Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 167

Wed, 25 Sep 2013

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:11:10 -0500
Re: [Avodah] LeiSheiv

As I understand it, it's because yeshiva is not the same as simply being 
in the Sukkah.  It isn't until we've done something significant to make 
it our dwelling place that we're doing the mitzvah of leisheiv.


On 9/24/2013 12:30 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! wrote:
> Why do we not make the Beracha of LeiSheiv before HaMotzi? After all 
> it is the first Mitzvah. In fact even though custom has emerged to 
> only make the Beracha when eating, we ought to make LeiSheiv as soon 
> as we enter to have our meal, before we wash or make Kiddush.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:53:08 -0400
Re: [Avodah] How old is the world?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:40:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/l6t88mq
> Mr. Friedmann, based on classical sources, aligns the dates of key  
> events as described in Genesis 1 and 2 with those derived from  
> scientific theory and observation. How? One Creation Day = 1,000 x  
> 365.25 x 7,000 = 2.56 billion years.

I sent the following to R' Kalman Packouz, who forwarded it on to

We discussed R Aryeh Kaplan's "Kabbalah and the Age of the Universe"
(later renamed "'Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe"
when republished after the word "Kabbalah" got hijacked). Available on
Lulu for free at <http://j.mp/18nxdIk>.

The problem is, as R' Aryeh Kahn noted at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n065.shtml#14>, there is strong
indication that we aren't in the 7th cycle. R' Yitzchaq Sagi Nahor says
we're in Din, Gevurah, which would be the second or perhaps (if climbing
upward) 6th. And the whole thing works according to the Ramban, but not
the Ari. See RAK's post.

Personally, I would go with R' Dessler's non-answer that time without
an observer is meaningless. Not for relativistic reasons (a la Dr Gerald
Schroeder) but for Kantian ones -- time is a phenomenon, a category the
human perception imposes on a basically incomprehensible reality. At
least that's my take (colored perhaps by R' Aryeh Carmell's various
references to Kantian elements to his rebbe's thought in footnotes) the
aptly titled "Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam" at MmE vol II pp 150-154. The
last section, about how the eitz hada'as caused linear time and time's
arrow (from past to future), seems quite clear to me. And the same theme
is explicated further in vol IV, pp 113, "Zeman veHishtalshelus". R'
Dessler concludes that the answer is both -- science tells us one way
of how the unfathomable looks, and the words of the chumash give us a
spiritually more useful way of looking at the same (incomprehensible)
series of events.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:08:31 -0400
Re: [Avodah] How old is the world?

On 24/09/2013 12:40 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/l6t88mq
> *Mr. Friedmann,* based on classical sources, aligns the dates of key
> events as described in Genesis 1 and 2 with those derived from
> scientific theory and observation. How? One Creation Day = 1,000 x
> 365.25 x 7,000 = 2.56 billion years.
> <Snip>
> *Mr. Friedmann* then calculates that the Age of the universe from the
> start of Day 1 to today: exactly 13.74 billion years, coinciding with
> the latest scientific measurements.

 From the article:
> Beginnings of life: from first thing on Day 5 ("let the waters teem,"
> Gen. 1:20) to today corresponds to 3.52 billion years which is in
> agreement with the scientific time for "universal ancestor" -- the
> single cell.

Except that the fifth day featured not just unicellular creatures but
all water and air species, including vertebrate fish, sea mammals, and

> Plant life (on the land): from hours 6 to 9 on Day 6 until today
> ("God planted a garden ... and there He placed the man... And God
> caused to sprout from the ground every tree" Gen. 2:8,9) corresponds
> to 426-106 million years ago which he reports is in agreement with
> the fossil record.

Except that all plant species -- including such complex ones as fruit
trees -- were created on the third day, even if (according to Rashi)
they didn't sprout until it rained for the first time on the sixth day.
(And what does he do with *that*?  No rain for billions of years?!)
Without this addition of Rashi, his case gets even worse, because the
pashtus haksuvim is that all the plants emerged and grew on the third
day itself, not on the sixth.

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

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:22:51 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Chatzi Shiur is not Assur Min HaTorah

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:52:21AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! wrote:
: But before we go there think about this, the Torah commands that we torment
: ourselves, VeIniSam, and we would assume this means no eating or drinking
: at all, after all the Torah is not prohibiting eating but demanding
: affliction. Yet the onus is upon Rebbi Yochanan to argue his case that a
: Chatzi Shiur IS Assur...

: so in fact everyone agrees that by Torah law we may eat on Yom Kippur a
: Chatzi Shiur

: We must conclude that affliction by not eating is more than the simple
: denial of food...

To rephrase in short by using Brisker lingo:

A kezayis is the shiur for akhilah, and therefore one can discuss whether
a chatzi shiur of something one may not eat is assur deOraisa.

But the kezayis is part of the very chalos sheim of inui. The question
doesn't begin if they didn't eat enough to be a pegam in the required
form of suffering.

A related quetion with which to test my reformulation:

What if someone eats a kezayis of a non-food? It's not akhilah, but is
it a lack of inui anyway?

: Chatzi Shiur IS Assur. And he does not point to the Passuk but needs to
: argue a Sevara [another outstanding proof for the superiority of Sevara
: over a Passuk - Lama Li Kera]

Or the parsimony principle -- it's not that logic is superior, but that
unnecessary pesuqim don't exist. So if we think the pasuq is stating
something we would know anyway, it is (also) saying something other
than what we thought.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:37:13 -0400
Re: [Avodah] new manuscripts

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:11:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: We all know the opposition of CI to new manuscripts including R. Chananel
: as being unreliable...

Was it a lack of reliability, or that (as I understood after previous
iterations of the topic here) they lack authority because the halachic
process went on for years without them? That established halakhah is
based on something else, and it holds the momentum of precedent and
minhag Yisrael.

Interestingly, the Rama (CM 25:2, quoting the Mahariq) limits halakhah
kebasra'i to cases where the later poseiq had access to and must have
addressed the concerns of the earlier. Perhaps consciously deciding
with the earlier source's bar pelugta. This would give an *increased*
authority to newly found rishonim, as one can't say "rov achronim [ie
basra'i] hold otherwise".

See http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n059.shtml#01 where I argue
that the Rama's kelal would not apply when the Me'iri (in that case, R'
Chananel in ours) is running counter to "an alternative pesaq ratified
by generations of peer review". He speaks of a case where some do hold
like the shitah the lost sefer supports, and thus it weakens the other
side in an existing and viable machloqes.

And then I note the acharonim (including the Shakh) who disagree with
the Rama on a related point and say that halakhah kebasrai is only
among 2 rishonim or 2 acharonim, but the kelal doesn't touch the case
of a rishon (and I would *guess* even R' Chananel or the Me'iri) vs an

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:35:09 +0300
[Avodah] Camera Installation

<<They most certainly do work on Shabbat, as do the metal detectors. Rav
Elyashiv reportedly ruled that one shouldn't walk in the Old City on
Shabbat. However that is an entirely different kettle of fish as Jews
are doing the oversight.>>

I am pretty sure the cameras in the old city were set up with the approval
of RSYE.
From memory he wanted some changes in the procedures.
I am not sure what difference it makes if it is run by Jews or goyim since
the whole system is automatic. The questions arise because one is being

BTW in my experience (almost) all shuls in continental Europe have security
cameras that operate on shabbat

Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: D&E-H Bannett <db...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:55:57 +0300
Re: [Avodah] : LeiSheiv

Re: RMGR's <<custom to only make the Beracha when eating, we 
ought to make LeiSheiv as soon as we enter to have our 

R' Meir's posting reminded me of my neighbor z"l, a Teimani 
of the old school, who whenever visiting my sukkah would 
start Borukh of leisheiv basukka as he was going through the 
door. Nothing to do with eating. It is about residing even 
temporarily in a sukka.

And that reminds me of an aberration I've seen. Someone who 
made kiddush while standing, sat down to make leisheiv 
basukka and then stood again for shehecheyanu.

Leisheiv in the b'rakha has nothing to do with sitting but 
with residing.

"Vayeishev Ya'akov b'eretz  m'gurei aviv, b'eretz Canaan." 
Does anyone think he accomplished that while sitting only.

Moadim l'simcha,


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:47:56 -0400
Re: [Avodah] The Right Way to Give Tochachah

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 03:23:23PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: R' Yaakov Kamenetsky asks why should they be the klei kodesh? Yaakov
: Avinu was not happy with their actions. He answers that to be a klei
: kodesh you need to be a kannoi. Things have to bother you and you have
: to act on it.

I'm pretty close to finishing translating section II of an essay by
R' Shlomo Wolbe titled "Psychiatria veDat" written in Laniado Hospital's
journal Bishvilei haRefu'ah vol. 5 (Sivan 5742) pp 57-90, this section
is just 60-70. HebrewBooks' copy is at

Why one section from an article in an obscure journal? Because RSW opens
the comparison by laying out how he sees the world the Torah is trying
to build and the kind of person it can shape us into to accomplish that.
Which he then positions in comparison and constrast to psychiatry's view
of the subject. (People in the field tell me, though, that RSW's notion
of pyschiatry was not up-to-date as of its writing in 1982.)

This notion that qanna'us is a tool to be harnessed by seikhel and Torah
reminded me of this section of my translation (please email me privately
with any suggested corrections):

    What is this process of alienation? There isn't any power in the soul
    which is specifically evil. (Naftali Wessley, Sefer haMidos part
    I, ch. 4) Every power has some place in the World of Yedidus. Even
    egotism and anger are necessary sometimes. When you use each power in
    its proper place and time -- it is good, and every force in the soul
    is necessary. However, in order to build the World of Yedidus, there
    has to be coordination of all the forces together, so that they work
    together in cooperation and a proper distribution of their duties.

    The ruling power, which sets each of the other powers in their
    proper place, is the intellect, which is therefore the central
    power of yedidus in a person. (C.f. Kuzari, Rav Yehudah HaLeivi,
    3:2 onward.) Without the rule of the intellect, there is no World
    of Yedidus. ...

    In the Talmud we find an example of this: A person born under the
    sign of Mars will be a person who sheds blood -- a bloodletter, a
    thief, a ritual slaughterer [for meat] or a mohel. A person cannot
    change the basic inclination, in this example -- the inclination to
    shed blood. But this inclination can be used for good, and the range
    of possibilities is broad: he could be a doctor, a slaughterer or
    a mohel. Only the thief is not deterred from murder -- he uses his
    attribute in a manner of alienation. Here we have an example of an
    extreme inclination, and even so there is nothing that compels a
    person to be evil because of it. He has the choice to use it for
    more beneficial ends.
    Here the Torah comes to the aid of the intellect, to strengthen
    the person to choose good. The Torah of Israel wages an all-out war
    against all the forces of alienation. Therefore, first of all, "The
    intent of the Torah is to extend the intellect to all the desires
    of the soul, and to assert its power over them." (Chovos HaLvavos,
    Shaar Perishus, ch. 2) ...

: R' Yaakov then pointed out that Levi fulfilled the beracha while
: Shimon did not. Levi rallied to Moshe Rabenu's side when he said [Mi
: [Lashem Eilai] by the [eigel], however, Shimon did not. In fact,
: Shimon used his kannaus for bad in the maaseh of Zimri where the Nasi
: of Shimon was a kannoi against Moshe Rabenu and acted out his desires. And
: in fact, who killed Zimri, Pinchas from Shevet levi.

Is that really qana'us? I thought "acted out his desires" is weak
unprincipled caving in to ta'avah. Whereas qana'us is the chasing of
an ideal (whether an appropriate ideal or not, whether blind to more
pressing ideals or not) to the exclusion of primative self-interest.
(I left in that spelling error on the grounds that "primative" relays
what I mean better than "primitive" would anyway.)

Side-note: I think it's interesting that these two brothers are also
the only ones without nachalah -- Levi by design, Shim'on because they
failed to overthrow the Pelishtim (and ended up living in an area within

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:14:59 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Movement in a minyan

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 08:35:29PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
> My most common experience is when I go to a Sefardi shul and they sit  
> for many of the kaddishim...

Tangent: This was the practice among nearly all (non-Chassidic) Ashkenazim
as well until some point recently enough for me to remember the shift.

The Rama himself recommends standing, after retelling a ma'aseh rav
that the Maharil sat. See Darkhei Moshe on the Tur OC 56. But here's
the weird part: his ra'ayah is a Mordekhai that isn't in our edition
citing a Y-mi that isn't in our edition quoting a phantom pasuq.

>                            I asked a relative (a rav) of Rav Moshe's and  
> he told me that in his opinion, Rav Moshe's psak doesn't apply because  
> you can always say that you are in a part of the tefilla that requires  
> standing. I never found that such a satisfying answer, a kind of a minor  
> lie.

I would think of it slightly differently. Because it is normal for people
to be in other places in davening and thus standing when the majority are
sitting, it lacks the in-your-face perishah min hatzibur to stand for
other reasons.

Lulav shaking is a rather benign case -- you're yotzei either way, and
you could simply shake in the way your ancestors did right after the
berakhah, preferably not in shul.

Tefillin on ch"m is far more messy than your example: one side thinks that
wearing tefillin is taking a sickle to the forces that maintain creaiton,
while the other side thinks that not wearing tefillin is violating
"midevar sheqer *tirchaq*" (while not actual sheqer, mechzei keshiqra).
It's not just "you can be yotzei once doing it another way".

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:44:17 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Dimensions of a circular sukkah

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 07:55:15PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: Let's suppose I build a sukkah, perfectly circular, of a material
: of negligible thickness, and I measure the circumference to be 29.4 ...

: Later, I start filling in the bulges of the rounded walls, so that
: I'm left with four perfectly flat walls, of equal size and shape...

: Along comes a curious person with a ruler, and finds the diagonal of
: this square (formerly known as The Diameter Of The Circle) to be about
: 9.35831 tefachim. Intrigued, he measures the walls, and finds all of
: them to be only 6.61732 tefachim wide.

: Is the sukkah still kosher?

No, because 6.6 tef isn't 7.

: Was it *ever* kosher?

Yes, because we hold a circular circle doesn't need to be large enough
to circumscribe a square sukkah. We hold it's needs to be large enough
to *approximately* circumscribe one.

To help you accept that approximation (without involving my philosophy
of halakhah):
In terms of area, your minimal 29.4 tef circumference sukkah has an
area of just under 68.8 tef^2, still MUCH larger than the minimal 49
tef^2 area of a square one. And in terms of diameter, the diameter of
just under 9.36 tef is still larger than the minimum length or width.
It is only the idea that a Sukkah must fully contain a length and width at
the same time (and thus a 7 tef x 7 tef square) that is approximate. Both
1D and 2D logical havos amina for shiurim would work.

BTW, a sukkah with straight sides could use the 1.4 for sqrt(2)
approximation to make a squarish trapezoid, and would not contain a
7 x 7 square either.

: If it had been kosher, but is now pasul, then at exactly which point
: did it become pasul?

: Perhaps it is kosher for me, but not for the guy who measured it? Sort
: of like "shavya anafshay chaticha d'isura"?

I would think it became pasul as soon as there were walls that *could*
be measured. Whether or not one actually knows their measurement.

But then, we're back to my phenomenology again... We are accountable for
that which *could* be experienced. Something that could be experienced but
in fact wasn't is where concepts of beshogeig, safeiq, birur in general,
apply. Something that can't be experienced without tools is beyond
those concepts. IMHO.

If so: People have more accurate eyes when it comes to lines than circles,
we are more dependent on tools for precision, so we are allowed to use
a bigger approximation.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:18:18 -0400
Re: [Avodah] LeiSheiv

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:55:57PM +0300, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> And that reminds me of an aberration I've seen. Someone who made kiddush 
> while standing, sat down to make leisheiv basukka and then stood again 
> for shehecheyanu.

> Leisheiv in the b'rakha has nothing to do with sitting but with residing.

I dunno.... I have enough confidence in leshon haqodesh to believe that
homonymity is significant. Both are called yeshivah because we either
do or should consider sitting and dwelling related.

Sitting is qovea. E.g. some Sepharadi qehillos sit when putting on
tefillin as they only make one berakhah on both, and by sitting they
connect the donning into one big rite. They hold that if one were to
get up, the person would need to make a second berakhah like Askenazim

So it may well be that sitting is considered a minimal unit of dwelling,
even if not a necessary component.


Other Sepharadi qehillos, as well as many chassidim (including SA haRav),
bedavqa stand up after putting on the shel yad for putting on the shel
rosh. This is based on the Ari.

This is all observational. I assume Rt Chana will show how this is a
SA vs Ben Ish Hai issue (given the qabbalah angle to standing just for
donning a shel rosh) or something.

To tye (yes, I punned on purpose) in another thread with a tangent^2:

When one is the only person with a different minhag about sitting or
standing while tying, the Banum Chavivim pp 189-190 says that R' Chaim
Kanievsky holds one should follow their own minhag. Whereas Be'er Moshe
vol 7 pg 190 and Ohr leTziyon 2:3 fn 12 says to conform.

> Moadim l'simcha,

Chagim uzmanim lesason!

Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:27:02 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Why does cold trump hot

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:04:26AM +0300, harchinam wrote:
: What I learned [sorry, no source remembered; maybe someone else could
: supply?] is something that makes much more sense. It is SEASONAL...

Quoting http://revach.net/ask/article.php?id=2190 in full:
> Halacha - window in the winter
> Submitted by anonymous
> Answered by Rav Peretz Moncharsh

> Question:
> Is there such a halacha that if someone is cold during the winter
> the window has to be kept closed?

> Answer:

> While it is not an explicit Halacha in any primary source, there is
> a strong basis for it.

> There is a case in the Gemara in Bava Basra (22b-23a): Rav Yosef
> had a neighbor who was a doctor, who used to perform bloodletting
> (a common medical procedure in those days) in his yard, which was
> adjacent to Rav Yosef's house. This practice attracted a large number
> of ravens to the yard, which caused a major disturbance to R' Yosef,
> who was particularly sensitive to the noise (or filth) produced by the
> birds. The Talmud rules that R' Yosef was justified in his demand that
> the neighbor cease the offensive practice. This ruling is recorded in
> the Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 155:39), where the Rema adds that the same
> law applies to any form of intolerable nuisance, such as annoyances
> that are ordinarily bothersome to the average normal person, or to
> a sick person (if the complainant is ill) -- the one causing the
> disturbance must cease the offensive activity or do it elsewhere.

> In our case, since most people find an open window bothersome in
> cold weather -- and a closed window in warm weather -- they do not
> have to tolerate these inconveniences when a person or a group of
> people seeks to impose it upon them. The same argument, however,
> could be advanced just as well by the other party, who sees the open
> window as a nuisance even though it is a warm day, except for the
> following consideration:

> The Chazon Ish writes that a sick or insomniac person is not
> within his rights to complain about a neighbor's crying child. The
> reasoning behind this is that anyone who moves into an apartment
> or a neighborhood does so with the understanding that he will
> have neighbors and that there are certain normal noises produced
> by neighbors, one of which is the crying of a baby. The Talmud's
> ruling does not apply to ordinary nuisances that are a normal part
> of everyday life. Thus, no complaint can be lodged against people
> who create a "nuisance" that is part of the normal routine of life,
> such as keeping a window open in the summer and closed in the winter.

> posted: 2011-12-11 16:34:32

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 13
From: elazar teitz <emte...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:24:58 -0400
Re: [Avodah] How many Korban Pesachs could be sacrificed in 1

>> In addition, there was the chagigas yud daled which was supposed to be
brought to provide meat to eat at
 the seder (especially if there were big chaburas for the korban
pesach) plus additional shalmei simcha.<<

> The shlamim could be brought in the morning, and AFAIK it doesn't have to
be  done for the sake of a specific
owner.  For all I know the BHMK could have  slaughtered bulls all morning
as shlamim, and made the meat
available to  anyone who donated towards the cost.<

     A korban musr be slaughtered, among other things, l'sheim ba'alim.
The kohein need not know his identity -- he can do the avodah having in
mind "I am doing this for the sake of its owner, whoever he may be"-- but
there must be an owner, and he cannot be determined after the fact.

>> Bnei Yisrael brought the Korban Pesach the second year in the Midbar as
well. At that time there were only
 3 Cohanim, Aharon and his 2 sons.<<

>Moshe was also a cohen, so there were four.  But that doesn't really
answer the question; four should
 have been overwhelmed as easily as three.<

     Moshe was only a kohein during the shivas y'mei hamiluim, which ended
two weeks before erev Pesach.  Had he retained the status of kohein, it
would have been unnecessary to burn the chatas after the death of Nadav and
Avihu, since there would have been a kohein, Moshe, who was not an onein
and could therefore eat it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 14
From: saul newman <newman...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:40:06 -0700
[Avodah] kotel cam and shabbat

as you can see from this live feed, some do close and some dont... i know
kol nidre was certainly viewable this year there , because i watched
it---maybe it only is programmed to shut shabbat
i didnt check all these  sites

to see which are off.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:40:50 +0100
[Avodah] Repetition of Pesukim in Hallel

When we repeat the pesukim at the end of Hallel, we say the entire pasuk
twice, with the exception of the passuk "Ana Hashem Hoshiah Na, Ana Hashem
Hatzlichah Na", where we repeat the first half of the pasuk before saying
the second half.

I am aware of the gemara in Arvei Pesachim (119a) that says that the
structure of this pasuk is "call and response", ie the second half is a
reply to the first, but this is also true of the other pesukim, such as
"Baruch Habba Besheim Hashem, Beirachnuchem Mibeis Hashem" which we say in
its entirety before repeating.

So why do we say this pasuk differently?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 16
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:01:06 -0400
[Avodah] Dance, dance, dance!

   The question has been raised why we dance with the Torah on Simchas Torah and 
   why not on Shavuos. After all, Matan Torah is a major highlight of Judaism. One would
   expect to dance with the stars (every portion of the Torah) when the Torah was given.
   The answer I have given is rather simple. When we received the Torah, we said na'a'seh v'nishma,
   accepting it blindly and having no idea what was in store. But after we read and studied it --
   finishing it was a major achievement. THEN we could dance, which would explain why we dance on
   Simchas Torah and not on Shavuos. 
    I do not try to dance better than anyone else. I only try to dance better than myself.
    Mikhail Baryshnikov

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 167

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous Next >