Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 186

Fri, 16 Sep 2011

• 1. Re: who came first? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Sim shalom-Shalom Rav (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Sim shalom-Shalom Rav (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: Sim shalom-Shalom Rav (Micha Berger)
• 5. Echoes of Eden-non human humanoids (Gershon Dubin)
• 6. Re: Sim shalom-Shalom Rav (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: who came first? (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: who came first? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: who came first? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: who came first? (Zev Sero)
• 12. heard re: negotiations on shabbas (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 13. our understanding(s) of fire......change in halacha?? (Harvey Benton)
• 14. Re: Ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: heard re: negotiations on shabbas (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: our understanding(s) of fire......change in halacha?? (Joel C. Salomon)
• 17. Re: Ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (D&E-H Bannett)
• 19. Can You Change the Height of Your Shtender On Shabbos? (Prof. Levine)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:26:37PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: since eliyahu is before the mishna (and even the novi who talks about what he needs (or will do)
: does he have to listen to the later authorities??

Wouldn't he be a zaqein mamre (who was also always born before the pesaq
in question) if he doesn't?

-micha

On 15/09/2011 3:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> (Machon Shilo, in their recreation of Nusach EY use "Sim Shelomekha". I
> don't know R' Chaim b David's justification of his choice.

R David ben Chaim.  R Chaim is Rabbi Michael Mandel of Melbourne.
Incidentally, while just searching on his name I found a moving story
about him in a book called "Prisms of Light", excerpts of which are
on Google Books.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 9/15/2011 2:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> According to R' Yechezkel Luger's The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah,
> 3 different version of the 18th berakhah of the Amidah were found in the
> geniza: the current Ashkenaz Sim Shalom, Sim Shelomekha (which ends either
> "oseh hashalom" or in one subvariant "me'on haberakhos ve'oseh hashalom"),
> and Shalom Rav.

> (Machon Shilo, in their recreation of Nusach EY use "Sim Shelomekha". I
> don't know R' Chaim b David's justification of his choice. I did notice
> that he pretty consistently ends up with the shorter of the alternatives.
> This could reflect personal bias, or perhaps EY had a tendency toward less
> repetition and fewer adjectives and adverbs than other areas.)

Rav David Bar Hayim, not Chaim b David. And my guess is that Sim
Shelomekha would be the nusah in the Yerushalmi. He tends to pasken
by that. He was actually the one who told me that this was the reason
for the dual nus'haot of Sim Shalom/Shalom Rav and Hashkiveinu. That one
was the nusah in the Bavli and the other was the nusah in the Yerushalmi.
Can anyone confirm or contradict this?

Lisa

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 02:46:02PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Rav David Bar Hayim, not Chaim b David. And my guess is that Sim
> Shelomekha would be the nusah in the Yerushalmi. He tends to pasken
> by that. He was actually the one who told me that this was the reason
> for the dual nus'haot of Sim Shalom/Shalom Rav and Hashkiveinu. That one
> was the nusah in the Bavli and the other was the nusah in the Yerushalmi.
> Can anyone confirm or contradict this?

Sim Shelomekha is not in the Y-mi. Nor is the chasimah "ve/Oseh hashalom".
For that matter, there is no indication from the Y-mi at all what the
nusach they used was. IOW, no other variant, spelled malei or chaseir,
passed my search.

Hashkiveinu is in the Bavli in the question of why it was not dividing
Geulah and Tefillah ("kege'ulah arikhta damya; Berakhos 4b). It is not
mentioned in the Y-mi, and the chasimah isn't mentioned in either.

He may have meant Israel vs Bavel, but the talmudim are silent.

BTW, WRT Israel vs Bavel: we really mean Roman vassels vs Persian
vassels. Which is why we can use the Cairo Geniza in this discussion.
We presume that nusach across two countries in the same empire didn't
vary as much. Whereas trade and communication between Bavel and EY was
less frequent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Micha quoted (on Areivim) the new book Echoes of Eden by Rabbi Ari
Kahn as saying that Adam Harishon co-existed with non-human humanoids

[My quote:
> Here's a quote that should get some conversation started (from pg 7):
>    Whlie the suggestion that there were other humanoids with whom Adam
>    felt no spiritual or existential kinship may seem antinomian, at
>    odds with mainstream rabbinic doctrine, we are taught that the Torah's
>    truth exists on many levels...

> He then cites maamarei chazal that can only be understood in these
> terms. And a footnote quotes sources -- paragraph sized Hebrew quotes --
> from the Ohr haChaim and Rashi about interpreting pesuqim differently
> than Chazal.

-micha]

Rabbi Moshe Eisemann learns that this is the position of the Ramban.
Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

On 9/15/2011 3:11 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 15/09/2011 3:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> (Machon Shilo, in their recreation of Nusach EY use "Sim Shelomekha". I
>> don't know R' Chaim b David's justification of his choice.
>
> R David ben Chaim.  R Chaim is Rabbi Michael Mandel of Melbourne.
> Incidentally, while just searching on his name I found a moving story
> about him in a book called "Prisms of Light", excerpts of which are
> on Google Books.

His last name is Bar Hayim.  Not Ben David and not Chaim.  It may have 
once been Mandel, just as Ben Gurion's last name was once Gruen and 
Golda Meir was once Golda Mabovitch.  I'm not sure why you always feel 
the need to point out what his name used to be, as though his name now 
isn't "real".

Lisa

On 9/15/2011 2:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:26:37PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
>: since eliyahu is before the mishna (and even the novi who talks about
>: what he needs (or will do)
> : does he have to listen to the later authorities??

> Wouldn't he be a zaqein mamre (who was also always born before the pesaq
> in question) if he doesn't?

I'm pretty sure you can't have a zaqen mamre without a Sanhedrin,
or at the very least without smukhim. And given that he's the only
samukh alive, I suspect his paskening authority way outranks that of
any other authority.

Lisa

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Wouldn't he be a zaqein mamre (who was also always born before the pesaq
> in question) if he doesn't?

I heard once (can't remember where) that since we don't pasken from
a Navi, how would waiting for Eliyahu help with any of the Teiku's in
Shas? Answer I heard is that since Eliyahu would have the shortest lineage
to moshe rabbeinu (and presumably the most time for Torah study I guess)
he would answer all the questions with sevara. As such, I assume that
he would be able to discredit any later authority who he disagreed with.

Kol Tuv,
Liron

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 02:43:36PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Wouldn't he be a zaqein mamre (who was also always born before the pesaq
>> in question) if he doesn't?
>
> I'm pretty sure you can't have a zaqen mamre without a Sanhedrin,
> or at the very least without smukhim. And given that he's the only
> samukh alive, I suspect his paskening authority way outranks that of
> any other authority.

I was thinking of the first millennium, from Eliyahu's ascension through
R' Hillel's Sanhedrin or (according to the Rambam) chasimas hashas.

But I was mistaken. According to Sotah 45a, a ZM not only has to resist
the pesaq of the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin has to be in the lishqas
hagazis. From the pasuq's words "el hamaqom".

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:39:55PM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
:                          ... since Eliyahu would have the shortest lineage
: to moshe rabbeinu (and presumably the most time for Torah study I guess)
: he would answer all the questions with sevara. As such, I assume that
: he would be able to discredit any later authority who he disagreed with.

Isn't ZM an inyan of bucking rov, even if the zaqein is the greatest
chokham (thus the description "zaqein")?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 06:52:43PM -0400, S. wrote:
: All we see from that is the recognition that "Yankel" is a kinnui for
: "Ya'akov," and in trying to fix a proper spelling, the poskim decided
: to prefer an ayin rather than a nun...

If it were reall an issue of kinui, you would have to write both on
the get anyway. No, we're really writing the /n/ of "Yankev" with an
ayin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 15/09/2011 3:43 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 2:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:26:37PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> : since eliyahu is before the mishna (and even the novi who talks about
>> : what he needs (or will do)
>> : does he have to listen to the later authorities??
>
>> Wouldn't he be a zaqein mamre (who was also always born before the pesaq
>> in question) if he doesn't?
>
> I'm pretty sure you can't have a zaqen mamre without a Sanhedrin,
> or at the very least without smukhim. And given that he's the only
> samukh alive, I suspect his paskening authority way outranks that of
> any other authority.

The Tana'im were semuchim, and so was Malachi.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

RZS: 

> In EY, OTOH, living in the 
>house is itself a mitzvah, and therefore not only may one negotiate to 
>buy it, but Chazal even permitted amira lenochri for this purpose. 

Is this true if you already own a house in EY, and are planning to sell 
it in order to buy this house? You are already doing yishuv EY. Buying 
the new house doesn't add to that? Or is there another mitzvah I don't 
know about? (I'm assuming you are buying from another Jew...). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110915/56af9a66/attachment-0001.htm>

our understanding of fire (and its' associated electricity cousin) in the minds of the poskim, are not the
same as they were at the turn of the century when they decided that?
electricity was assur on shabbas. now our understanding has changed, and for instance we know that
not all fires (eg underwater flares) are the same;?
is there a nafka mina in that in the times of the gemarra if a tanna or amora passed a halacha (and the?
reason(s) changed, we do not change the halacha (eg snakes in am water),?

mecz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110915/2708fc7a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:04:56PM -0400, S. wrote:
: Secondly, we see that (some?) Ashkenazim had a problem with two pasachs
: in the beginning of a word, second letter ayin, hence "mayriv," "tayna,"
: and so forth. Interestingly, the other thing Ashkenazim do is remove
: one altogether when it's an aleph, hence "bal" instead of "ba'al" and so
: forth....

But a youth is a nar, not a nayr.

I think the /y/ sound is similar to the promotion of segol to tzerei
in words like "meilekh", "Peisach", etc... It has to do with speech
patterns in Slavic languages. That wouldn't explain why ayin tends one
way and alef the other (with exceptions). But it would dismiss the /y/
as being indicative of what an ayin used to sound like. OTOH, as REMT
notes, we hold that the /n/ in Yankev can be spelled with an ayin on
a get. Which indicates being sure enough for the purposess of an area
in halakhah where games aren't played (due to potential future mamzeirim
if the get is no good).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

On 15/09/2011 6:01 PM, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
> Is this true if you already own a house in EY, and are planning to sell
> it in order to buy this house?  You are already doing yishuv EY.  Buying
> the new house doesn't add to that?  Or is there another mitzvah I don't
> know about?  (I'm assuming you are buying from another Jew...).

Bad assumption.  *Selling* a house in EY is not a mitzvah, so if the seller
is a Jew how is he selling it on Shabbos?  The heter is in fact only when
buying from a nochri, and he's about to leave town so the opportunity will
be gone after Shabbos.  If the seller is a Jew then not only are you not
doing a mitzvah, you're being machshil him in an avera.  And if the goy
will be around after Shabbos then why should Chazal give you a heter?



-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 09/15/2011 06:04 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> our understanding of fire (and its' associated electricity cousin) in
> the minds of the poskim, are not the
> same as they were at the turn of the century when they decided that 
> electricity was assur on shabbas. now our understanding has changed, and
> for instance we know that
> not all fires (eg underwater flares) are the same;

I'm not touching your question about the possibility of change in
halacha, but the halachik definition of fire is interesting.

Consider:  A flame, a glowing coal, and red-hot metal are all considered
"fire".[1]  Is there anything in the way of equating this with
"incandescence"?  Is there anything else halachikly defined as "aish"
that does not fit this, aside from the Chazon Ish's view that all
(most?) electric current qualifies?

[1]  Turning on a glowing-filament light bulb on Shabbos would therefore
be a d'Oraisa [barring discussions of indirect action], no matter what
your view on the halachik status of electricity.

On 15/09/2011 5:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But a youth is a nar, not a nayr.

A nar is a fool, not a youth, and has nothing to do with "na`ar".
It comes directly from the German "Narr".

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

Re: mairiv, yankev etc.: When wondering about whether the n 
or ai sound being a remnant of the 'ayyin, why not consider 
the ai sound in the name of the Raivad, the one who comments 
on the Rambam. Of course the name Ra'avad is written with an 
alef and not an 'ayyin.  I never heard a non-Israeli 
Ashkenazi refer to the Ra'avad, only to the Raived

And if that isn't sufficient to confuse the issue, i've 
failed again.

Assuming it is permitted to change subjects without starting 
a new posting:  Reb Micha just mentioned that I had written 
in the past about kissing the tzitzit during kri'at Sh'ma' 
but not at the word tzitzit. It is not very difficult to see 
that persons who noted that the rav of talmid chakham kissed 
his tzitzit three times might have assumed, incorrectly of 
course, that he did so at the word tzitzit. And so minhagim 
change.

Actually I wrote quite a bit about the history and changes 
in holding and kissing tzitzit.  May I remind of the first 
item in my previous post, just to cause confusion, as usual.

R' Natronai Gaon was asked about handling tzitzit during 
Sh'ma.  His reply was "this is not the way of the chakhamim 
and is yohora. After examining (mitbonen) the tzitzit when 
putting them on and making the b'rakha why hold them in his 
hand?  If that were appropriate, then on reaching uk'shartem 
one would hold the tefillin. And, if you agree to that, 
then, when reaching ukh'tavtam one should run to his home 
and place his hand on the mezuza!  One who does these acts, 
must be taught and have it explained to him that  he should 
not do so.

Note that R' Natronai Gaon talks of handling, He evidently 
didn't even dream that one would also kiss the tzitzit.

Re kissing at la'ad.  It is not good manners to drop the 
tzitzit immediately at the end of Sh'ma just as it is very 
poor manners to return forward immediately after stepping 
back at the end of shmoneh esrei. So one holds them for a 
while and upon finally dropping it is certainly normal to 
kiss them goodbye. BTW, sources mention dropping the tzitzit 
at various places in the vicinity of kayemet - la'ad. 
Opinions differ on just how long does one hold them to 
satisfy the need for proper respect.  Similarly it is 
suggested that one should return from the three steps back 
before kedusha, which is certainly sufficient time to show 
respect after finishing one's requests and stepping back 
from the presence of HKB"H.


kvh"t,

David 

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=2392

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 313:6) discusses the circumstances under which 
putting together beds and utensils that come apart, would be assur on 
Shabbos because of Mileches Boneh, building.  The Mishna Brura (45) 
says that these rules do not apply to the "cover and lids" of 
utensils, which may be freely opened or shut on Shabbos without any 
problem.   The reason is because the cover of a utensil is meant to 
be opened and shut.  Therefore closing it cannot be considered building.

Based on this Mishna Brura, the Pischei Tshuvos (3) says that Rav 
Binyomin Zilber permits adjusting the height of an adjustable 
Shtender on Shabbos even if it means loosening the screw and 
retightening it, because the shtender is moved up and down all the 
time.  Rav Vosner in Shevet HaLevi (6:32) says that there is no 
question in this case because the adjustable legs do not come off the 
Shtender, they always remain together in one piece, and the shtender 
is always usable regardless of the height.

He also brings the Minchas Yitzchok (9:38) who is machmir and says 
that since the shtender is sometimes left in the same position for a 
number of days, it is not like utensil covers that are made to 
constantly open and close.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110916/ce7e6369/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 186
***************************************

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..."