Volume 33: Number 139
Fri, 30 Oct 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote:
> : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after
> : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur
> : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for
> : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it
> : does remove one objection against it.]
>
> See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in
> as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress!
> BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote
> earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would
> include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah."
Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a
separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the
contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish,
an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even
according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being
derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it.
> I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur,
> then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah.
It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it
begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random
clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses
on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when
it will end.
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in
: >as a lav...
: Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a
: separate issur (miderabanan)...
Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he
counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would
be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin.
: >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur,
: >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah.
:
: It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it
: begins now, and will end at the chuppah...
No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little
pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on
the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah.
And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur
that starts at eirusin.
: These aren't three random
: clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses
: on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when
: it will end.
It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini
: Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur
: announces it." - Mechaber 114:2.
...
: Why on earth is this announcement so very important?
:
: And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar?
Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of
personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever
baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid
there.
My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not
making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were
to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the
lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that...
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] informing on death
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to
: tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish...
I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a
daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might
be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me.
Mar'eh meqomos?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death
The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom
the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi
Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than
informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua
rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not
be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that
Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did
not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu"
? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to
himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151028/ff59f0ec/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
I suggested distinguishing:
> C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on
> doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2],
> having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in
> this category on the first night after one has eaten his
> kezayis, but I'm not sure.)
>
> D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than
> sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional
> korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough
> to be sure.
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more
> than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D).
To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest
of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the
first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional
kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways:
- On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus
is halachically significant.
- On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it
definitely is a petur.
- Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on
the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum
shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that
would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it
would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.)
That's why I put it in (D).
On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked:
> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself?
Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass
those who are unable to do so.
R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought
> it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not*
> a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's
> even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than
> chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to
> the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being
> derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it.
Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged:
> Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to
> chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa.
> Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the
> groom starting at eirusin.
It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the
kiddushin.
By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294:
> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says
> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos":
> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a
> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an
> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a
> bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur
> to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur
> is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like
> we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which
> are mid'rabanan...."
RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he
is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas
Hamitzvah.
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151027/48b5a75a/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on
: > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis...
: > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than
: > sleeping and seudas keva...
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more
: > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D).
:
: To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest
: of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the
: first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional
: kiyum...
I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a
seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond
the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra
would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it.
: On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked:
:> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself?
: Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass
: those who are unable to do so.
You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an
aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we
do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much.
: R' Zev Sero wrote:
: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought
: > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)...
: Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged:
: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to
: > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa.
: > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the
: > groom starting at eirusin.
: It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the
: kiddushin.
It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur
chal al issur either.
: By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294:
:> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says
:> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos":
:> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a
:> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an
:> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a
:> bracha...
: RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he
: is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas
: Hamitzvah.
I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al
kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12,
on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach.
Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof
that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore
calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin,
just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think
we hold like the Ritva anyway.
WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that
he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being
a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
I just wrote:
: I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al
: kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12,
: on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach.
The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas
hanehenin.
All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the
Rambam in particular.
In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no
power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion
of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a
tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves.
Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah
on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] informing on a death
he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba
Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the
news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues.
------------------------------------------------
I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g.
pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the
correct thing?
kt
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151028/b1587e2f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a
> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an
> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a
> bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur
> to her husband like a nidah.'
In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not*
birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in.
[Email #2.]
On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that
> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being
> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one.
Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the
bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed
to do it without a bracha.
--
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that
:> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being
:> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one.
: Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad...
Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar
bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the
Ritva's.
(Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is
/after/ nisu'in, not before.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is
> *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in.
Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the
erusin until those 7 brachos.
Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit
On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that
> :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being
> :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one.
>
> : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad...
>
> Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar
> bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted.
That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is
*not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if
it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would
expect.
> This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's.
Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such
a point.
> (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is
> /after/ nisu'in, not before.)
We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah.
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist
Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the
time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody).
Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not
just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on
teshuvot of Achiezer.
Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (elitur...@gmail.com)
He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story
that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the
Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass
extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go
in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day
was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was
permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he
received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the
Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad
publicity on Israel.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20151030/c952dbe4/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
***************************************
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
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)