Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 108

Thu, 23 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Taking Midrashim Literally (was Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise!) (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: What should you wear for davening? (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. eye pains on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: eye pains on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Taking Midrashim Literally (was Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise!) (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: What should you wear for davening? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: What should you wear for davening? (menucha)
• 9. Re: Taking Midrashim Literally (was Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise!) (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: What should you wear for davening? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Micha Berger)
• 13. Minhag Yisrael (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 14. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Lisa Liel)
• 17. Re: eye pains on shabbat (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)

On 23/06/2011 9:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Midrashim need not be taken literally.

Of course not *all* medrashim *need* to be taken literally.  But clearly
many of them *are* meant literally, and certainly one who refuses ever
to believe the literal meaning of a medrash is a kofer in the whole torah.
Does anyone doubt, for instance, that Nimrod really did throw Avraham
Avinu into a fire?  Or that the Aron carried its bearers over the Yarden?
Can one imagine a frum Jew who refuses to believe these stories, merely
because they appear in midroshim?  And really, why would anyone doubt these
things?  I understand doubting that the Rabba Bar Bar Chana stories really
happened as described; I think very few people believe they did.  But since
when does that mean that there is a general rule that all midrashim are
literally false?  How did it come about that there are people with such a
krum philosophy?  What sort of yiddishkeit is that?  No one story in a
medrash is an ikkar in emunah; but that the body of medrash should be
suspect, and treated as fairy tales?!  Who ever heard of such a thing?

In any event, the medroshim I cited were definitely believed by Chazal
and the rishonim to be literally true, and are cited in *halacha* for
their literal content, and thus I don't believe it's a valid option to
reject them.

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

In a message dated 6/23/2011, llev...@stevens.edu writes:

From _http://tinyurl.com/6yyq2r2_ (http://tinyurl.com/6yyq2r2) 

The gemara  (Shabbos 10) states that a person cannot daven without a gartel 
(belt).  

>>>>>
 
 I learned in a ladies' shiur once that this applies to women as well  as 
men and it means that you should have /something/ separating your upper body  
from your lower body when you daven or even when you make a bracha.  The  
waist-band of a man's pants would count, even underwear counts.  The  
shiur-lady, who IIRC was my LaMaze instructor, said if you're in the hospital  
after you just had a baby, and you want to make a bracha, you should have  on a 
houserobe with a belt or a skirt or a half-slip or even underwear with  a 
band at the waist.  You shouldn't make a bracha wearing only a  hospital gown 
with nothing underneath it.  That's what she said  anyway.  


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




_____________________  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/b01a6d3e/attachment-0001.htm>

<<While I am with RTK on this one, RYSE's position is not so clear. I
think he tends more to R' Yitzchak Lampronati in the lice issue. My
first indication of this was his psak - not widely accepted - that the
heter of yayin mevushal no longer applies, since the change in taste
that cooking once worked on the wine does not occur ba'zman ha'zeh.>>

I thought it was RSZA (or also) said that pasteurization was not
enough to make wine mevushal that it had to be actually cooked. I
agree with RYGB- my impression is that the psak of RMF is generally
followed.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:35:14AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> While I am with RTK on this one, RYSE's position is not so clear. I  
> think he tends more to R' Yitzchak Lampronati in the lice issue. My  
> first indication of this was his psak - not widely accepted - that the  
> heter of yayin mevushal no longer applies, since the change in taste  
> that cooking once worked on the wine does not occur ba'zman ha'zeh.

I am not sure you can generalize. In the case of wine, what we make today
bears no resembelence to Chazal's wine. What they called yayin was
- thick enough that in order for it to reach the ground the same time as
  water, the mizbeiach had to have a measurably wider shis for nisuch
  hayayim than nisach hamayim (Sukkah 48a);
- thick or strong enough to require mezigas hakos to the point that what
  one drank was 67% water (Raba would drink 25%; Eruvin 54a); and
- tasted poorly, and was usually spiced and sweetened. (Tehillim 75:9;
  lehavdil, there is also textual evidence of what was done in Judea in
  its day in the Xian bible.)

What we have today is a vastly different product. The differences caused
by centuries of horticulture and in the technology of storing liquids
(to minimize evaporation) is far more clear than most cases of nishtanah
hateva.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

At 09:49 AM 6/23/2011, Zev Sero wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 9:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>>Midrashim need not be taken literally.
>
>Of course not *all* medrashim *need* to be taken literally.  But clearly
>many of them *are* meant literally, and certainly one who refuses ever
>to believe the literal meaning of a medrash is a kofer in the whole torah.
>Does anyone doubt, for instance, that Nimrod really did throw Avraham
>Avinu into a fire?

I have no idea if Nimrod did any such thing.  Maybe, but I wouldn't 
base anything on it, since it's a midrash.

>Or that the Aron carried its bearers over the Yarden?

Ditto.  Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't.  Maybe it did metaphorically.

>Can one imagine a frum Jew who refuses to believe these stories, 
>merely because they appear in midroshim?

Um... yes.

>And really, why would anyone doubt these things?

Pirkei Avot mentions 10 things that were created erev shabbat bein 
hashemashot.  All of them are miracles that don't fit in 
nature.  Short of a literal statement in Tanakh, I assume this means 
that everything else God does in the world is derekh ha-teva.

>I understand doubting that the Rabba Bar Bar Chana stories really
>happened as described; I think very few people believe they did.  But since
>when does that mean that there is a general rule that all midrashim are
>literally false?  How did it come about that there are people with such a
>krum philosophy?  What sort of yiddishkeit is that?  No one story in a
>medrash is an ikkar in emunah; but that the body of medrash should be
>suspect, and treated as fairy tales?!  Who ever heard of such a thing?

God forbid.  Non-literal != fairy tale.  You're setting up a false 
dichotomy.  I'd go further than you have and say that every midrash 
is true.  Every single one, without exception.  But true != literal.

Lisa 

On 23/06/2011 12:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The return of Eliyahu haNavi isn't mentioned in the iqarim nor in the
> Moreh. And in fact, in the discussion of mashiach in Hil' Melakhim
> (12:2), the Rambam explicitly lists it as among the details that "yeish
> min hachamim she'omerim" but we won't know what will really happen until
> after it does.

Not true.  The coming of "Eliyahu" is one of the details he says we *do*
know.  What "yesh min hachachamim [she]omrim" is that this will happen
before Moshiach comes rather than after.  That is not clear from the
nevi'im, who only say that he will come before the War of Gog and Magog,
which will be in the early Days of Moshiach; from that alone it seems
entirely possible that Eliyahu will come in the period between Moshiach's
coming and the war breaking out, but some chachamim say that he will come
before Moshiach, and that is a detail that we will have to wait to see
how it works out.


> The other mentions of Eliyahu's *return* in the Yad are in dinei manunus,
> to say that the person must let the money/item remain unused "ad sheyavo
> Eliyahu". (Hitting the Bar Ilan Responsa web site...)

He doesn't say "return", he says "come".  Note that in Hilchos Melachim
he carefully does *not* say that Malachi's "Eliyahu" is the same person
as the Eliyahu in Sefer Melachim.  He doesn't say they're *not* the same
person; and surely, like all of Klal Yisrael, he *expected* them to be
the same person, but his shita is that this is not one of the things we
can derive from the nevi'im and therefore know for certain, and we'll
have to wait and see how it turns out.  It might be another navi, whom
Malachi calls "Eliyahu" bederech mashal, and if this turns out to be the
case we should not conclude that this isn't really Moshiach.

Bottom line: the Rambam certainly holds that a navi, whom Malachi calls
"Eliyahu", will come, and will resolve questions of metzius such as who
is the true owner of disputed property.  (For that purpose nevu'ah is
valid evidence that a beis din must accept and follow.)  But he is not
sure whether this will be *the* Eliyahu, and exactly when he will come.


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

On 23/06/2011 10:51 AM, T6...@aol.com wrote:

> [...] said if you're in the hospital after you just had a baby, and you
> want to make a bracha, you should have on a houserobe with a belt or a
> skirt or a half-slip or even underwear with a band at the waist. You
> shouldn't make a bracha wearing only a hospital gown with nothing
> underneath it. That's what she said anyway.

If I recall correctly, in extremis you can put your arm over your waist
and consider that a separation.

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

Your Lamaze instructor holds like the Ba"ch and against the Shulchan 
Aruch and what the Mishna Brura refers to as "shar achronim"
OC 74,4

menucha (who is also a Lamaze instructor so I'm  allowed to be choleik 
on her :-) )


T6...@aol.com wrote:

>  <>
>  
>  I learned in a ladies' shiur once that this applies to women as well 
> as men and it means that you should have /something/ separating your 
> upper body from your lower body when you daven or even when you make a 
> bracha.  The waist-band of a man's pants would count, even underwear 
> counts.  The shiur-lady, who IIRC was my LaMaze instructor, said if 
> you're in the hospital after you just had a baby, and you want to make 
> a bracha, you should have on a houserobe with a belt or a skirt or a 
> half-slip or even underwear with a band at the waist.  You shouldn't 
> make a bracha wearing only a hospital gown with nothing underneath 
> it.  That's what she said anyway.
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/da083020/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:49:53AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Of course not *all* medrashim *need* to be taken literally.  But clearly
> many of them *are* meant literally...

All are meant allegorically. Even if they describe literal history,
Chazal weren't historians. Chazal didn't care which were historical
and which not. The science of history that we have today wasn't invented
yet; people didn't develop an interest in that distinction yet.

The story wouldn't be retold if it didn't have a message. ("Myth" in the
technical sense of the word, as I was taught in previous iterations. Not
useful, since "myth" as commonly used has the wrong connotations. Like
"Im tirtzu, ein zot agadah!")

So, we have stories that have metaphoric meaning, some of which are
historical, some not, and we have no tool for knowing which is which.
You therefore can't cite a medrash as proof of what happened, because
maybe it's one of those that didn't.

> Does anyone doubt, for instance, that Nimrod really did throw Avraham
> Avinu into a fire?  Or that the Aron carried its bearers over the Yarden?

I can answer "yes" to both questions;, I am not sure of either the literal
historicity of the kivshan and of whether the aron carried its bearers.

I would also say that caring whether or not they occured is itself a
break from how chazal viewed midrashic stories.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Similarly he makes no mention of Moshaich ben Yosef, from which I learn that 
there is no need to believe that there will be such a person.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>


> The return of Eliyahu haNavi isn't mentioned in the iqarim nor in the
> Moreh. And in fact, in the discussion of mashiach in Hil' Melakhim
> (12:2), the Rambam explicitly lists it as among the details that "yeish
> min hachamim she'omerim" but we won't know what will really happen until 

>
> In a message dated 6/23/2011, llev...@stevens.edu writes:
>
> From http://tinyurl.com/6yyq2r2
>
> The gemara (Shabbos 10) states that a person cannot daven without a gartel
> (belt).
>
> I was learning recently in (I think) the Chayei Adam that it is a machloket
whether this is an actual requirement or not., but if you regularly daven
with a belt, then it is necessary.
Based on this, if you regularly wear underwear with an elastic, you would be
unable to daven without underwear and without a belt.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/8d9f347f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:26:37PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Similarly he makes no mention of Moshaich ben Yosef, from which I learn
> that there is no need to believe that there will be such a person.

Actually, one might be able to argue the reverse. Not that I am, just
that it could be seen either way.

Mashiach ben Yosef is discussed on Sanhedrin 98b. So if the Rambam
doesn't include it on his list of rabbinic speculations that may or
may not be born out le'asid lavo, does that mean the Rambam considered it:
    - so far out he didn't need to list it,
    - so mesoretic it's not speculation, or
    - the list simply isn't an attempt to be complete?

IOW, one can argue "yes", "no", or "maybe" from the omission, and
therefore one can not conclude anything from it.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 23/06/2011 12:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> The return of Eliyahu haNavi isn't mentioned in the iqarim nor in the
>> Moreh. And in fact, in the discussion of mashiach in Hil' Melakhim
>> (12:2), the Rambam explicitly lists it as among the details that "yeish
>> min hachamim she'omerim" but we won't know what will really happen until
>> after it does.
>
> Not true.  The coming of "Eliyahu" is one of the details he says we *do*
> know...

He doesn't say that either. He says "veyeish min hakhamim she'omerim
sheqodem bi'as hamelekh hamashiach, yavo Eliyahu". You can argue he
only means the "qodem" is speculative, or I can argue it's the entire
"yaho". But he doesn't actually positively assert Eliyahu as part of the
story.

...
>> The other mentions of Eliyahu's *return* in the Yad are in dinei manunus,
>> to say that the person must let the money/item remain unused "ad sheyavo
>> Eliyahu". (Hitting the Bar Ilan Responsa web site...)
>
> He doesn't say "return", he says "come"....

Good point. But doesn't impact my masqanah; I took the return to be
the return of nevu'ah. Whether a navi comes or nevu'ah returns, one
is talking about the same thing.

> Bottom line: the Rambam certainly holds that a navi, whom Malachi calls
> "Eliyahu", will come, and will resolve questions of metzius such as who
> is the true owner of disputed property.  (For that purpose nevu'ah is
> valid evidence that a beis din must accept and follow.)  But he is not
> sure whether this will be *the* Eliyahu, and exactly when he will come.

I'm arguing that that navi who Malakhi calls Eliyahu is being identified
with the king when the Rambam says it's the king who won't point out the
mamzeirim from mishpachos shenitme`u.

What you wrote doesn't contradict what I wrote.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 13:36 -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 01:12 PM 6/22/2011, R. Ben Waxman wrote:
>>Unless you follow minhag taiman, in which case you do like the Mehaber
>>(baesed on the Rambam?)

> I do not say the entire nusach of the kedushah. I follow the original
> Nusach Ashkenaz minhag. Please see
> http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/kedusah.pdf

> Nusach HaGRA also does not follow the ARI. There is a shul not far from
> where my oldest son lives that follows the original Ashkenaz minhag.

So I'll point out here that "minhag Yisrael" seems to be a very misused
term, or at least a very misunderstood term. Usually Sepharadim get the
cognative dissonance of someone saying a particular Askhenazi minhag is
"minhag yisrael" even though Sepharadim don't follow that minhag at all.

I seem to recall pointing this out back when we discussed how it was
"minhag Yisrael" to change melodies in Lecha Dodi at "lo tevoshi,"
despite the fact that many Sephardic minhagim (I singled out Jersualem
in particular) have traditional melodies for Lecha Dodi and do not
change at "lo tevoshi."

This time, you get the cognitive dissonance, as your original Ashkenazi
minhag has been ignored in the drive to call something "minhag Yisrael".

~Chanoch

On 23/06/2011 2:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:26:37PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
  
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 23/06/2011 12:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> The return of Eliyahu haNavi isn't mentioned in the iqarim nor in the
>>> Moreh. And in fact, in the discussion of mashiach in Hil' Melakhim
>>> (12:2), the Rambam explicitly lists it as among the details that "yeish
>>> min hachamim she'omerim" but we won't know what will really happen until
>>> after it does.
>>
>> Not true.  The coming of "Eliyahu" is one of the details he says we *do*
>> know...
>
> He doesn't say that either. He says "veyeish min hakhamim she'omerim
> sheqodem bi'as hamelekh hamashiach, yavo Eliyahu". You can argue he
> only means the "qodem" is speculative, or I can argue it's the entire
> "yaho". But he doesn't actually positively assert Eliyahu as part of the
> story.

Wrong.  Why are you starting in the middle of the inyan, with "veyesh"?
What has he just said *before* he qualifies it with "veyesh"?  He has
just said that we *do* know a navi, whom Malachi calls "Eliyahu", will
definitely come at some time before the War of Gog and Magog.  How long
before?  The navi doesn't say.  *Then* he quotes some chachamim that
this "Eliyahu" will come before Moshiach; but that isn't in the navi
so we can't be sure.

As for Moshiach ben Yosef, pretty much everyone holds that this is
precisely one of the details that we won't understand until it happens.
We know that such a concept exists, and that in hindsight we will be
able to identify something or someone as Moshiach ben Yosef.  The very
fact that we pray every day that the Tzemach David, i.e. MbY, is not
killed shows that there is no certainty that he will be; this may mean
that there will be such a person and his fate is undetermined, or it
may mean something completely different, but it certainly means that
we are not required to believe that there will be a literal MbY who
*will* be killed.

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

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:41:01PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Wrong.  Why are you starting in the middle of the inyan, with "veyesh"?
> What has he just said *before* he qualifies it with "veyesh"?  He has
> just said that we *do* know a navi, whom Malachi calls "Eliyahu", will
> definitely come at some time before the War of Gog and Magog...

So then really start at the beginning:
    "Vekhein kol kayotze ba'eilu hadevarim be'inyan hamashiach
    meshalim heim...
    Yeira'eh mipeshutan shelidivei hanevi'im...
    milchemes gog umagog,
    vesheqodem gog umagog yaamod navi leyasheir Yisrael...
    shene'emar 'Hinei Anokhi sholeiach lakhem es Eilyah...'"

Then we have the bit I quoted, and then
    Vekhol eilu hadevarim vekhayotzei
    bahen lo yeida adam hei'ach yihyu....

IOW, the whole bit about "veheishiv leiv avos is within the list
prefaced and concluded with disclaimers just as much as the phrase
about when.

Also, while the Teimanim put a new halakhah before "veyeish min
hachakhamim she'omerim sheqodem bi'as hamashiach", in our editions,
it's all one item. It is just the last detail in the description
that begins "yaamod navi leyasheir Yisrael", stating that some
chackhamim say this (based on "lifnei ba yom Hashem").

...
> able to identify something or someone as Moshiach ben Yosef.  The very
> fact that we pray every day that the Tzemach David, i.e. MbY...

What's your source for identifying the two? I would have thought tzemach
david is beis David, not beis Yoseif.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 01:41 PM 6/23/2011, Zev wrote:
>As for Moshiach ben Yosef, pretty much everyone holds that this is
>precisely one of the details that we won't understand until it happens.
>We know that such a concept exists, and that in hindsight we will be
>able to identify something or someone as Moshiach ben Yosef.  The very
>fact that we pray every day that the Tzemach David, i.e. MbY, is not
>killed shows that there is no certainty that he will be; this may mean
>that there will be such a person and his fate is undetermined, or it
>may mean something completely different, but it certainly means that
>we are not required to believe that there will be a literal MbY who
>*will* be killed.

I think you need to establish that Mashiach ben Yosef is the same as 
Tzemech David.  That's pretty counter-intuitive.  Tzemech David 
should be a descendent of David.  Mashiach ben Yosef should not.

Lisa 

But those are not his arguments. His argument is only that all or most 
people cannot discern a difference in taste between mevushal and not 
mevushal.

YGB

On 6/23/2011 1:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:35:14AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
>> While I am with RTK on this one, RYSE's position is not so clear. I
>> think he tends more to R' Yitzchak Lampronati in the lice issue. My
>> first indication of this was his psak - not widely accepted - that the
>> heter of yayin mevushal no longer applies, since the change in taste
>> that cooking once worked on the wine does not occur ba'zman ha'zeh.
> I am not sure you can generalize. In the case of wine, what we make today
> bears no resembelence to Chazal's wine. What they called yayin was
>


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 108
***************************************

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..."