Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 38

Thu, 07 Apr 2016

• 1. Re: Black on black tefillin retzuos (D Rubin)
• 2. Hakheh ess shinnav (H Lampel)
• 3. Re: Chayav Livsumei (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: The Arba Parshiyos (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The Arba Parshiyos (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: The Arba Parshiyos (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: The Arba Parshiyos (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: The Arba Parshiyos (Simon Montagu)
• 10. Re: The Arba Parshiyos (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: The Arba Parshiyos (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Akiva Miller)

Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300
From: Marty Bluke via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
...
> The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are
> made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time
> and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an
> additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the
> above 2 issues.
> 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't
> peel off or crack, it stays black
> 2. The sides are black as well.

> The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush,  this is not the
> traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't
> the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the
> gedolim today use black on black retzuos

This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition
of a glossy side is not so optional.

Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In
the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was
quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins
does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the
addition of a glossy side is imperative.

A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos
of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous
argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.)

The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I
possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method
of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not
treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the
sides to be painted as well.

Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a
departure from tradition.

The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this
chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha.

Dovid Rubin

Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond
limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been
waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting
for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement.

I got a laugh from Larry's responses:

From 
http://www
.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-an
d-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/

  ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman 
for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of 
the Torah.... Snippet:

''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in 
order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later 
editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known 
locale?  Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 
villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was 
this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into 
the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?''
===================

larry rothenberg

April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm

Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents 
named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi 
dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring 
later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a 
subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?''
====================

Naftali

April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm

In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is 
the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, 
what does an Orthodox Seder look like?

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


larry

April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm

The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160406/d3299d00/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
: In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah
: and Nevuah"

I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html

: In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what
: he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in
: prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe
: that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of
: any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the
: prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what
: grade does Chavakuk deserve?
: 
: No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to
: say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding
: force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only
: prophecy that was on the level of Torah.

I didn't get this paragraph. Because:

1- As it says further down:
:  Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically
:  refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all
:  the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's
:  essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever
:  shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were
:  only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only...

Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary
to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq,
who did not?

Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the
quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi
od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10)

2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique.

In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8)
nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways:

a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH
b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance
c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16)
d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and
   if Hashem chose.

In the Moreh 2:35, we find:
    ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers
    exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and
    after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it
    in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly,
    because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and
    other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made
    between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other
    prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles
    of other prophets...

The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning
when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah.
This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less.
That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale.
What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It
was a different type of perception.

See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of
which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to
even be listed as a 12th.)

The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets.
But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond
who received mitzvos and who not.

As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen
in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his
intent is.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote:
: http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/
...
: Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back
: to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the
: mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual."

As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between
Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the
other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also
possible.

The mishnah seems to imply otherwise.

: This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a
: 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year
: cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the
: Community in Eretz Yisroel.

Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of
the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that
Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from
EY than among Sepharadim.

The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been
centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri
(R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather)
discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms
for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But
it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening,
spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as
the newly converted. <grin>

: Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the
: Shabbos morning Tefilla...
: This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim...

But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned
ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general.

: The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there
: is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you
: do not say the Yotzros it is still fine...

(Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".)

The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein
nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil
ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not
even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating
for skipping it.

Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he
would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam
lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates
saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu
la'asoq bedivrei Torah".

: The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during
: davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov
: seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe
: the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt
: it from the Baal Shem Tov...

Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger responded:
: > I think those two are different in kind.
: 
: > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use
: > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense)
: > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it.
: 
: Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible
: hypothetically, albeit not situationally?

We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open
is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast.

I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor
to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two
metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away
the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause
and a visible effect.

Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum
scale.

(BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of
electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the
course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.)

...
: If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For
: it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the
: electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I
: missing something here?

It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic.
You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a
ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use
their potential energy (voltage).

All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the
visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit,
not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems
to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur,
and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.)

: Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which
: opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time?

Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the
motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in.
But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit
it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.)

Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters
in 2012 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n105.shtml#11>.
Click on the subject line and see the thread.

: Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe
: Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone
: on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the
: electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur
: d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ...

That's OC 4:84.

Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in
zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do
not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle
you cannot sense would be assur.

: I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does
: try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can
: be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has
: something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both
: teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah".
: It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely
: speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be
: meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should
: also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used.

But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of
someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid,
the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing
it to davar she'ein miskavein.

The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the
question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can
there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between
> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the
> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also
> possible.

It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th.
However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm.
There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there
are two.

> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise.

I don't think so.  I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we
know how to identify.  On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read
whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track
because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up.  Only on
the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until
Pesach comes.


>> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a
>> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year
>> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the
>> Community in Eretz Yisroel.

This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle.  It's not
that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that
they induced them to change their minhag.  They never had such an
influence.  Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv
of EY.  By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no
Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in
Cairo.   Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim.
When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which
was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm.
Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim
found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim
with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle.


> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of
> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that
> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from
> EY than among Sepharadim.

How does Qeri'as haTorah do that?  On the contrary it seems to argue
for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim.



-- 
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".

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios...
:> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise.

: I don't think so.  I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we
: know how to identify.  On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read
: whichever sidra is next on the roster...

Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track"
for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track
but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence?

...
:> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of
:> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that
:> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from
:> EY than among Sepharadim.

: How does Qeri'as haTorah do that?  On the contrary it seems to argue
: for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim.

Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's
day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of
debate about it.

Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my
mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third
Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that
died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter.
There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more
RRW's thing than mine.

Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and
finally Egypt.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios...
> :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise.
>
> : I don't think so.  I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we
> : know how to identify.  On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read
> : whichever sidra is next on the roster...
>
> Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track"
> for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track
> but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence?

Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove.
The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is
irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one.


>> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that?  On the contrary it seems to argue
>> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim.

> Then why did Ashk start out triennial?

I've never heard that it did.

> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle.

How so?

> (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the
> siyum every third Shavuos.)

Sorry, I don't recall that.


> Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that
> died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were
>  shorter.

Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation?   BTW Targum
survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it
stopped being used for the whole Torah.  So it's possible that when
and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if
it wasn't the whole year.


> Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and
> finally Egypt.

Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely
the proposition that you are trying to derive from it?


BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The
kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium
(e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel)
survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only
on Rosh Chodesh Nissan.   Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too,
but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on,
and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder
al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud).


-- 
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".

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>
>> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between
>> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the
>> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also
>> possible.
>>
>
> It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th.
> However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm.
> There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there
> are two.


There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4
Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and
2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too
there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor
and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh.

There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the
date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very
useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never
remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse
engineering the mnemonic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160407/abe484b3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove.
: The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is
: irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one.

Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look
at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4):
    RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim...
    On the 2nd, Zakhor
    On the 3rd, Parah Adumah
    On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem"
    On the 5th, we return to the sequence...

The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the
2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at
the end of the first line of my "translation".

:> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle.

: How so?

The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning
of speach..."

Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into
referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY
beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying
he is prefacing.

In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning
of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn
bera H'..."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning
> of speach..."
>
> Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into
> referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY
> beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying
> he is prefacing.
>
> In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning
> of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn
> bera H'..."

Why not a preface to the day's laining?

-- 
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".

R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits
of my knowledge on this topic.

I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great
example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos,
when we aren't even sure of what the issur is?

RMB wrote:

> ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we
> all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan
> even without a Sanhedrin.

Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where
we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or
whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and
then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that
because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have
had no choice but to go by their feelings.

And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches
Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to
avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are
working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are
issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't
complain.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160406/dbc6ee27/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.)