Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 69

Mon, 02 May 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 19:32:01 -0400
Re: [Avodah] royal wedding

On 1/05/2011 1:25 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> He is also a lord but that does not seem
> enough of a heter

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  There is a significant area of heter
for shtadlanim in all the issurim related to socialising with goyim; the
grand-daddy of them all, Nechemiah ben Chachalyah, was called Hatirshoso
because the Sanhedrin gave him a heter to drink goyishe wine!

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

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 10:32:46 +1000
[Avodah] If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets

R' Danny Schoemann asked - What makes you say that they are divested from
their Chamets?

MR - I chose to use the word DIVEST since I thought it reflects better the
requirement that OWNERSHIP is NOT the Halachic concern but that we deem the
Chamets to be of no significance. Perhaps it might be compared to one who
OWNS skiing equipment but has not used it for a number of years. It sits in
the garage or the basement without any real likelihood of ever being used
again. Perhaps it will be sold at a trash sale, or given to a friend or just
eventually just put out as trash to be taken by whoever pleases. For the
time being the equipment still belongs to the owner but it has no
significance. I suggest that by Halachic standards this mindset is what is
required in regards to Chamets.

DS - It seems to me that they *planned* to divest themselves of it, but
never followed through on it.

MR - Indeed, they planned and they succeeded as far as they thought and
therefore have satisfied the Halachic requirements.

DS - 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.

MR - According to what I proposed earlier there is no farce. It will be like
one who has valuable Chamets under a collapsed shed which although the owner
certainly intends to salvage at the conclusion of Pesach, need not be sold
and according to some does not even require Bittul since it is already
Battel and of no significance for the duration of the Chag

DS - 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

MR - I do not disagree with your thoughts but that is not what I had in
mind. You are suggesting he does not deserve to be penalised and I am
proposing that he has satisfied whatever Halacha requires him to do
If I am corRect then the next question is - DOES THE RABBI NEED TO BOTHER
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Aryeh Herzig <gurar...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 19:42:47 -0400
[Avodah] Fwd: What's the source for calling People for an

Danny wanted to know about my source.

The Shulchan HaTahor was written by Rabbi Eizik Safrin, the Komarno Rebbe
four generations ago.
He was a Tzaddik, a great Kabbalist and a massive Talmid Chocham in Nigleh
as well.

This is a Shulchan Aruch combining Kabbala and Halacha.  It was so
controversial that the author never allowed his manuscript to be printed.

Shulchan HaTahor was published posthumously against the author's wishes.

Nevertheless, it sheds light on many accepted Minhagim.

It is a very interesting sefer.

(Keep in mind that even his own descendants do not necessarily do everything
written there.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 19:45:11 EDT
Re: [Avodah] ktuba of son of non jewish father

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

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. 

If the chassan and kallah are trying to force some kind of  public 
acknowledgement that the marriage of a non-Jew and a Jew is OK bedi'eved,  their 
wishes absolutely should not be accommodated even if it causes them and  their 
family pain.  It causes all Torah Jews pain, but we can only do what  we can 
do.  The Reform and Conservative are constantly leaving us with  major 
messes that we are expected to mop up -- how did the kallah's mother come  to 
marry a non-Jew, anyway?  -- but we can only bend so  far.  We have a 
responsibility to help our fellow Jews to the  extent that is possible, but we also 
have a responsibility to uphold our  eternal Torah.  Usually those goals are 
congruent; here they are at  odds.    Many solutions have been suggested 
with the goal of sparing  these people's feelings, but it seems they want more 
-- they want the  halacha changed for their sake.  If they are intent on 
changing the Torah,  well, that's what C rabbis are for.

--Toby Katz

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

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Joseph Kaplan <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 20:43:46 -0400
[Avodah] our way of (roundabout) speaking

"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???"

I remember my charedei aunt telling me about the little girl she met in
someone's house and when my aunt asked her how she was she responded "not
so Baruch Hashem."  True story.

Joseph Kaplan

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 01:50:50 +0100
[Avodah] Musings from Shabbos Chol Hamoed

Those shuls that have the minhag to leyn Shir Hashirim, Rus and Koheles, why
do they they do so before Kerias Hatorah?

Doesn't Torah take precedence over Kesuvim, and also why wouldn't the
principle of Tadir V'she'eino Tadir apply? Furthermore, on Purim we read the
Megillo after leyning.

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

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 02:06:34 GMT
Re: [Avodah] our way of (roundabout) speaking

R' Harvey Benton asked:

> 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. 

The example given here at the end is very common. I recall one such person who responded, "Yes, thank you. Now I know how G-d is. But how are YOU?"

In other words, "Baruch Hashem" should not take the place of an actual
response. But I don't see anything wrong with it being in *addition* to a
regular response. For example, "I'm fine, Baruch Hashem," or "I don't feel
so great today, but I'm sure it's for the best, Baruch Hashem."

But the other examples given in the beginning of RHB's post, seem  reasonable to me, provided that one knows how to decode them.

For example, if I ask you to do something, and you respond "IY"Hashem" or
"God Willing", what that means is "Yes, I do plan to do it, but I'll need
G-d's help, just like I need His help in everything else." Similarly, if
the response to a request is "Bli neder", it means "Yes, I do plan to do
it, but if I forget, I don't want it to count as a false oath or some
related aveira."

I can't imagine any questions to which a person might answer "R"L", or "Lo
Aleinu", or "Hashem YeRachem", but they could well be said in response to a
prediction about an unfortunate event which might occur in the future. All
of them mean, "Please Hashem! Don't let it happen!" I suspect that "Al
Tiftach Peh" might mean "Gee thanks, now you've jinxed us", even if some
people might perceive it to be an incantation which can somehow undo the

In contrast to all the above, I don't see how "Amen (in a loud voice)" needs any translation. Even non-Jews will say it to affirm something good.

Akiva Miller

Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:59:19 +0300
[Avodah] roundabout speaking

<<many frum people (especially R"L) when having difficulties in life say
like "IY"Hashem" or "God Willing" or R"L, Lo Aleinu, Hashem YeRachem, "Amen"
a loud voice) or "Al Tiftach Pech", etc., instead of just plain speaking
answering a simple question.
Case in point:  Q. How are you feeling? A. Baruch Hashem.
The question was never really answered.

My question is, are these mannerisms of speaking 1. done out of irrational
2. done to "Al Tiftach Peh" 3. done for other halachic/kaballistic reasons.
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
be eliminated??>>

To add to Harvey's questions many frum people when referring to cancer call
"that disease" or some other euphemism. Since everyone knows what is being
about what is the purpose of avoiding the word and why is this disease
different than all others.
Reminds of when I grew up and women were never pregnant but "with child"

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

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 02:10:21 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Killing the Mekalel

R' Micha Berger asked:

> How does the meqalal get killed? ... There couldn't have been
> hasra'ah -- the pasuq was only written in /response/ to the
> event!

I have vague memories that this argument proves that the hasra'ah does not
need to include which death penalty applies. In other words, witnesses did
warn him that he would be subject to the death penalty, and he did it
anyway, and then they jailed him pending a decision on how to carry out the

Akiva Miller

Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:19:57 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Killing the Mekalel

RMB asked:

> 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..."

The Ramban (Vayikra 24:23) seems bothered by your question and brings
a Toras Cohanim (20:10) that R"E[l'zer] was of the opinion that this
was a directive for future offenders.

The Ramban seems to disagree, but I am at a loss to explain his line
of reasoning.

- Danny

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:25:38 +0300
Re: [Avodah] If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets

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.

If they understood what they were saying when they said Kol Chamiro
they would not be transgressing any Torah prohibition.

However, the Kitzur SA in 114:1 clearly says that even if you said Kol
Chamiro, if *your* Chometz was on *your* property during Pessach it
may no longer be used by anybody, ever after.

- Danny

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:31:28 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Question regarding "hoiche kedusha"

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?

The Kitzur SA in 69:7 discusses the "hoiche (hohche, heicha, whatever)
kedusha" and says that the Sh"Tz says L'Dor Vador and those davening
word-for-word with him also say L'Dor Vador with him.

- Danny

Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Poppers, Michael" <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 22:59:06 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Calling people up to the Torah

In Avodah V28n64#3, R'Micha wrote:
> If you used a name at all. Many Sepharadi qehillos just say "Yaamod
Kohein", etc... And I think there are Chassidim who call up shevi'i
this way. <
KAJ/"Breuer's" calls the oleh for Shvi'i up that way. 

Gut Voch and all the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

Go to top.

Message: 14
From: rebshr...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 22:14:34 -0400 (EDT)
[Avodah] Heicher Kedusha and l'dor v'dor

After Shiur every day the Rav (Rav Joseph Soloveitchk) would have one 
of us lead Minchah using a Heicher Kedusha.   That meant that all of us 
would say with the Shaliach Tzibbur the beginning of the Amidah 
together and out loud until Kedusha.   At that point  we would stop and 
the Shaliach Tzibur would lead us in a "normal" Kedusha until L'dor 
V'dor.  Then all of us would say L'dor V'dor out loud with the Shaliach 
Tzibur until the end of Hakel Hakadosh, and we would then continue with 
the rest of the Amidah silently.

Stu Grant

Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 06:19:59 -0400
Re: [Avodah] RSRH on nature of Torah; implications for Dox

On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 02:46:26PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: 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.

... or what R says about halakhic movements, and C says about our rigid
fealty to halakhah and how it's made.

But not MO vs RW. There it's an issue of disagreeing about which parts
of halakhah are iqar, and which are tafeil. And perceptions on each side
about their own observance and about the observances of the others. All
topics that past discussion has proven to divide rather than unite us,
and thus not really for this forum.

I recently offered this definition of halakhah:
    Halakhah is a G-d-given process for finding ways for we, as
    individuals and as part of a community complete our souls.

Where I'm not claiming we agree on how to approach the task of completion:
whether it's the Rambam's concept of yedi'ah, chassidic deveiqus (whether
Chabad or Gachas), TiDE's ennoblement, the Gra's sheviras hamidos hara'os
(whether through mussar or by metaphysical effects of talmud Torah),
etc... If someone has a more generic way of phrasing that, please
speak up.

Continuing now to the relevent part:
    Hashem gave us this process in the form of a legal system to allow
    us the creativity of finding ways that speak to us in each generation
    with its challenges and opportunities while still being rigid enough
    to keep us loyal to His definition of the task.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Today is the 13th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   necessary for a good relationship?

Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 09:22:44 -0400
Re: [Avodah] royal wedding

On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 02:45:05PM -0500, Dorron Katzin wrote:
: 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?

I also don't know what the tzad heter is, but I can bring stronger
evidence it exists... There were Baalei Tosefos at the Coronation of
Richard the Lionhearted (1189), including R' Barukh miLondon.

So, the rishonim faced the situation and pasqened mutar.

(And, the indignation of the Xians at their presence at a religious
service led to a progrom in London, which killed R' Yaaqov meiOrleans.
Things grew from there until the community sought refuge in a fort,
Clifford's Tower in York -- and we know from Qinos how that ended.)

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Today is the 13th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   necessary for a good relationship?

Go to top.

Message: 17
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@bezeqint.net>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 16:22:52 +0300
[Avodah] Yom Hasho'a

While the original remembrance day for the holocaust was set by the Rabbanut
to be 10 in Tevet, it is still possible to learn this day, 27 (28 this year)
of Nissan important lessons.
Rabbi Aharon Cohen (Chief rabbi of Yakir) spoke today on the understanding
of how we should consider this issue.

To summarize he quoted the psukim about Amalek, and explained them.

Basically, Amalek's intent is to lessen the Name of Hashem in the world.
That is why the word "Kes" appears without an Alef (instead of Kiseh) in the
"pasuk Ki Yad Al Kes...". Everytime that Israel gets closer to Eretz Yisrael
and to increasing Hashem's Name in the world - Amalek's spirit/energy
appears, fighting to erase Hashem's Name.

One of the issues that is raised against the "Jewish" holocaust is the
question of the gypsies and others destroyed by the Nazis. But there was a
difference. If a descendent of a gypsy family had gone to a German college
and became a professor; or joined the army - nobody would have sought him
out and sent him to a death camp. Similarly for other groups that were
destroyed by the Nazis.

Only for Jews was it different. What possible connection is there between a
3rd generation German Mitbollel/Maskil and a Chassidic Polish Jew? None.
Unless you go back 3 generations to their shared Jewish roots. And that is
what Nazi Germany was all about - destroying the nation that increased the
blessing of Hashem's Name in the world.

To remember to erase Amalek actually means to increase Hashem's Name in the

The lesson was taped, and it may appear on the Midreshet Aviv website

(note: I'm translating terms from Hebrew, and I'm not sure I used the best
terminology possible).

Shoshana L. Boublil

Go to top.

Message: 18
From: Dov Kaiser <dov_...@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:50:39 +0000
[Avodah] royal wedding

> Anyone know of a heter for chief rabbi R. Sacks to attend the royal
> wedding in Westminster abbey. I am less bothered..
> 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...

In fairness, RET did not assert that the Chief Rabbi had no heter,
he only asked what it was.

If, as is likely, the heter was based on sh'lom malchus, he's hardly
likely to publicize that by sending you an email to that effect. I can
just see the headlines in the Guardian: "Chief Rabbi Says Royal Wedding
is Idolatrous - Only Attends to Prevent Anti-Semitism". I hope the
Guardian doesn't read Avodah. Of course, I don't suspect you of being
a Guardian journalist!

As to the substance of the question, my impression is that risk of
sakana need only be tenuous to invoke sh'lom malchus. In this case,
there would be the risk that Orthodoxy could lose its control over the
chief rabbinate if the Chief Rabbi had not attended - I wonder whether
this itself could serve as a heter? Does anyone know if Lord Rabbi
Jacobovits attended the last big royal wedding in the 1980s?

Kol tuv,
Dov Kaiser                                        


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 69

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 >