Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 24

Thu, 14 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: Shiur of an Etzbah(finger) (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Re Hecksher question (saul newman)
• 3. Tzitzit tucked in (Liron Kopinsky)
• 4. Re: Tzitzit tucked in (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: keri'ah and berikha (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 6. Re: Tzitzit tucked in (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Shiur of an Etzbah(finger) (Micha Berger)
• 8. Ghost Rabbis [in the sky] (Jonathan Baker)
• 9. Re: Ghost Rabbis [in the sky] (Zev Sero)
• 10. Mussaf After Minchah (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 11. Re: Mussaf After Minchah (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Mussaf After Minchah (Zev Sero)

RYGB wrote back on 30-Nov-2001
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n063.shtml>:
>> Minhag Yerushalayim, which
>> is based on the Rambam's measure of an etzba, which in turn was based,
>> IIRC, on the size of the Egyptian drachma.

The Rambam gave the shiur of a revi'is as 27 dirhams, by which he presumably
meant the Egyptian ones of his day.  But the minhag Y'm, which RACN defended,
was based on the Ottoman dirham, which was about 15% bigger than the Egyptian
one that the Rambam knew, and thus all their shiurim were actually bigger
than the Rambam's, though they probably didn't realise it.  The Rambam's
etzba was thus approximately 19.1 mm rather than the 20 that RACN gives.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:56 PM, martin brody <martinlbr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> "a  NYC  glatt restaurant  with a  hechsher  'we don't rely on'  is having
>>  a special  Valentines day  meal service.

> Tierra Sur at the Herzog Winery in Oxnard have in past had Valentines Day
> dinners promoted as such.(And other non Jewish days such as New Years Eve,
> Mother's Day etc)
> Tierra Sur is supervised by the OU.

not neccesarily , because that is a geographically isolated institution
that probably has a sizable gentile clientele i would assume... of
course xmas dinner wouldnt pass muster.. and even that was interesting
question because on the Chowhound Kosher list last year someone asked
about where he could take out a gentile friend for a kosher dinner
appropriate for xmas....

In general, we say one should tuck in their Tzitzit in a cemetery to not
upset the dead, who no longer have the ability to do mitzvot. Would this
also apply at maarat hamachpela?

Kol tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20130211/975e1d17/attachment.html>

On 11/02/2013 9:13 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> In general, we say one should tuck in their Tzitzit in a cemetery to
> not upset the dead, who no longer have the ability to do mitzvot.
> Would this also apply at maarat hamachpela?

In Me`arat Hamachpela does one ever come within four amot of a grave?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

RArie Folger asked:
> The Midrash Rabba Bereishit 39:12 includes a discussion about bowing...
> Rabbi Chiya Rabba her'a kheri'ah lifnei Rebbi venitrape; uvar Sissi her'a
> verikha lifnei Rebbi venifsach velo nitrape.

> Question: what was the likely nature of their injuries? Why was R' Sissi's
> injury worse?

Other than noting that both R. Chiya and Bar Sissi both became lame (the
word "v'nifsach" was inadvertently omitted in the above quote in its
description of what befell R. Chiya), I have no idea what the physical
nature of the disabilities was. It is not clear that Bar Sissi's injury
was worse; all the midrash states is that it wasn't healed, and according
to the commentaries on the Midrash Rabba, the answer is in the g'mara.

We know Bar Sissi better by his given name, Levi, rather than
his patronymic. The m'farshim identify the incident in the midrash
with that related in Ta'anis 25a, that Levi performed kidda in Rebbe's
presence and was lamed. (The m'farshim equate kida -- digging one's toes
into the ground and bending down to kiss the ground -- with b'richa.)
The g'mara says that he was lamed because of a combination of two acts:
the kidda, and for having been "matiach d'varim k'lapei Ma'ala." As the
g'mara says, "Ha v'ha garmu lei." R. Chiya, on the other hand, did not
warrant permanent injury, since all he did was a harmful physical act,
and did not show disrespect k'lapei Ma'ala. .

EMT

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:13:45PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: In general, we say one should tuck in their Tzitzit in a cemetery to not
: upset the dead, who no longer have the ability to do mitzvot. Would this
: also apply at maarat hamachpela?

I assume your question is really about how to behave when within 4 amos
of a niftar whose petirah preceded the giving of the mitzvah of tzitzis.
Zev is probably right that this wouldn't come up in the real world. Maybe
at Qever Rachel, one gets within 4 amos of the ground above her qever.

I think that the missed opportunity to do a mitzvah in the here-and-now
is there whether or not they had that mitzvah in their lifetimes. One
could argue that it would be more accute, since the soul missed ever
having a chance to do it. Or that it's less accute, like someone who
was "blind from birth" not really knowing what they're missing. (Or
"Flowers for Algernon".) But in either case, you are reminding them of
your opportunity to do a mitzvah that they lack.

Of course, WRT Qever Rachel, she would have been an einah metzuvah ve'osah
even if we were speaking of a woman born after Matan Torah. But I think
we would tuck in tzitzis when visiting a woman's qever even if she were
not buried amongst man.

Which brings us to a parallel case that could more readily come up:
Is there any difference between tucking in tzitzis before Avraham, who
could only have worn them as an eino metzuveh ve'osah, or doing so
before the qever of a woman?


Aside: I do not think the issue is as much upsetting the deceased as
practicing one's empathy (midas rachamim, written here in English to be
clear I don't mean "mercy"). We've discussed what meisim know of
the events of this world beyond the environs of their qever. But do we
think they really forget what mitzvos were between reminders? (Do they
even experience time as we do? Relativity would have us believe that
any time in shamayim would be different in kind than time welded to the
space of olam hazah.)

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:09:45AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> The Rambam gave the shiur of a revi'is as 27 dirhams, by which he presumably
> meant the Egyptian ones of his day.  But the minhag Y'm, which RACN defended,
> was based on the Ottoman dirham, which was about 15% bigger than the Egyptian
> one that the Rambam knew, and thus all their shiurim were actually bigger
> than the Rambam's, though they probably didn't realise it.  The Rambam's
> etzba was thus approximately 19.1 mm rather than the 20 that RACN gives.

Which, as I noted in the past, would make the 1,200 amos that the length
of Chizqiyahu's Tunnel was given as on the inscription in shiloach
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siloam_Inscription>
    1200 * 24 * 19.1 = 550 m
The tunnel is actually 533m, but presumably 1,200 is rounded. This is
an error of only 3%, perfectly normal if rounding to the nearest hundred
(2 digit precision), and the closest possible hundreds to round to.

Whereas, if we use RCN's measure, the tunnel's length would have been
rounded down to 1,100 amos (528m, only 5m less -- <1% difference) rather
than 1,200 (576m / 8%).

IOW, based on the water tunnel, all of the common shitos for ammah are
too long, but the Rambam's -- assuming you know that the Ottomans did
let the dirham drift in size -- is plausible.

I made a similar case based on distances between markings on Har haBayis
that recur in multiples of 43.5 +/- 2mm, that imply a given ammah. Or
a given ammah plus 1/2 etzba safety (Pesachim 86a). But that's only a
1.8 mm etzba (a shade above or less, depending on whether the marking
reflect the extra half-etzba). And also only if the markings are really
as old as Bayis Sheini.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is Panentheism Heresy
> 
> On 10/02/2013 10:33 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> > On 2/8/2013 3:47 PM, Zev Sero wrote:

> >> That's not metaphor, and it's not nevuah, it's a claim (true or
> >> not) of an actual visitation by a neshomo, just like Rebbi used
> >> to come home to make kiddush, or R Elozor br Shimon used
> >> to pasken shaylos from the attic after his passing (which
> >> you surely agree happened).

> > Why surely?  I'm not at all convinced that this happened literally.

> Really?  How can those two stories be read non-literally?

Saying kiddish is already non-literal.

How could Rebbi say kiddush for anyone, it's like a goy saying kiddush
the dead are NIFTARIM, patur from mitzvos.

Maybe Mrs Rebbi felt her husband's presence at lichtbenchen.  In fact,
that seems pretty likely, given that (according to Dan Rabinowitz,
it's not the Gemara that says he made kiddush, it's the Sefer Chasidim.
The Gemara just says that he visited the house on Shabbos.  And he was
invisible to the visiting neighbor.  So already the kiddush story is a
non-literal reading.  R' Reuven Margulies apparently spends som time on
"how can the dead make kiddush" in his edition of the Sefer Hasidim, #1129. 

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006/11/ghosts-demons-golems-and-their.html 

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On 12/02/2013 3:59 PM, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
>> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is Panentheism Heresy
>>
>> On 10/02/2013 10:33 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2013 3:47 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>
>>>> That's not metaphor, and it's not nevuah, it's a claim (true or
>>>> not) of an actual visitation by a neshomo, just like Rebbi used
>>>> to come home to make kiddush, or R Elozor br Shimon used
>>>> to pasken shaylos from the attic after his passing (which
>>>> you surely agree happened).
>
>>> Why surely?  I'm not at all convinced that this happened literally.

>> Really?  How can those two stories be read non-literally?

> Saying kiddish is already non-literal.
> How could Rebbi say kiddush for anyone, it's like a goy saying kiddush
> the dead are NIFTARIM, patur from mitzvos.

On the contrary, the Sefer Chassidim uses the fact that he was motzi them
with kiddush to demonstrate that tzadikim bemisoson keruyim chayim, and
therefore he was chayav in kiddush and could be motzi others.


> Maybe Mrs Rebbi felt her husband's presence at lichtbenchen.

That's not a possible reading of the gemara, let alone of the Sefer
Chassidim.   The gemara says that his return every Friday was the reason
why he ordered that his light be kept lit, his table be set, and his bed
be made, is that he would come home every Friday night.  If he was just
a feeling why would he need those things?  And it's not just that his
wife did these things out of sentiment, he specifically ordered it.
Also, if it was just a feeling of his presence, why did the visits have
to stop after they became known?


> In fact, that seems pretty likely, given that
> it's not the Gemara that says he made kiddush, it's the Sefer Chasidim.

How does that make it likely?  First of all, the Sefer Chassidim is not
a source?!  He didn't know what he was talking about?!  Second, how does
the version that's explicit in the gemara indicate that he wasn't really
there?

> The Gemara just says that he visited the house on Shabbos.

Yes, and that for this reason he needed a light, a set table, and a made
bed.

>  And he was invisible to the visiting neighbor.

What are you talking about?  The gemara says no such thing.  Bepashtus,
had the maid let her in, she would have seen him just as everyone else
did, including the maid herself.  And note that the maid said Rebbi was
sitting, not just present, so he wasn't just a feeling.


> So already the kiddush story is a
> non-literal reading.  R' Reuven Margulies apparently spends som time on
> "how can the dead make kiddush" in his edition of the Sefer Hasidim, #1129.

Not much time. It's footnote 9 on this page, and carries over to the next
page.  http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41862&;pgnum=475
He just points out that RYhCh is going leshitaso that Rebbi was chayav
bemitzvos, cites a Tosfos to explain how, in that case, he could be
buried in shatnez tachrichim, and then asks a question from David Hamelech,
who is "chai vekayom", and yet the gemara says that after his life was over
he was patur min hamitzvos.  That's the extent of the discussion.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

As per the SA OC 286:4, someone who didn't daven Mussaf yet, and it's
already past Minchah Ketanah, should daven Minchah first, and then daven
Mussaf. Here's a question I've had a long time which I've never seen
addressed. Someone who davens Nusach Ashkenaz says Shalom Rav at Minchah;
here, where he says Minchah first, should he say Shalom Rav at Mussaf also?

(My only thought on this is that the minhag - as codified in the siddur -
seems to be that he should say Sim Shalom. My R'ayah L'davar is that I've
never seen a siddur that brought an option to say Shalom Rav at Mussaf.)

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130212/5da75c4d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:06:26PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: As per the SA OC 286:4, someone who didn't daven Mussaf yet, and it's
: already past Minchah Ketanah, should daven Minchah first, and then daven
: Mussaf. Here's a question I've had a long time which I've never seen
: addressed. Someone who davens Nusach Ashkenaz says Shalom Rav at Minchah;
: here, where he says Minchah first, should he say Shalom Rav at Mussaf also?

According to the Rama OC 127:2 <http://j.mp/Z9S3KM>, Ashkenazim say
Shalom Rav whenever we mention duchaning with "EvE"A borkheinu..." which
is any time ra'ui for duchaning.

My 2c: So really, the default would have been "Shalom Rav", which was
nusach EY, and to accomodate those Ashk who came from Bavel, we use Sim
Shalom when duchaning -- as it echoes Birkhas Kohahim.

The Rama continues "Yeish maskhilim 'Sim Shalom'" for Shabbos Minchah
because there is leining.

RJJB writes on his blog at <http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/08/from-germany-to-poland-simsh
alomrav.html> that's it's an East European vs Germany
thing:

    According to the notes in [Siddur Eizor Eliyahu], western Ashkenaz
    said Sim Shalom at Shabbat Mincha, while Poland said Shalom Rav at
    Mincha. To quote the Rema (R' Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 16th century)
    in Orach Chaim 127: "We are accustomed to say at Shacharit 'Sim
    Shalom', and also every time we say 'Elokeinu ...' [the priestly
    blessing]. Otherwise we say 'Shalom rav'. Some say at Shabbat mincha,
    'Sim Shalom', because the paragraph includes 'in the light of Your
    Face you gave us...', which is the Torah, which is read on Shabbat
    afternoons."

    Old siddurim of the Western Rite have Sim Shalom, old siddurim of the
    Polish rite have Shalom rav. Testimony from students of the Gra tells
    us that he himself davened Nusach Poland, whatever the modern siddurim
    in his name say to do. The editors of EE thus brought both versions
    at Shabbat Mincha - one as Nusach Germany, one as Nusach Poland.

    Many machzorim have Sim Shalom for Shabbat Mincha on Rosh Hashanah/Yom
    Kippur. I wonder if this is included as a survival of "Old Ashkenaz"
    as we also say "Oseh hashalom" at the conclusion of the bracha ...

See there, or maybe R' Jon (CC-ed) will reply with more info.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Problems are not stop signs,
mi...@aishdas.org        they are guidelines.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Robert H. Schuller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/02/2013 10:06 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> As per the SA OC 286:4, someone who didn?t daven Mussaf yet, and it?s
> already past Minchah Ketanah, should daven Minchah first, and then daven
> Mussaf.

You mean mincha gedola.  (The yesh omrim says that if you don't have to
daven mincha yet then it's optional, and the Rema says on that that after
mincha ketana it's not optional even according to the yesh omrim.)

> Here?s a question I?ve had a long time which I?ve never seen addressed.
> Someone who davens Nusach Ashkenaz says Shalom Rav at Minchah; here,
> where he says Minchah first, should he say Shalom Rav at Mussaf also?

No, because there is still nesias kapayim at mussaf.  (Even on Simchas
Torah, when we don't actually duchen, we say nesias kapayim because it's
the time for it, and if we had a cohen who had not yet made kiddush we
could do it.)

  
> (My only thought on this is that the minhag ? as codified in the siddur
> ? seems to be that he should say Sim Shalom. My R?ayah L?davar is that
> I?ve never seen a siddur that brought an option to say Shalom Rav at Mussaf.)

That's not a proof, because the siddur isn't designed to cater for such
unusual cases.  For that matter, how many Ashkenazi siddurim for chu"l
have you seen that have birchas kohanim in shacharis?  And yet we do it
on Simchas Torah.

In fact I rarely see a bencher that has the brachos to say before the
fourth bracha if you realise just at that moment that you forgot to say
retzei or yaaleh veyavo.  I suppose the reason most benchers omit them
is that it's unusual to remember just at that moment, and once you've
gone past "Hashem" in the fourth bracha it's too late, but still they
should be there.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 24
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)