Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 68

Sun, 28 May 2017

• 1. Mezonos After Kiddush (Professor L. Levine)
• 2. More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros (Professor L. Levine)
• 3. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Mandel, Seth)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: L'sheim shmayim (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: L'sheim shmayim (Ben Bradley)
• 7. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Naso (Cantor Wolberg)
• 9. Naso (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: L'sheim shmayim (Micha Berger)

From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis.


Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos?


A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of
one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim
101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a
location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the
mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats.

The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one
can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at
the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a
mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his
Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah.
The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that,
according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry,
or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah.
This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of
Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the
mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25).
Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav
Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one
makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos f
 oods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l.

In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah.

For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent
article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos"<http://links.mkt3536.com/ctt?k
n=7&;ms=MTUyNTc3MDAS1&r=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&b=0&j=OTgzODE4
ODM4S0&mt=1&rt=0> featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer
Daf HaKashrus.

After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating
meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk,
regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses
require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher<http://links.mkt3536.com/ctt?k
n=3&;ms=MTUyNTc3MDAS1&r=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&b=0&j=OTgzODE4
ODM4S0&mt=1&rt=0>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170528/14c74335/attachment-0001.htm>

I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic


Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the
entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is
done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be
prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing,
should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....?


To this I replied


Let's be dan l'kaf zechus.   People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time.  I sit during the Aseres Hadibros.



And in light of this,  may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed.



I bet this never occurred to you.


YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170528/5e4fe169/attachment-0001.htm>

Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant.

Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance.

Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue
of minhag.  They do not understand that sometimes there are really
important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved.


Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union

Voice (212) 613-8330     Fax (212) 613-0718     e-mail mand...@ou.org


________________________________
From: Professor L. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM
To: avo...@aishdas.org
Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros?


From  last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day


Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros?


According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section
of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and
important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres
Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that
these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should
always follow the local custom.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170528/b027ca20/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to
: reality...

It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are
other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem.

...
: It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as
: being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality
: that predates this entire debate...

True, as I wrote
: >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about
: >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only"
: >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos
: >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov,
: >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or
: >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and
: >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?)

From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a
definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law.

...
: It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of
: Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha...

Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black
letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that
halakhah must conform to and the law itself.

Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions
when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only
get a quieter voice, it still must have its say.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of
> Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without
> aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot
> be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc...

I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and
more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly
does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But
for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the
rituals above the menshlichkeit.

There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav
Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/

> At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker
> related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York
> who complained about the way the Jewish population related
> to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct"
> people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This
> nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a
> white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day.
> (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking
> the other way" is Chillul Hashem.

Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines
and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people
greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story
started to get around.

If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently.
Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to
clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree
with it.

Akiva Miller

'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of
Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.'

I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim
tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of
being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos
would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give
the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are
part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim
and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos.  Most often that's
implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value
based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks
otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is
cited.
I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic.
Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate
in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value
system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore
meta-halachic pesukim at our peril.

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170528/61665e9b/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Ben Waxman wrote:
> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their
> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities.

Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that
Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent
introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth,
pages 48-52.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the
> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land.

It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it
something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus
and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus
then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz.

> But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than
> being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why
> put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether
> it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only
> applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk
> literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging
> such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves.

Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an
unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be
one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's
marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid.

My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility*
that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not
from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from
those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a
d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" -
as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of
the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to
her. I would want a source for that.

Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would
consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert
at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be
venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa
for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from
the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be
Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is
legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the
children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is
certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid
source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal
descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable.

Akiva Miller

"And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying,
'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them:  May
HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and
favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers
6:22-26]

The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the
convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent
contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God
should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in
Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He
does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is
talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins
between man and his fellow man.

Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God,
God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive,
even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God
does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift
his or her face towards the offender. 
 
So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a
clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is
equally important. 


Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah
portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the
Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest
in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this
psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." 

"And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying,
'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them:  May
HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and
favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers
6:22-26]

The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the
convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent
contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God
should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in
Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He
does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is
talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins
between man and his fellow man.

Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God,
God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive,
even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God
does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift
his or her face towards the offender. 
 
So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a
clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is
equally important. 


Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah
portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the
Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest
in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this
psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170528/f4c0e345/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
: 
: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of
: > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without
: > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot
: > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc...
: 
: I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and
: more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly
: does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But
: for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the
: rituals above the menshlichkeit.
: 

This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to
observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu.

But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied
to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to
the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA.

Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter
halakhah.

One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB)
is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad
chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made
black-letter halakhah out of them.

When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course
-- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha
kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because
there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love
of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)