


There are definitely issues here of not getting the chatan "turned  off
to judaism" etc.


does anyone know of any piskei halacha on this issue, or have an idea  of
a Rav who would be worth discussing this with?


one idea which came up is by using the names of both parents for  both
bride and groom.
aviva bat reuven veleah, and david ben malka  vechristopher.


any leads would be  appreciated.
thanks
menucha






>>>> 
If they are American, you could have an English ketubah and the English and 
 Aramaic don't have to be the same.  You could mention both fathers (or all 
 four parents) in the English ketubah, and it could be very pretty with 
lots of  flowers and flourishes around the border.  The eidim (or anyone you 
wanted  to honor, really) could sign the English one, too.  If you think the 
father  is going to be listening closely during the reading of the ketubah in 
Aramaic,  maybe you could even have the reader drop the father's name into  
the reading -- without actually writing his name on the real ketubah.  I  
don't know the halacha here, but do you /have/ to read the ketubah as  
written?  I seem to think they do some kind of similar shmuchel with a  kallah who 
is not a besulah but doesn't necessarily want to advertise that fact  to 
all the guests.
 

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





_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110501/fc34aa12/attachment-0001.htm>

Thank you everyone for your answers.  The couple are not willing to go 
along with a solution of the public/private or written/read ktuba, or 
any such solution. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110501/a3b424c9/attachment-0001.htm>

> From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
>
> My oldest son spent the last two days of Pesach with a Yekkeshe
> family in Baltimore. ?The family is descended from Jews who lived in
> Furth. ?They eat only machine matzos the first seven days of Pesach.
> On Achron Shel Pesach they are "maikel" and eat hand matzos! ?They
> eat gebrokts, of course, each day of Pesach.
>
> They put on tefillin with a brocha on Chol Moed. ?YL

So....? Sort of stating the obvious. :-) We don't do that because we
don't know where to keep the hand-baked Matzos until the last day...
:-)

BTW: The Maggid, Rav Sholom Shvadron zt"l told the story of how - long
before he became famous - nobody in London invited him for the Seder,
since he insisted in using his (Yerushalmi) machine Matzos.

- Danny, who allowed a guest to use hand-baked Matzos this year at the
Seder, since he doesn't really beleive that they are Chometz.

 
 
From: "Yitzchak Schaffer" <yitzchak.schaf...@gmx.com>
Hello  all,

In contrasting the Torah with "religion" and its trappings  (theology, 
worship), R' Hirsch comes to contrast thought/belief/opinion with  practice in a 
way that seems like it might have relevance to the recent  Orthoprax 
discussion. I haven't thought it out yet, but I thought I'd share now.  This is 
from Sivan I in the Collected Writings, v.1. ....
 
 --quote--
[...] But unlike "religion" the Torah is not the thought of man, but  the 
thought of God, expressed in Divine Laws which are to be carried out by man  
as symbolic actions. It is by these symbolic actions ordained in the Torah 
that  the Divine thought is first implanted in man. This symbolic action is,  
therefore, of primary importance; 
 
....This idea has important legal consequences. ..... He who  celebrates 
Sabbath in the Divine symbolical language of abstention from work has  
proclaimed the truth that God created the world; ....
 
--end quote--
 
 
>>>>>
 
It may help to recall that Hirsch was (at least in part) addressing the  
arguments of the Reformers, who said that you could transmit the spirit of  
the law -- including the belief that G-d created the world -- without having 
to  get hung up on the minutiae of Sabbath laws.  Christians have a similar  
belief, namely, that they -- Christians -- emphasize the spirit of the law,  
while Jews (or Orthodox Jews) emphasize the letter of the law at the 
expense of  the spirit.  Yes, what Reform says about Orthodoxy parallels what  
Christianity says about Judaism (and sometimes, what MO say about RW), and  
Hirsch knocked down their fatuous arguments over and over throughout his  
brilliant and inspiring writings.



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





_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110501/84438714/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:25, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone know of a heter for chief rabbi R. Sacks to attend the royal
> wedding in Westminster abbey.  I am less bothered that it is a church but
> rather that the entire wedding ceremony is a religious act with use of a
> cross and prayers of the couple.  One could argue about "shalom malchut"...

Don't you think that the Chief Rabbi shlita, Lord Sacks, worked out the
Halacha for himself (or consulted one of his colleagues) before deciding to
attend?

Did you try asking his office?  You can send an email to:
i...@chiefrabbi.org or go to this page:
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/CR_Contact_Us.aspx



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 68
**************************************

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..."