Avodah: Volume 28, Number 84

Mon, 30 May 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
  1. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Lisa Liel)
  2. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Micha Berger)
  3. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Zev Sero)
  4. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Micha Berger)
  5. trop issue (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
  6. Upsherin (Prof. Levine)
  7. Re: Upsherin (Micha Berger)
  8. border issues (Eli Turkel)
  9. Re: trop issue (Zev Sero)
  10. Re: Upsherin (Zev Sero)
  11. Re: Upsherin (Ben Waxman)
  12. Re: Modim d'Rabbanan (Yitzchok Zirkind)
  13. ein shliach le-dvar aceriah (Eli Turkel)
  14. Re: ein shliach le-dvar aceriah (Zev Sero)
  15. women wearing pants (Rabbi Y. H. Henkin)

Message: 1
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 14:46:13 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] border issues.....pikauch nefesh??


On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:12:37 -0600, Daniel Israel <d...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>On May 25, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> According to the Minchat Chinuch, milchemet mitzvah, an 
>> obligatory war, which includes wars of self-defense, takes 
>> precedence over pikuach nefesh.  We talk about there being only 
>> three exceptions, but really there are five.  Murder, avodah zarah, 
>> gilui arayot, chilul Hashem, and milchemet mitzvah.  As the Minchat 
>> Chinuch points out, we don't rely on miracles, so if milchemet 
>> mitzvah didn't override pikuach nefesh, the entire mitzvah of 
>> milchemet mitzvah would be torn out of the Torah.  Because people 
>> inevitably die in wars.

>Not disagreeing with your basic point, but does the M"Ch refer to 
>three really being five, or is that your comment?  Because the case 
>of milchemet mitzvah is not exactly parallel: one is you have to let 
>yourself be killed rather than violate.  The other is one has to put 
>oneself at risk of death in order to perform.

That's my comment.


[Email #2 -micha]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 06:25:23 -0400, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>In any case, the holiness of the land in question doesn't appear to be
>a milkemes mitzvah issue. David acquiring Suria was just as much a MM.

Are you sure? I was under the impression that it was a milchemet reshut.
What qualified it as a milchemet mitzvah?

>One would need to be a specific type of Religious Zionist, the messianic
>sort found among followers of R's Kook and Gush Emunim, to take it for
>granted that there is a chiyuv to acquire and retain territory as part
>of aschalta dege'ulasa.

I disagree. And I don't think anyone conflates acquiring and retaining
territory. Atchalta d'geula, in my opinion, is irrelevant halakhically.
The halakha doesn't change just because someone labels the period in
that way. Arei sfar are arei sfar, and the halakha regarding them is
hardly dependent on messianic or pre-messianic eras. Absent a source
that brings down the halakhot relating to arei sfar (border towns) with
exceptions for overall well being of the public, I don't see how such
a claim can be made.

>If today is still a full-fledged part of Galud
>Edom, I fail to see how a milkhemes mitzvah is possible (aside from
>that derived from piquach nefesh) without a king -- and perhaps even
>confirmation by both Sanhedrin and urim vetumim is required.

With all due respect, R' Micha, I think you may be confusing milchemet
mitzvah and milchemet reshut. Milchemet mitzvah is operative at all
times, and does not require any decision by a Sanhedrin or king or urim
v'tumim. No war of self-defense requires such a thing. A milchemet
reshut, at least according to the Rambam, is a war we launch in order
to conquer additional territory or property/wealth. That sort of war
does require authorization from "a higher authority".

And just as atchalta d'geula is irrelevant halakhically, so too is Galut
Edom. There is nothing in all of the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch
that defines even a single halakha as being dependent on such definitions.

>The Rambam is even more limiting. To him (Melakhim 5:1) a MM is only
>against the 7 amim, Amaleiq -- specific chiyuvim whose "cheftzah shel
>mitzvah" is irretrievaly lost -- or defensive. OTOH, he holds the king
>only needs confirmation for milkhemes reshus.

Correct. And fighting to retain arei sfar is unquestionably a milchemet
mitzvah, and not a milchemet reshut. Unless you know a source that
says otherwise. Do you?

PS: Can I ask what the meaning of your "Tir'u b'tov" is? How would you
translate that into English?


[Email #3]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 09:24:31 -0400,  Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>On 26/05/2011 6:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I /think/ the primary issue dividing Lisa's post and RDI's reply is
>> whether defending borders is a MM issue bizman hazeh, or if today a MM is
>> only if it will make Jews safer.

>Indeed, this is the issue, which ultimately boils down to a machlokes
>of the Rambam and the Ramban, whether kibbush ha'aretz is one of the
>613 mitzvos, and therefore applies at all times, or was a specific
>mitzvah once, and will be again, but isn't right now.

How so? How do the issues connect at all? Defending borders is
halakhically an issue of self-defense. Expanding borders is kibush
ha-aretz, but I don't know of any source that says defending border
towns is anything but an unqualified obligation.

>IOW the above all paskened like the Rambam, that mitzvas kibbush
>ha'aretz does not apply bizman hazeh.

But the subject here is border issues. I don't see how that relates to
kibush ha-aretz in any way.

Lisa 



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 17:30:59 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] border issues.....pikauch nefesh??


On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:46:13PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 06:25:23 -0400, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>> In any case, the holiness of the land in question doesn't appear to be
>> a milkemes mitzvah issue. David acquiring Suria was just as much a MM.

> Are you sure? I was under the impression that it was a milchemet reshut.
> What qualified it as a milchemet mitzvah?

Sure? No -- that's why I wrote "doesn't APPEAR to be".

>> One would need to be a specific type of Religious Zionist, the messianic
>> sort found among followers of R's Kook and Gush Emunim, to take it for
>> granted that there is a chiyuv to acquire and retain territory as part
>> of aschalta dege'ulasa.

> I disagree. And I don't think anyone conflates acquiring and retaining
> territory. Atchalta d'geula, in my opinion, is irrelevant halakhically.
...


And it looks like for a formal milkhamah you need a king, which seems to
be what the Rambam says in Melakhim 5:1-2 (not to mention the fact that he
lumps "Melakhim uMilkhomos[eihem]" into the same topic). I was thinking
that only a Messianic Zionist would accord the current gov't some of the
halakhos of melekh, since it's only they who make it the beginnings of
the return of beis David. If a RZ who isn't messianic about it doesn't
have anyone with even a small portion of the powers of a king, then there
are no grounds for a war. (Barring the prevention of a piquach nefesh.)

>> If today is still a full-fledged part of Galu[s]
>> Edom, I fail to see how a milkhemes mitzvah is possible (aside from
>> that derived from piquach nefesh) without a king -- and perhaps even
>> confirmation by both Sanhedrin and urim vetumim is required.

> With all due respect, R' Micha, I think you may be confusing milchemet
> mitzvah and milchemet reshut....

Actually, I think the problem is that you're assuming my "perhaps" is
shitas haRambam. I said "perhaps" because it is /a/ shitah, although not
everyone's.

>> The Rambam is even more limiting. To him (Melakhim 5:1) a MM is only
>> against the 7 amim, Amaleiq -- specific chiyuvim whose "cheftzah shel
>> mitzvah" is irretrievaly lost -- or defensive. OTOH, he holds the king
>> only needs confirmation for milkhemes reshus.

> Correct. And fighting to retain arei sfar is unquestionably a milchemet
> mitzvah, and not a milchemet reshut. Unless you know a source that
> says otherwise. Do you?

I don't know of a source that retaining cities is a MM. The Rambam isn't
one. I gave you his whole list (5:1):
    Ve'eizo hi milchemes mitzvah?
    Zo milkhemes
        (a) 7 amamim,
        (b) umlchemes Amaleiq,
        (c) ve'ezras Yisrael mitzar sheba aleihem.

Acquiring new cities is his example of milkhemes reshus. Retaining
current cities isn't mentions one way or the other. But it would appear
that a MM is a milkhamah that implements a specific mitzvah -- getting
Kenaan off of EY (Devarim 7:2), mechiyas Amaleiq and hatzalas nefashos --
rather than a war that is a mitzvah inherently.

> PS: Can I ask what the meaning of your "Tir'u b'tov" is? How would you
> translate that into English?

It's from RSWolbe. See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/04/tireh-betov.shtml>.
    Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing
    that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the
    imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take
    the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire
    to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the
    Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies
    in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has
    in store for us.

    The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the
    product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my
    free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov"
    addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the
    person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that
    recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?




Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 20:16:30 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] border issues.....pikauch nefesh??


On 26/05/2011 3:46 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Arei sfar are arei sfar, and the halakha regarding them is
> hardly dependent on messianic or pre-messianic eras. Absent a source
> that brings down the halakhot relating to arei sfar (border towns) with
> exceptions for overall well being of the public, I don't see how such
> a claim can be made.

The law about border towns is *about* safety.  It has nothing to do with
EY, let alone Moshiach; in fact the gemara is talking about border towns
in Nehardea, not in EY!  The criterion is "that the land should not become
easier for them to conquer".  Any territory that, if it were in enemy hands,
would be strategically useful to them, must be retained.  Any territory
that will not help the enemy, should they decide to conquer the land, may
be given up.  And certainly territory that's a military liability, i.e. it
would be difficult to defend, and the military would much rather *not*
have it in the event of a war, may be given away.

But I'm not sure that defending Jewish areas of Nehardea is a milchemet
mitzvah.  Where do you see that?  It seems to me that it's just a mitzvah
of hatzalat nefashot, of "lo taamod al dam re`echa", but it doesn't have
a special status.   Maybe I'm wrong; is the term used that way anywhere?

-- 
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: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 05:41:30 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] border issues.....pikauch nefesh??


On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:16:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> But I'm not sure that defending Jewish areas of Nehardea is a milchemet
> mitzvah.  Where do you see that?  It seems to me that it's just a mitzvah
> of hatzalat nefashot, of "lo taamod al dam re`echa", but it doesn't have
> a special status.   Maybe I'm wrong; is the term used that way anywhere?

But I think the Rambam is saying that MM is not a mitzvah in and of
itself. Rather, it's a milkhamah that is also a mitzvah for other reasons,
including "just a mitzvah of hatzalat nefashot", or mechiyas Amaleiq or
evicting the 7 ammim.

Recall that according to the Rambam, the latter two could be also
be accomplished through outreach without war, as geirei toshav are
(leshitaso) not Kenaanim nor Amaleiqim anymore. It's not like they are
necessarily "thou shalt attack" any more than hatzalas nefashos is.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?




Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 19:14:05 -0700
Subject:
[Avodah] trop issue


http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-trup-alternation-in-yisachar.ht
ml 

i would  like  to think there is a more esoteric pshat , than just  a 
syllable  count....anyone  seen one ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110526/43275347/attachment-0001.htm>



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 18:02:36 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Upsherin


At 03:42 PM 5/26/2011, R. Zev Sero wrote:

>On 25/05/2011 7:21 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> >> Upsherin is a generations-old minhag for many Ashkenazim.
> >
> > What is your basis for this assertion?
>
>For one thing, it was practised by the Baal Shem Tov's talmidim at least
>as long ago as 1748.

I fail to see how this is a basis for saying that 
"Upsherin is a generation-old minhag for many 
Ashkenazim," given that Chassidus changed many 
Ashkenaz minhagim for Sefardic minhogim.  The 
switch in nusach from Ashkenaz to Sefard is a prime example.

I guess it depends upon how one defines 
Ashkenazim.  Are those who have abandoned many 
Ashkenazic minhagim for Sefardic minhagim or for 
things rooted in kabbala really in the Ashkenaz 
camp?   Is someone who does not daven Nusach 
Ashkenaz to be considered Ashkenaz?   There is no 
question that such a person is not a Sefardi in 
the following sense.  From 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Jews#Definition

A Sephardi Jew is a Jew descended from, or who 
follows the customs and traditions followed by, 
Jews who lived in the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula>Iberian 
Peninsula (modern 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain>Spain and 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal>Portugal) 
before their expulsion in the late 15th century. 
This includes both the descendants of Jews 
expelled from Spain under the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_decree>Alhambra 
decree of 1492, or from 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal>Portugal 
by order of King 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_I_of_Portugal>Manuel 
I in 1497, and the descendants of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Jews>crypto-Jews 
who left the Peninsula in later centuries to 
North Africa, Asia Minor, the Philippines and 
elsewhere around the world, and the descendants 
of crypto-Jews who remained in Iberia. In modern 
times, the term has also been applied to Jews who 
may not have been born Sephardi (or even Jewish) 
but attend Sephardic synagogues and practice Sephardic traditions.

Yet is he truly Ashkenaz?  According to 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Definition 
"The 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F>exact 
definition of Jewishness is not universally 
agreed upon?neither by religious scholars."  And, 
"In a religious sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is any 
Jew whose family tradition and ritual follows Ashkenazi practice."

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110526/042a0bda/attachment-0001.htm>



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 06:04:12 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Upsherin


On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 06:02:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 03:42 PM 5/26/2011, R. Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 25/05/2011 7:21 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> >> Upsherin is a generations-old minhag for many Ashkenazim.

>> > What is your basis for this assertion?

>> For one thing, it was practised by the Baal Shem Tov's talmidim at least
>> as long ago as 1748.

> I fail to see how this is a basis for saying that "Upsherin is a 
> generation-old minhag for many Ashkenazim," given that Chassidus changed 
> many Ashkenaz minhagim for Sefardic minhogim.  The switch in nusach from 
> Ashkenaz to Sefard is a prime example.

But that established a minhag. Just as Qabbalas Shabbos is a minhag that
for Ashkenazim isn't much older, maybe a generation.

If one of the Besh"t's talmidim's descendents performs an upshering
today, he is an Ashkenazi who has a minhag predating 1748 to do so --
numerous generations old.

Either that, or reject all the changes in the Roedelheim siddur that
aren't mentioned by the Maharil, and in fact all the differences between
the siddur as Ashkenazim davened in the Maharil's day and Rav Amram
Gaon's, and even R' Amram Gaon's siddur must have differences in nusach
from what was said by Chazal, never mind numerous additions...

As I asked before, why is one set of minhagim sacrosanct, but others
sets changes that need reversion? Every set of minhagim is a twig on a
huge bushy evolutionary tree. They all include new ideas and changes,
and probably the vast majority were accepted over the voices of the
older generation complaning about these insane modern chumeros.

> I guess it depends upon how one defines Ashkenazim.  Are those who have 
> abandoned many Ashkenazic minhagim for Sefardic minhagim or for things 
> rooted in kabbala really in the Ashkenaz camp?...

If not, why say they ought to be doing as per the Ashkenazim.

Personally, I think of Ashkenazi as an ethnic and genetic indication
primarily. Minhag Ashkenaz is the minhagim of Ashkenazim.

Second, the Chassidic Nusach Sfard is an Ashkenazi invention to comply
to a system of thought invented by R' Yitzchaq Luria, a/k/a R' Yitzchaq
ben Shelomo Ashkenazi. He was the nephew (and talmid) of Rav Betzalel
Ashkenazi, the Shitah Mequbetzes. It's entirely "homegrown" by Ashkenazi
minds, and the only thing Sepharadic about it is the number of cases
where the nusach the Ari's kavvanos better fit happens to be the one
already used by Sepharadim. In comparably many times, the phrase is from
another source.

Both Ashk and Sfard underwent a huge alteration in minhag in the late
18th and early 19th century, a changing of niqud that impacts a sizable
minority of words. I don't see you using a pre-change siddur...

Minhag, as I wrote, is a bushy evolutionary tree. No one's lineage is
more a straight line than anyone else's.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?




Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:03:53 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] border issues


<<As I understand it, the territories that were conquered by war have
kedusha only so long as we're living there.  But the territories that
were granted to us by the goyim have permanent kedusha.  I remember
seeing a map that showed sort of a butterfly-shaped area, roughly
equivalent to Judea and Samaria and a mirror image of it to the east
of the Jordan River, and said that was the extent of the return in
Persian times. >>

I am not sure what map this is. As far as I know the area that was Jewish in
the times
of Ezra and Nechemia was Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings. Most of
the
area in Bayit Sheni was conquered by the Hashmanoim kings. The status of
these
lands seems to be in dispute.

In terms of disputes it is practically impossible that there was no
machloket until the
days of the "zugot".  We know that there was a machloket whether David was
fir to be
king being a descendant of Ruth the Moabite. Thus, according to some
opinions the
entire descendants of Ruth were not eligible to get married, not a minor
concern.

Tanach tells that there were long periods when Avoda Zara was dominant in
Judah
and Torah learning almost disappeared to the extent that portions of te
written Torah
were unknown (presumably outside a very small circle).

I recent attended an archaeology retreat. One of the talks was on the
incidence of pig bones
in Israel. It seems that it was quite common in Samaria but quite rare in
Judah. My
understanding is that according to archaeologists the Northern and Southern
kingdoms
were fundamentally different and not just questions of individual kings that
worshiped
idols  or visited the Temple in Jerusalem

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110527/73ad61aa/attachment-0001.htm>



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 05:50:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] trop issue


On 26/05/2011 10:14 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-trup-alternation-in-
> yisachar.html_
>
> i would like to think there is a more esoteric pshat , than just a syllable count....anyone seen one ?

Sorry, it really is just the syllable count.  Pashta-katon (or, as he
calls it, "metiga") is just a fancy zakef-gadol that spreads over three
syllables instead of one.


-- 
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: 10
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 06:15:44 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Upsherin



> I guess it depends upon how one defines Ashkenazim.

I'd say an Ashkenazi is one who is bound by Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom
and Gezeras Kitniyos, and generally follows the psokim of the Ramo
rather than those of the Mechaber.   Davening in some version of
Havoroh Ashkenazis is also probably a sufficient (but unnecessary)
condition.  Most chassidim qualify.


RMB's statement that "Upsherin is a generation-old minhag for many
Ashkenazim" is therefore true.  For instance, it's probably been in
my family for at least 7 generations, perhaps more.


-- 
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: 11
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:19:55 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Upsherin


As I've said before, they aren't sacrosanct and therefore the changes that 
are happening today (both chumra and qula), in our generation, are a 
contiuation of what has gone on before. Nothing to get bent out of shape 
about.

A small factoid about changes (or melting together) going on today: the new 
Koren Siddur (Hebrew Edition) has instructions for people davening in shul 
with a different nusach. For example, the Ashkenaz siddur you to say Ein 
Keliqeinu and Shir Shel Yom before Aleynu if you are in a Nusach Sefard 
shul.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> As I asked before, why is one set of minhagim sacrosanct, but others
> sets changes that need reversion? Every set of minhagim is a twig on a
> huge bushy evolutionary tree. They all include new ideas and changes,
> and probably the vast majority were accepted over the voices of the
> older generation complaning about these insane modern chumeros.
> 



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <yzirk...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:08:03 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Modim d'Rabbanan


On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Going back to the gemaras' discussion of Modim deRabbanan...
>
> The words R' Acha bar Yaaqov had (Sotah 40a) were "kein kehayeinu
> uschaneinu veqabtzeinu vese'esof galuyoseinu lechazros qodshekha..."
> (And then R' Papa strung together all the suggested nusachos.)
>
> The Nusach Tchayeinu uSkaymeinu is found in the RoKeach, Ohr Zorua, and the
Tur. The Rosh's Nusach is a combination of the Nusach found in the Gemara
and our Nusach "Tchayeinu uSkaymeinu uSchonenu". The Rif's Nusach is
Tchayeinu uSnachameinu" (taken from the Lkutei MaHaRiaCh).

>
>
> --
> Kol Tuv,
> Yitzchok Zirkind
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110527/a6b17b2e/attachment-0001.htm>



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 23:03:21 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] ein shliach le-dvar aceriah


Moving from areivim: there was a discussion of the punishment for
the one who set up the 3 lads in bringing illegal things into Japan

Two questions:

1. The gemara "exonerates" one who sets up others to do a sin on the grounds
that
the other person shouldn't have listened. What about this case where the
boys
were mislead. Is the sender now guilty in bet din?


2. I have always been bothered that the Mafia leader is always off the hook
and only
the poor underlings can be charged. True the leadership will be punished by
G-d
but in our world the leadership seems to live a wonderful life and is not
threatened
by any eventual punishment in the next world. In fact many Italian mafiosos
attend
church regularly. Any thoughts?
In the real world how would a Torah society treat Mafia leaders except for
the answer
of "dinei melech" which to me is a cop out.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110528/9c1760aa/attachment-0001.htm>



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 23:04:44 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] ein shliach le-dvar aceriah


On 28/05/2011 4:03 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:

> 1. The gemara "exonerates" one who sets up others to do a sin on the grounds that
> the other person shouldn't have listened. What about this case where the boys
> were mislead. Is the sender now guilty in bet din?

He's guilty of lifnei iver, but not of the actual crime.



> In the real world how would a Torah society treat Mafia leaders except for the answer
> of "dinei melech" which to me is a cop out.

According to dinei Torah the godfather is indeed innocent, so why should
you want to punish him?  But the fact is that, innocent though he is he's
a menace to society, so he'd probably be dealt with by "Makin ve'onshin
shelo min hadin", which is pretty much the same as dinei melech, but done
by BD.

-- 
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: 15
From: "Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <hen...@012.net.il>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 22:30:26 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] women wearing pants


See Bnei Banim vol. 2 p. 211 par. 38, and vol. 4 p. 141 (concerning pisuk raglayim).
                Yehuda Henkin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110530/41bc50a8/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 84
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avo...@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-requ...@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-ow...@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


< Previous Next >