Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 73

Sun, 08 May 2011

• 1. Re: Zimun - 2 women with 1 man - permitted? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Omer? Laomer? Baomer? Shehayom? Sefiras Haomer Debunked and Demystified (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Women and Tallis (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets (Meir Rabi)
• 5. Re Bittul of non-K food (Meir Rabi)
• 6. Re: Not saying Morid ha-Tal (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Zimun - 2 women with 1 man - permitted? (Danny Schoemann)
• 10. Re: onen erev pesach (Danny Schoemann)
• 11. Re: Zimun - 2 women with 1 man - permitted? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Killing the Mekalel (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: onen erev pesach (Liron Kopinsky)
• 14. Birchos ha-re'iyah (Simon Wanderer)
• 15. 20% max? re: obligations to poor/pikuach nefesh .... (Harvey Benton)

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:27:19PM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: Yonathan Gershon from Har Etzion Yeshiva wrote an article that proves that
: within a family, it is definitely permitted.

I have yet to understand our grounds for not requiring it. Strict lomdus
would say that since men and women are equally mechuyavim, and since there
is a problem breaking up a zimun once formed, there would be a problem
with women not making a zimun among themselves or combined with men.

I know the argument of tzeni'us, I just fail to see how it's sufficient
to overcome the above sevara.

(Asking just theoretically, of course. Not like my wife and daughters would
listen to me even if I meant it pragmatically.... <grin>)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 17th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              state of harmony?

On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 07:47:03AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Reminds me of the discussion we once had here about "kol Yisrael  areivim 
: zeh bazeh" or "zeh lazeh."
:  
: The conclusion was that both were correct and it didn't really make any  
: difference.

Of course they do...

Areivim zeh bazeh means that all Jews are mixed up one within the other.
The Ohr haChaim invokes it to explain why cheit ha'eigel would impact the
quality of MRAH's nevu'ah.

Areivim zeh bazeh is a blander statement of mutual hischayvus, without any
metaphysical basis posited for it.

: I suspect that if you looked at closely related languages in Europe -- or  
: even different speakers of the same language -- you would find some say "the 
: sixth day of May" and others "the sixth day in May" and although the  
: prepositions vary, the meaning does not.

But we have halakhos for shetaros, and no one writes "beshteim-asar yom
bechodesh Iyyar". Check your kesuvah which preposition is used. Lehavdil
from your kesuvah (inserted for "al tiftach peh" reasons), the Shaarei
Teshuvah argues it's la'omer by parallel to the "leyerach" of a get.

I would think a real part of the question is whether the parallel between
month and omer is valid.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 17th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              state of harmony?

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 04:15:07PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: But it is more than that.  It is not just that the minhag is for a man to
: make a point of performing the mitzvah qiyumis with a tallis of that
: description at random points in the day, unconnected to anything else, it is
: that it is the minhag for a man to make a point of performing the mitzvah
: quyumis with a tallis of that description *while davening*...

But that can't be the way RYBS would describe it, since that would make
the focus of men's practice to be something other than borrowing the
matbei'ah of a mitzvah.

...
:> There is no mitzvah to wear a tallis -- only the tzitzis on it.

: Agreed.  And there is no mitzvah to float ones hands over a korban, only to
: do proper smicha...

We understand women doing semichah differently. I understood the gemara
as saying that women put their hands on the animal's head and press down
even though we presume they will fail to move that head. Not actually
hovering without touching.

In which case, it's as close as they could do to the original matbei'ah --
pressing down on the animal's head with all their might. The differences
are the assumption that most women would fail at it and the fact that
(by gezeiras hakasuv) it's not the qorban's pro-forma semichah.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 17th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              state of harmony?

R Akiva Miller suggested that the following Mishneh Berurah 448:18 resolves
my query.
"If a Jew placed his chometz in the room of a friend who was selling his
chometz [to a non-Jew], he must tell this to his Jewish friend who is doing
the selling, and make him a shaliach for the sale. For if he just leaves it
there, without telling, [it will become] forbidden after Pesach, because the
Jew did not know to transfer it, and the non-Jew did not know to acquire
it."

I am not yet convinced. In that case the Jew who wants to sell his Chamets
has NOT satisfied the necessary requirements and he KNOWS that. Put it like
this; if he needed to make the sale and it was critical that the sale be
valid, he would NOT rely on such casual arrangements. He would KNOW that in
such circumstances there would be an avenue which would allow the deal to be
abandoned. This knowledge disqualifies the transaction and consequently it
does NOT satisfy the requirements that Chazal imposed upon us re Bedikas and
Biur Chamets.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110507/347a5ba1/attachment-0001.htm>

In response to R Micha's comment, pasted below;
there are a number of points that make the Pesak remarkable.
It implies that in Bittul of 60 we DO have the possibility that it may be
discernible by human tasting and yet it is Battel
What seems to emerge is that there are 3 categories 1) what can be tasted by
any ordinary chap 2) what can be tasted by a chef 3) what can be tasted by
one in a million who have an extremely sensitive palette. In normal Bittul
we use the Chef which today is the value of 60. Pesach we use the one in a
million measure who seem to be able to discern taste at 1:1000. When even
these unusually sensitive palette can not discern the taste it is Battel
even during Pesach
Accordingly if we can not find one in a million who can discern that food
which is cooked in a non-Kosher vat that is tainted with non-K flavour, such
food ought to be Kosher, in spite of the fact that by our calculations there
is no Bittul Be60.



: HaRav Sh Z Auerbach Paskens that Chamets that is not Battel during Pesach
: (even in parts per thousand) IS in fact Battel when it is so dilute that
it
: can not be discerned by human tasting.

: Does this not point towards a most remarkable observation - that if a
non-K
: food flavour is transferred to a Kosher food, if it is not at all
: discernible by human tasting, then the food ought to be Kosher.

The topics of nosein taam and bitul beshishim are old ones. What's
remarkable in your extension?

I think it's more incredible that what you're telling us is that KLP uses
the usual rules after all! Despite the afilu 1:1000. Or did I misunderstand?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110507/e53a67f6/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/05/2011 8:23 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> This morning after davening a fellow who davens Nusach Sefard asked me
> why Nusach Ashkenaz does not say Morid ha-Tal. I did not have an
> answer for him. Can anyone help?

Chazal did not require us to mention or ask for dew or wind, because they
always come, so there's no need to ask for them or to mention them.
Nevertheless some have the custom of asking for dew, so that it should
be livrocho, which is what both NA and NS do in the winter ("vesein tal
umotor livrocho").  And some (NS and Sefardim) have the custom to mention
dew in the summer, even though there's no requirement to do so, and there
is a big advantage to doing so, because it means that if one forgot in
the winter to say "morid hageshem" one needn't go back or daven again,
because at least one said "tal".


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

On Wed, 4 May 2011 10:27:23 -0400, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> 
wrote (v28i72):

>An interesting perspective from R' Tzvi Freeman, over on Chabad.org
>
>     For the same reason, Solomon tells you not to rejoice over the fall
>     of your enemy. If that's the reason you are celebrating -- because he
>     is your enemy, that you have been vindicated in a personal battle --
>     then how are you better than him? His wickedness was self-serving,
>     as is your joy.

And that's the issue.  In *personal* enmity, binfol oyivcha 
applies.  Most people misquote it as "binfol oyvecha" (as I recall, 
even R' Micha was writing it that way the first time we debated this 
issue), and that's the whole point.  Shlomo made a point of saying it 
in the singular.  Don't rejoice over the fall of your enemy.  Not of 
your *enemies*.  In a personal struggle, there's merit to the premise 
that one shouldn't rejoice in his enemy's downfall.  But we're not 
dealing with a personal enemy.  We're dealing with an enemy who, 
under the banner of Islam, makes war against the world, and Jews in 
particular.  We *absolutely* should rejoice in his downfall.  This 
isn't the guy who got the promotion you wanted.  This isn't even the 
guy who mugged you.  This is the guy who sent his people out to 
murder and murder and murder.

I have to confess, I don't even see how anyone can possibly imagine 
that the Torah doesn't want us to rejoice in the death of such a foul 
national enemy.  There's nothing to support such a view.

Shabbat Shalom,
Lisa 

On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 12:25:27PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I have to confess, I don't even see how anyone can possibly imagine that 
> the Torah doesn't want us to rejoice in the death of such a foul  
> national enemy.  There's nothing to support such a view.

Except the medrash, rishonim and numerous acharonim who say that
half-Hallel on the 7th day of Pesach is because of the death of
the Mitzriim after all. And the Meshekh Chokhmah on the timing
of Purim and Chanukah -- being the day AFTER the war ended. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/compassion-for-our-enemies.shtml>
for all the sources previous conversations here brought up. (And since
you were in a few of them, I'm dismayed to see you write "nothing to
support such a view".)

Also, while we read it "oyivkha", there must be /some/ value to the
kesiv being "oyvekha". (Which is where my earlier error came from --
bringing up a web page without niqud.)

In any case, that was not the view being argued in the post to which
you replied. While the aforementioned sources could be used in support
of the "don't rejoice" perspective, it doesn't have to. The conclusion
of the article I cited was that we rejoice over the death of evil while
simultaneously being saddened by the death of a tzelem E-lokim. Quoting
his closing paragraph again:
    We are not angels. An angel, when it sings, is filled with nothing
    but song. An angel, when it cries, is drowned in its own tears. We
    are human beings. We can sing joyfully and mourn both at once. We
    can hate the evil of a person, while appreciating that he is still
    the work of G-d's hands. In this way, the human being, not the angel,
    is the perfect vessel for the wisdom of Torah.
In my blog entry I also invoke the need for ambivalence, rather than a
total lack of joy.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?

> From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@bezeqint.net>
> Yonathan Gershon from Har Etzion Yeshiva wrote an article that proves that
> within a family, it is definitely permitted.
> A Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Gigi, approved the article and its proofs. Rabbi
> Meidan doesn't agree with everything, but writes that his conclusions are
> halachically correct.

The MB in 199:6:(12) <page 204, Vol 2> says: "... even a woman with
her husband and sons, it's also incorrect to have her join [to
complete the threesome]..."

The Shaarie Teshuva (ibid) actually brings the Gan HaMelech (Siman 75)
who mentions that a certain Gadol used to make a Zimun with himself,
his daughter and her husband, and the Gan HaMelech disapproves.

Reading between the lines, it seems like technically it should/could
be permitted, but the Minhag was to not do so.

So this is an "ancient" discussion. :-)

- Danny

R' Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> asked:
> His father died the evening before Pesach and the funeral was in the
> afternoon and so sat shiva only for a short time.
>
> He is also a bechor and the question was whether he had to fast,
> with/without a siyum?

The KSA in  212:1 says that during the entire Shloshim an Aveil may
not eat at a Seudat Mitzva, including a Siyum, unless it's being made
in his home.

The question then becomes more general: Can any Aveil during Shloshim
eat after hearing the Siyum in Shul? After all, he cannot eat at that
Siyum.

- Danny, also a Bechor

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 11:25:29AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: The MB in 199:6:(12)...
: The Shaarie Teshuva (ibid) actually brings the Gan HaMelech (Siman 75)...

: Reading between the lines, it seems like technically it should/could
: be permitted, but the Minhag was to not do so.

But this presumes a mixed-gender zimun is a matter of reshus. I had asked,
in reply to the same post by RtSB that RDS is replying to, why this
would be. Given that men and women have an equal chiyuv in bentching,
why would the prohibition against breaking up a zimun apply any less
when some of the mechuyavim are actually mechuyavos?

Clearly, given the minhag, this is the case. What I don't understand is
the reasoning.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:10:21AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: 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...

I believe we hold otherwise, eg the Yad, Sanhedrin 12:2. We also require
the eidim cite the actual pasuq, which couldn't happen in the meqalel's
case. The pasuq didn't exist yet (R' Yochanan) or it was written (Reish
Laqish) but lacked spacing between the words, wasn't taught by Moshe
to the masses yet... Whatever the case, it is clear from the maaseh the
pasuq giving them their answer wasn't known to anyone around yet.

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 11:19:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: 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.

But then he is not an actual precedent, since the meqalel's case was
thereby special. Hashen's answer includes "mishpat echad yihyeh lachem",
(v 22) as though His prescription for the meqalel /is/ the eternal din.
How then does the pasuq inform future meqlalelim other than implicitely
telling them vaguely "this is very very bad"?

Side question: How do you determine from rashei teivos when it's R'
Elazar and when R' Eliezer?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> R' Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> asked:
> > His father died the evening before Pesach and the funeral was in the
> > afternoon and so sat shiva only for a short time.
> >
> > He is also a bechor and the question was whether he had to fast,
> > with/without a siyum?
>
> The KSA in  212:1 says that during the entire Shloshim an Aveil may
> not eat at a Seudat Mitzva, including a Siyum, unless it's being made
> in his home.
>
> The question then becomes more general: Can any Aveil during Shloshim
> eat after hearing the Siyum in Shul? After all, he cannot eat at that
> Siyum.
>

I heard a Shiur once whose details I cannot remember, but from what I
recall, there is a difference in opinion whether a bechor can eat after just
hearing the siyum or just attending the seudat mitzvah. All I can remember
is that it's better to do both, but I seem to remember that there were
shitot that said either one or the other was enough.

Kol Tuv,
Liron, also a Bechor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110508/af0e74cb/attachment-0001.htm>

I am a few days behind the latest digests, so I hope what I have to write is still relevant. 

On 29-Apr RYS wrote:

<<I was once at an aquarium, and saw a walrus. Though I'd seen pictures 
and figurines of walruses, it really made an impression in person as the 
strangest creature I'd ever seen. I figured this was an ideal time to 
say the berachah of "meshaneh ha-beriyos," but I think I recall from 
RNS's zoo tour that the "official" animals of this berachah are the 
elephant and monkey. So, I called up a (rather righty) rav I was close 
to for his opinion.

He said that some poskim prefer not to say the berachah at all nowadays, 
given our familiarity with these animals. So I didn't.

Recently I was at the Bronx Zoo, and seeing a giraffe...>>

===============

I decided to read a few pages at random of v'aleyhu lo yibol this past
shabbos. Behashgacha, one of the simanim dealt with (and may have solved) a
very timely problem I have with birchas ha'ilanos. The other relates to the
very issue RYS writes about. 

IIRC, RSZA is quoted as saying that kof and pil are merely illustrative and the b'racha can be made on any animal that elicits a similar sense of wonder. 

For a trip to the zoo RSZ recommends making the b'racha on one animal with intention to cover all the rest. 

Asked if the b'racha can be made on fish, RSZ responded In the negative on
the basis that kof and pil are land animals (not sure how one categorises a
walrus for this purpose).

KT,

-- SW
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110508/3205c221/attachment-0001.htm>

Does giving to the poor or those in dire need (eg saving one from death at hands 
of nzis/ or other pikuach nefesh situations require or allow us to give more 
than the 20% of our income to the poor? 
acc to website: http://waterburyyeshiva.org/highlights/page/5/
if someone is in front of  you, takanos usha (kesubos 50a) wouldn't apply 
(see Ahavas Chesed 2:20:2, Birchai Yosef 249:1), and therefore one would be 
allowed to give more 

what if they are not in front of you? 
what if one hears of people in trouble in other parts of the world (eg, wwii nzi 
situation) is one required/allowed to sell off assets or give more, in order to 
save jews? (what about non-jews, rawanda, etc??)
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110508/3f953220/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 73
**************************************

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..."