Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 020

Wednesday, October 17 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:40:24 -0400
From: Jay Lapidus <jlapidus@usa.net>
Subject:
Re: WTC tragedy


On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:12:11 -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>On 15 Oct 01, at 15:02, Jay Lapidus wrote:
><<The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the
> WTC atrocity to happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun, HaShofet
> kol ha'aretz, tamim po'alo, and is Jewishly unacceptable.>>

>To which Carl Sherer responded:
><<But to say that He had nothing to do with it is to deny Hashem's
>hashgacha in this world, which is at least as equally Jewishly
>unacceptable.>>

I have already expressed in previous posts about my beliefs about
God's role.

Gershon:
>Amos, 3:6  Im yitaka shofar be'ir veha'am lo yecheradu,  im
>tihyeh ra'ah be'ir [vHashem] lo asah.  Sounds like Hashem IS doing the
>ra'ah.  Clearly this is as Jewishly acceptable as it comes,  even though, and
>maybe davka because,  we don't understand it.

The context of the verse is a warning of God's forthcoming punishment
against the Israelites - particularly those in their "palaces," i.e.,
the ruling class - for their transgressions. What was the sin of those
at the WTC?  Where was the prophecy warning them?

>Hashem is Kel rachum vechanun, but also nakeh lo yenakeh.

How does "nakeh lo yenakeh" apply to the WTC atrocity?
It doesn't.

>The other two pesukim you bring to help you, are also proofs farkert.
>The first is Avraham Avinu's request that Hashem spare Sedom.  
>Once he was unsuccessful in doing so and Hashem in fact does destroy
>Sedom, does that mean the end of the pasuk is ch"v true, that lo ya'aseh
>mishpat?

God did not destroy Sedom until the innocent - Lot and family - had
the opportunity to evacuate.
 
>Second,  hatzur tamim pa'alo is tziduk hadin.  It implies that no
>matter how bad it may seem,  HKB"H is, again as the end of the 
>pasuk says, kol derachav mishpat.

Indeed.  Too bad that "ein kol darchei enosh mishpat."

Jay S. Lapidus     http://jlapidus.tripod.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:36:12 +0800
From: stugold@juno.com
Subject:
Re: Birkas Habanim


> ...so that the children hear nothing and do not respond?

Did I understand someone to have a problem with the child answering
Amein at the end ?

Stuart Goldstein


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:10:17 -0400
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Subject:
Re: Birkas Habanim


SGoldstein asked:
> Did I understand someone to have a problem with the child answering
> Amein at the end ?

I have no problem with a child answering "Omain" to an audible b'rocho
(although I do have a problem with anyone imitating Birkas Kohanim in a
non-minyan, non-tutorial context). If I understood Akiva correctly, he
assumed that the b'rocho had to be audible and was questioning whether
fellow listmembers' children answered once vs. four times. SBAbeles and
I replied re that assumption, as such was not the practice in our or
in neighborhood families and thus our children didn't answer even once;
rather, they would say "Gut Shabbos/YT" (in my case, in response to my
parents wishing me such after saying the b'rocho, and probably in his
case, too).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 23:18:29 +0800
From: stugold@juno.com
Subject:
Re: Birkas Habanim


From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> I have no problem with a child answering "Omain" to an audible b'rocho
> (although I do have a problem with anyone imitating Birkas Kohanim in
> a non-minyan, non-tutorial context).  If I understood Akiva correctly, he
> assumed that the b'rocho had to be audible

Why must it be audible? Does the child not know that a beracha has been
said? IIRC the Biur Halacha makes a distinction between where it is
Mutar to say Amein vs. where one is Mechuyav to do so. In the former,
based on Tosfot (Berachot 47a) regarding the Alexandria Shul, one may
answer Amein as long as he knows what he is answering Amein to, i.e. a
beracha was said. A Chiyuv may require hearing HKBH's name. Presumably,
many parents add on a few words of their own after "Shalom". Some do so
to make the point that it is not Birchat Kohanim. I place one hand on
my child's head and the other hand on top of that hand, to make that
distinction.

Stuart Goldstein 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:27:20 -0400
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Subject:
Re: Birkas Habanim


SGoldstein replied:
> Why must it be audible ? ... IIRC the Biur Halacha makes a distinction....

You're speaking of actual b'rachos (i.e. the matbai-ah of "Boruch
atoh..."); Birchas HaBonim isn't such a b'rocho.

NB that we answer "Omain" even to the p'sukim of Birchas Kohanim only
when one or more kohanim recite them in the presence of a minyan and not
when the SHaTZ recites them (when the appropriate response is "kain y'hi
Ratzon" [with some adding Avos-related words after "Ratzon"]).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:26:23 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
Birchas habonim


I have [off-line] mentioned to RMP my bewilderment at chassidim and
others who do not 'bench' their children of Friday evenings. This minhag
is mentioned (amongst others) by RY Emden z'l saying his father [the
Chacham Zvi} had this practice. The Otzar Hatefilos Siddur [p 624] also
brings a number of sources and reasons for this. It strongly condemns
those fools who have a minhag shtus' in not benching their offspring
calling it 'midas atzlus bepituy hayetzer' etc etc.. ayen shom

Minhag Yisroel Torah [vol 2 p 71] also discusses the minhag and tries to
explain those who don't follow it with a pshat from the sefer Menachem
Zion (Rimonov) who says that the fact that Esov got upset at Yaakov for
taking the brochos shows that it was a rare thing for a father to bless
his children, not something done on a weekly basis..

Anyone have any additional reasons?

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:01:34 -0700
From: "Eli Turkel" <turkel@titan.Colorado.EDU>
Subject:
shofar


Sorry for being a little late with hilchot shofar. However, i recently
saw something that has a wider aspect to it.

The question is what to blow during shemonei esrei.

1. The Rif and others give an abbreviated set with the explanation of
tircha de-tzibbura

I don't know how long davening took for the Rif but in my shul it was
about 5 hours and I find it hard to believe that another few seconds of
shofar would make a difference

2. Our custom today is blow a complete set 10 at malchiot, zichronot and
shofrot. This is based on the Arukh who was followed by the Gra and baal
haTanya against the SA.

This seems to be one of several cases where most people follow the
Gra/baal Hatanya against SA. First is it pure coindicence that these
two seem to agree on many halachic issues against the stream or was baal
haTanya aware of the psak of the Gra?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:12:07 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Sukka on Shmini Atzeret--Late Rishonim


In a message dated 10/14/2001 5:46:08pm EDT, Daniel Schiffman
<qumran@optonline.net> writes:
> It's hard for me to give much weight to the sevara
> that the Rebbe and/or his chasidim are mitztaer, because there isn'y
> enough space in the sukka. If that's really the reason, they should
> leave the sukka during sukkot itself.

The posts IIRC pointed out that Shmini Atzeres was DAVKA the one day
taht many Chassidim came to vist their rebbe.

Plus it is IMHO reasonable to consider mitzta'eir on Shmini Atzeres a
real Cheshash of Ba'al Toseif while OTOH being machmir on Sukkos itself
might be unnecessary but probably not assur.

I believe this chiluk underlies the Aruch Hashulchan's apology for the
minhag of not eating in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:25:11 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Sukka on Shmini Atzeret--Late Rishonim


In a message dated 10/14/2001 5:46:08pm EDT, Daniel Schiffman
<qumran@optonline.net> writes:
> The Tanchuma says that chachamim allowed
> us to leave the sukka on the last day of sukkot, so that our tefilla
> for Geshem will be "belev shalem."

I was thinking about this question on Yom Tov: Since we in galus sit in
the sukka on day 1 of Shimini Atzeres then why do we not defer Geshem
to day 2 - iow Simchas Torah?

Lich'ora the idea of Saying Geshem on Shmini Atzeres fits in well whit
those who sat in the Sukkah ONLY at Shmini A night and ate the day meal
inside their homes.

This is further supported by the Roedelheim Machzor which has the
Tefillah for leaving the Sukkah on the NIGHT of Shmini Atzeres which
suggests that we DO eat in the Sukkha at night but NOT by day.

FWIW the Roedleheilheim machzor footnotes a quote from the Ya'avetz that
we should eat all Shmini A meals in the Sukkah and says to turn BACK to
the tefillah of leaving the sukkah found in Ma'ariv. My question why turn
back at all, why didn't the R Machzor move the Tefillah to after Mussaf?

None of these suggestions are compelling, but the pattern makes some
sense to sit in the sukkah on Shmini A UNTIL Geshem and not after.

As far as the Bavli goes, perhaps yasivi yasvinen was either
A) understood to mean lav davka EVERY meal but at least some of the meals. 
Or
2) it was simply implemented that way as a compromise.
  
Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:24:58 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Arba Minim by the Har Habayis


On 15 Oct 2001, at 12:29, I wrote:
:> First, it's mashma from the rishonim that one can be meqayeim aliyas
:> haregel by seeing the ritzpah of where the azarah ought to be....

On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:07:45PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: I wasn't referring to aliya la'regel - I was referring to lulav nital
: shiva. See the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos Succa 4:1 (and also in Rosh
: HaShanna 4:1) regarding the definition of "Mikdash."

Understood. I was working with the unstated assumption that the two
mitzvos would use identical definitions of approaching the miqdash.

:> Noach Witty asked me about this in shul. If one can be maqayeim aliyas
:> haregel by seeing the fllor of the Har Habayis Platform, would one be
:> chayav in a korban re'iyah? Does asei docheh lav mean that one can choose
:> to put oneself into the situation that requires the asei and violating
:> the lav?

: IIRC the korban discussed by the Kapos Tmarim in Succa 35 as being
: possible to bring today is a Korban R'Iya. Maybe this is why? ...

The pesach is also discussed as a potential korban that one could bring
bizman hazeh. Perhaps because neither need be brought on the Har Habayis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:11:25 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
messiras nefesh


> The sefer b'Sukkos Teishvu...
> "I heard from Rav Mordechai regarding his great grandfather, the Gaon Rav
> Dovid zt"l, that he slept in the sukkah one leil shemini atzerres when
> it was extremely cold and from this he became ill with a lung infection.
> Within six days, he had died. Rav Moshe saw this as messiras nefesh for
> the mitzva and saw it as an example to himself l'hakpid al zeh".

'Ofor ani' etc etc...

But couldn't one learn punkt farkert from this story? That one was maybe
punished for not following the simple accepted halochos both legabei
'mitstaar' and not sleeping in the Sukka on SA?

And would a Mr Average (I am not asking questions about gedolei yisroel
doing their own thing) get a s'char or onesh for risking his life for
a mitzva that he is really potur from doing?

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:27:53 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
BK


On or about daf 80 there are a couple of really great Meshech Chochmo's.
One is on why, theologically, we allow goyim to bury a meis on Yom Tov
Rishon but not on Shabbos: Because goyim really should observe Shabbos,
since it commemorates Ma'aseh Bereishis, so their not keeping Shabbos is
a bizayon for the meis; Yom Tov, however, is Zecher l'yetzi'as Mitzrayim,
so goyim are not shayach to it anyway, so, therefore, their not keeping
YT in the course of the burial is not a bizayon for the meis.

The other is on Naftali getting the Kinneret, but not jurisdiction over
its fishing rights - the MC finds an allusion to this in Moshe's brocho:
"yam v'darom yerosho" - the heh has no mappiq. - the lack of the mappiq
alludes to the lack of the fishing rights.

Pretty neat!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:33:23 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: free will


"Mrs. Gila Atwood" <gatwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
:> So the big question is,  WHY is it so important to preserve free will in the
:> scheme of history even though it costs many lives?

On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:59:20AM -0400, Arie Folger replied:
: It seems to me that free will is a requisite part of creation. Without
: free will there would be no righteousness to distinguish from
: _what_every_sane_human_being_would_do_ and thus no place for sachar
: ve-onesh. You may, of course, point to the period before the sin of etz
: hada'at as a period where free will was substantially different from
: tody, or even not yet existant...

Despite the way you portray the Rambam, he makes a point of saying that
bechirah was extant, but it was the choice between truth and falsehood.
Admittedely that's different in kind from what we call bechirah.

I would think that this limits the cheit to either being a ta'us or an
aveirah lishmah.

As for why I think bechirah is more valuable than life...

Hashem created the world because it's the nature of a meitiv to want
someone to recieve that tov. We exist as keilim to recieve divine
hatavah. That's our point.

What greater hatavah can there be than to share aspects of His Existance?

One aspect is that He is the Borei. Therefore, as paradoxical as it seems,
the perfect qeli for shefa is one that is broken but striving to repair
itself. To self-create.

Another is independance of action.

Both of these require (since the 2nd one basically is) bechirah chafshi.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:55:35 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: WTC tragedy


On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:12:11PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Second, hatzur tamim pa'alo is tziduk hadin. It implies that no matter
: how bad it may seem, HKB"H is, again as the end of the pasuk says,
: kol derachav mishpat.

Interestingly, when dayanim are enjoined to engage in "tzedeq umishpat"
we understand "mishpat" to mean seeking pesharah. Fortunately, "kol
derachav mishpat". Because if it were din -- "i efshar lehisqayeim
vila'amod lifaneCha..."

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:31:38 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories


On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 11:18:59PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Quick point. I concur that it is regrettable to assign BLAME in the face of 
: catastrophe. Think of Aaron's reaction when HIS twin towers - i.e. Nadav and 
: Avihu were felled by fire. He remained dumbfounded!

: OTOH Chazal did learn lessons from THAT story. Which means to me that while 
: assigning blame is NOT OK because we are not the ultimate Dayan; nevertheless 
: we can still LEARN from things that go wrong.  The trick is to do so w/o the 
: blaming.  

R' Jack Love notes that Chazal come up with numerous opinions as to what
the cheit was (doing the avodah after drinking, not asking their rabbeim,
bringing a fire, etc...). They never reach a consensus. If you look at
it, they're clearly struggling to find lessons realizing that none really
satisfy the question of why the tragedy was allowed to occur.

We still haven't answered to my satisfaction the difference between Chazal's
treatment of Acharei Mos or the churban (another example where multiple
answers are given to no clear resolution) vs Elifaz's reaction in Iyov.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:52:12 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Comparison of Radzyner tekhelet with Murex tekhelet.


On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:43:20AM +0200, Baruch Sterman wrote:
: [From R' Seth Mandel:]
:> Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t'kheles. ...
:>                                     During that period, the situation was
:> EXACTLY as it is now: ...

RSM argues that until R' Herzog's discovery of what the substance was,
the objections to Radzyner techeiles were over issues not specific to
the cuttlefish-derived dye. Such as the looseness of fit between the
gemara's description and the cuttlefish, which RSM sees (and I agree)
is no worse than the murex's. Or the whole notion of how mesorah is
to be restored. (more on this later)

Then R' Baruch Sterman listed objections to Radzyner techeiles, showing
why objections raised to it were /not/ generic.

His last one reads:
: In addition, the Beis Halevi objected that:
: 4. Since the art of dyeing with squid had been around for many hundreds
: of years, what explanation could the Radzyner offer for all the gedolim
: of previous generations having missed what the Radzyner was now proposing.

There are other versions of the objection.

The one you give is flawed in that knowing how to get dye out of a
cuttlefish is irrelevent if one didn't know that one was supposed
to.

4a) The question is that since the cuttlefish was available throughout
the golah, how would we forget that it's the chilazon? This is how I
understood the objection when I read the Radziner's reply.

4b) RYBS's version, that one can't use science to restore mesorah.

I'm not sure either of these apply to the murex-derived techeiles, as:
    4) the dying process wasn't known;
    4a) the murex isn't as availble; and
    4b) there are meqoros within the mesorah that the science is merely
        confirming.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:33:37 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
Noach's Teivo - 7 or 14?


Someone showed me an interesting Sifsei Chachomim (from the Tseido
Laderech) in this week's parsha where talking about the chayos tehoros
that Noach took along on the teiva that he actually only had a total
of 7 - 3 pairs plus a spare for a korban. The SC claims that just like
with the chayos temei'os 'shnayim shnayim' means a total of 2 and not
2 pairs similarly 'shivo shivo' means a total of 7...

The Maskil Ledovid, however, writes, that this is against a befeirush
Midrash Rabboh which states there were 7 pairs...

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:37:51 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Of Arks and Rainbows


I thought I'd share with the chevrah my D"T for this week's Toras
Aish. Your he'aros, qushyos and ra'ayos are invited, particularly if
they arrives in time for me to hone the article before publication.

-mi


		     Aspaqlaria: Parshas Noach 5762
			  Of Arks and Rainbows

There are two events in the Torah that can be identified as yeshu'os,
by which I mean events where Hashem saved someone even though they didn't
really merit it.

The more obvious is Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, the Exodus. Hashem saved us
just as we were slipping from the "49th level of impurity" into being
hopelessly corrupt. And in the introduction before Az Yashir, the song
by the Red Sea, we are told that "Vayosha' Hashem... -- and Hashem saved
on that day Israel from the hands of Egypt..." (Shemos 14:30)

An earlier example is when Hashem saved Lot and his family from the
destruction of Sodom. There too Lot was saved primarily in Avraham's
merit, that Avraham should be spared the pain of losing his nephew.

There is a common feature in these two stories. The ones being saved
are restrained from rejoicing over the fall of those who were not. I
would suggest that this is a property of yeshu'ah. Without the element
of witnessing divine justice, there is no justification for reveling
in the fall of the wicked. And here the potential witness was saved by
Hashem's mercy, justice isn't in evidence.

Among the reasons the gemara (Megillah 14a) gives us for why we do not
recite full Hallel on the last day(s) of Pesach is a medrash about
G-d's discontent with the angels joining in our singing Az Yashir.
"The work of My 'Hands' are drowning in the sea, and you sing?" The day
we crossed the sea is not to be one of unrestrained joy. Note that we
do not have a similar muting of the joy of Chanukah, despite the deaths
of the Saleucids and Hellenized Jews. The Exodus, however, was a yeshu'ah.

With Lot this point is particularly stressed. Lot was told not even to
look back at the destruction. His wife was turned into salt for trying
to do so.

What about Noach? Was his a yeshu'ah, or did he earn being saved?

There is a famous Rashi on the words of the first verse of this week's
parashah. "Noach was a whole man in his generation." (Ber' 6:9) Rashi
notes two interpretations of this comment. On the one hand, it could be
taken as a complement of Noach. Even in the environment and culture of
Noach's contemporaries, he was still a good person. Alternatively, it
could be taken as a criticism. By the low expectations of that period,
he was a good man. But had he lived in Avraham's day, he would have been
a nobody.

There is another debate recorded in Rashi that also touches on our
question. In (6:16) Noach is told to make a tzohar for the ark. Rashi
quotes Bereishis Raba, and again there are two positions. One defines
"tzohar" to be a window, the other a gem.

I would like to suggest that these two Rashis are recording different
aspects of the same disagreement. According to the first position,
we look at Noach in terms of the relative scale of his potential. Given
what Noach had to work with he did great. In that light, he merited being
saved. Therefore, Noach was not in the position of Lot, he was allowed
to see what transpired to his peers. Therefore, this tanna would have
no problem saying that the ark had a window through which Noach could
see out.

The second looks at him in an absolute scale. By that standard, he didn't
get as far. His salvation would therefore be scene as an act of Divine
Mercy, a yeshu'ah. So to this opinion, the tzohar couldn't have been a
window, it was a gem that obscured his view.

After Noach left the ark, Hashem made a covenant with him. Hashem gave
Noach seven mitzvos for all of humanity to observe, and promised Noach
that He would never again flood the entire world.

There are two halachos about rainbows that seem to contradict. The first
is that we make a berachah of thanks when seeing a rainbow (Berachos
59a). On the other hand, we are told not to gaze at a rainbow because it's
a sign of Divine Anger, that G-d is telling us that it's only his promise
to Noach that keeps Him from again flooding the world. (Chagiga 16a)

There is another difference between having the light come into the ark
via a window or a gem. Light that comes in through a cut stone will
be refracted. The inside walls of the ark would have been covered with
little rainbows.

Perhaps this is another reason why G-d chose the rainbow to be the sign
of his covenant with Noach. The rainbow reminds us that the world is our
"ark" by painting a similar spectrum on our "walls". The sign of the
rainbow is therefore that of a yeshu'ah, of unmerited salvation. For
which we should be thankful, but not proud.

(C) 2001 The AishDas Society


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:04:30 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: Of Arks and Rainbows


Micha Berger wrote:
> There is a common feature in these two stories. The ones being saved
> are restrained from rejoicing over the fall of those who were not.

> Among the reasons the gemara (Megillah 14a) gives us for why we do not
> recite full Hallel on the last day(s) of Pesach is a medrash about
> G-d's discontent with the angels joining in our singing Az Yashir.
> "The work of My 'Hands' are drowning in the sea, and you sing?" The day
> we crossed the sea is not to be one of unrestrained joy.

I think you're confusing bnei yisrael with malachim. God did not complain
about the Jews saying hallel; on the contrary Shirat HaYam is the paradigm
of the obligation to say hallel on an appropraitely qualified nes. He
complained only about the angels joining in.

The halacha to which you refer is only with respect to hallel as a
retrospective commemoration rather than at the event on the nes, and
seems not to be appropriate to your thesis.

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:41:07 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Of Arks and Rainbows


On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:04:30PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: I think you're confusing bnei yisrael with malachim...

I don't. Rather I made it unclear that I was lumping in B"Y across
history. As you leater write:
: The halacha to which you refer is only with respect to hallel as a
: retrospective commemoration rather than at the event on the nes, and
: seems not to be appropriate to your thesis.

Lama lo? After all, ilu lo hotzi HQBH... harei anu uvaneinu uvnei vaneinu
mishubadim hayinu liFar'oh beMitzrayim.

We mute Hallel today (at least in part) for the same reason the mal'achim
were quieted then.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:42:16 +0200
From: "Rena Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
RE: Birkas Habanim


> (although I do have a problem with anyone imitating Birkas Kohanim in a
> non-minyan, non-tutorial context).

What if the blessing-giver in question IS a cohen? Does it make any
difference at all in this context?

---Rena


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:19:13 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Birchas habonim


On 17 Oct 2001, at 17:26, SBA wrote:
> Anyone have any additional reasons?

My wife picked up the Yekke minhag of BOTH parents bentching the kids
from her sister who is married to a Yekke. I'm not sure if there is any
halachic reason behind the minhag.

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:19:45 +0800
From: stugold@juno.com
Subject:
Re: Amein after Berachot


From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
>> Why must it be audible? ... IIRC the Biur Halacha makes a distinction....

: You're speaking of actual b'rachos (i.e. the matbai-ah of "Boruch
: atoh..."); Birchas HaBonim isn't :such a b'rocho. NB that we answer
: "Omain" even to the p'sukim of Birchas Kohanim only when :one or more
: kohanim recite them in the presence of a minyan

What do people say at the end of a Drasha (e.g. at a Simchah) when
the speaker has just stated a beracha (without Baruch Atah) for the
Chatan-Kallah, Bar Mitzvah boy, etc...? Sounds like Amein to me. What did
Bnei Yisrael say at Har Gerizim after each beracha was said (and at Har
Eival)? What do the 2 Malachim reputedly say as they view one's Shabbat
table on Friday night? Granted, Ameins should not be thrown loosely about,
but they are certainly not restricted to the Matbea-ah of Baruch Atah!

Stuart Goldstein


Go to top.


********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >