Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 037

Tuesday, May 9 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:50:16 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Challah on the table during kiddush


joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com wrote:
> The Rema holds that the shabbos/YT challos should not be partially
> "pre-sliced" before the birkas hamotzi (as opposed to bread at an
> ordinary meal) lest one accidently break them and lose the mitzva of
> lechem mishne. I have never seen anyone do this (ie not partially
> pre-slice the challos).

What you're supposed to do is make a siman, not cut most of the way
through. Are you saying you've never seen anyone do THAT?

[Email #2. -mi]

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Or you could have
> a Siddur or Chumash on the table rather than a challa when you bentsh
> lecht

I'm not sure that a siddur or chumash would do it. After all, the
candlesticks are usually worth more than a loaf of challah, and the
basis changes to include the challah only insofar as the value of the
challah for seudas shabbos. If you go with absolute value (yes, I know
that yekara he mipeninim) as opposed to value to the seuda, you might
lose the basis aspect.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:10:18 -0400
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
Subject:
Re: Challah on the table during kiddush


On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:50 +0100, joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com
wrote:
> The Rema holds that the shabbos/YT challos should not be partially
> "pre-sliced" before the birkas hamotzi (as opposed to bread at an ordinary
> meal) lest one accidently break them and lose the mitzva of lechem mishne.
> I have never seen anyone do this (ie not partially pre-slice the challos).
> Can anyone suggest why? Is it possible that our loaves nowadays are
> thicker than at the time of the Rema, so that the risk of breakage
> is minimal?

Reversing this question, why would anyone do that ("pre-slicing")?
No one I've ever asked had a reason for doing it, they just see everyone
else doing it, so they've copied it.

btw, where's that rema? it would be useful to have.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:05:47 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Anshei Kneses Hagedola


"kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> To illustrate: Halachos on a single topic are scattered throughout
> Shas. To properly explain a certain halacha, a rishon might gather sources
> from several different masechtos. Let's say, for example, that he analyzed
> relevant gemaras in Shabbos, Bava Kamma, and Sotah. Oh, how different the
> halacha would be if we had lost the gemara on Sotah! And how different
> the halacha would be if we had *not* lost the gemara on Mikvaos!

Ma'asim bechol yom that rishonim quote Gemaras (mostly yerushalmis and
also midrashim) that we don't have. I don't imagine that statements of
amora'im that happened to occur in a masechta that was "lost" (I'm not
entirely comfortable with that as a broad statement, either, but I'm no
historian) would not have been noted, and either accepted or rejected
by those who did see it. Unless you say it was lost almost immediately,
which is a very difficult position to take.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:41:32 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: hallel on 16 Nisan


"David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> IIRC the gemara
> says we don't say hallel on Pesah other than the first day because all
> seven days have the same korban. But 16 Nisan has the special sheep
> associated with the omer. Why not say hallel?

Because it's not a korban related to the Yom Tov.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 12:40:26 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: hallel on 16 Nisan


On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:41:32PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Because it's not a korban related to the Yom Tov.

I think your statement is too broad. It's in the list of qorbanos for Yamim
Tovim in Emor. And described as "mimacharas hashabas" right after describing
the qorban for that Shabbos -- with the same parashah setumah break as
between yamim tovim.

Rather, the kelal would seem to only refer to qorbanos listed in Pinechas,
those we call qorban Musaf. (Although, as R' Dov Kramer noted when he
"happened to" ask the same question when we sat down for a chavrusah
last night, any additional qorban is a nosaf... Thus my "those we call".)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 18:25:14 +0200
From: "reuven koss" <kmr5@zahav.net.il>
Subject:
Re: hallel on 16 Nisan


From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
> The parsha makes the general introduction "eileh moadei hashem" and then
> proceeds to devote a paragraph to each of several holidays. One of
> those is "yom hanifchem es haomer", which, in addition to the omer,
> includes a special sacrifice of a sheep (plus eimurim). IIRC the gemara
> says we don't say hallel on Pesah other than the first day because all
> seven days have the same korban. But 16 Nisan has the special sheep
> associated with the omer. Why not say hallel?

the Sifsei Chochomim on Rashi there says that the korban is brought for
the chiyuv of the omer, not as a spcial mussaf.

reuven


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 12:01:02 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Subject:
Re: population of Israel


"Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> In any case, prosbul doesn't automatically go away, just because shemitta
>> becomes de'oraita.

> According to many Rishonim this is not true. Pruzbul only works because
> shmitta is d'rabbanan, if shmitta was d'oraysa then there would be no
> mechanism for Pruzbul to work. There is a lot of lomdus here relating
> to how pruzbul works which if I have time I will post.

What do they do with the Sifri that explicitly says the mechanism of
prosbul is valid mide'oraita?  (See Tosfos Gittin 36a, DH "mi ikka midi")

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 18:29:07
From: "Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il>
Subject:
Re: Lavud


RYGB asked:
>In the Hararei Kedem to Sukkah 7a it is stated that RYBS suggested
>that lavud only is effective (in creating a wall) horizontally, not
>vertically. It is very convenient to say so in the sugyah there, but
>very mechudash. Anyone ever heard such a thing before?

Perhaps, because by definition, something within 3 tefachim of lying
**ON** the ground HAS to be horizontal [excuse my amaratzus in geometry:
this looks like a minimum of TWO points (a plane); if it were vertical
it would be ONE point].

KT
Josh 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:04:05 +0300
From: <akiva.atwood@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Married with aids


I know of a case in Baltimore where the Rav gave a heter when the husband
was HIV+ and the wife refused a get.

Akiva


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 18:17:40 +0200
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Subject:
basis


You want the challa on the table from the time you bentsh lecht so that
the table won't be a bosis for muktza. I suppose you could remove the
challa just before kiddush and then bring it back again but that seems
awkward and maybe disrespectful to the challa. Or you could have a Siddur
or Chumash on the table rather than a challa when you bentsh lecht,
but challa seems the most common thing to have.>>

Wht wouldn't the dishes and silverware on the table be sufficient?
In any case one should have the table set before shabbat. I once heard
from R. Kook of Rechovot that he took on himself to set the table every
friday morning lichvod shabbat

 --
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:19:12 +0200
From: "Moshe Simons" <moshe@silverheaven.com>
Subject:
Re: Challah on the table during kiddush


Tamar Weissman <tamarweissman@yahoo.com> writes:
> But shouldn't we at least wait until after Kiddush to bring the chalot
> out? And what's the source for people being so careful to make  sure
> that the chalot are ON the table during Kiddush?

See Tosafos to Pesachim 100b - d'h' Sheain:
Tosafos quotes a gemara in Shabbos that if the table is set upon arrival
back from shul, the good angel gives a blessing. I understood Tosafos to
mean that the table being set is with bread - as such the Challos need
to be on the table upon arrival home from shul - not just during Kiddush.

Having the challah in the kitchen would not do the trick according to
Tosafos, as the table you are eating on (the 'Shabbos table') is not
set and ready to go.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 17:02:06 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: hallel on 16 Nisan


Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:41:32PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>: Because it's not a korban related to the Yom Tov.

> I think your statement is too broad
SNIP

The quotation from Sifsei Chachamim by RRK allows me to be nitleh
be'ilan gadol

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 12:51:21 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder


R' Simcha Coffer wrote: 
> The people who went  through
> the Holocaust *wanted* Hitler and their Nazi tormentors to die. They had
> not one ounce of compassion on him just as the Jews in Mitzrayim had not
> one ounce of rachmanus on the Mitzryim who drowned their babies, stole
> their wives, tortured their husbands etc.etc. This is why they broke
> out in the greatest form of shira ever invented upon their mapala.

Yet in that Shira they DID distinguish between levels of reshaim.  

See Rashi on Shmos 15:5, "yardu...kemo aven"-- they went down like stone.
Elsewhere in the shira it says that"tzalelu ke'oferes" -- they sank
like lead -- and "yochlaimo kakash" -- they were consumed like straw.

Rashi says this refers to different levels of evil, with the worst
Egyptians bobbing about like straw so that their agony was prolonged,
the medium-evil going down like stones and the "kesherim" sinking like
lead, dying immediately without suffering. "Kesherim" is a relative
term -- by comparison with the worst Egyptians, these were kesherim,
relatively decent people.

RSC:
> ...And their expression of joy is ensconced in the
>Torah as a lesson for us for all eternity. In fact, we repeat it
> every day. Nowhere do we find that they mourned even a ki hu zeh! How
> do you reconcile this disparity between your hashkafa and that of the
> dor deah?

RSC is right that they didn't "mourn" for the Egyptians, and that their
Shira expressed joy and exultation. But the picture is not quite
so black-and-white. In the Torah we constantly come across nuanced,
gray-area themes.

RSC believes that the Torah has an absolutist, all-or-nothing attitude
towards goyim, reshaim, and so on, but I respectfully disagree.
The Torah "gives the devil his due." When there is a side of zechus
in the goy, the Torah says so -- both the pasuk and the comments of
Chazal. For example, when Esav weeps, "Abba, don't you have a bracha
for me?" there is real pathos in his words. And Chazal praise his
high level of kibud av.

Since the Shira distinguishes between different levels of reshaim,
it strongly implies that their death does bother us. It would have
seemed cruel and disturbing to Bnai Yisrael if the relatively decent
Egyptians --the ones who were only somewhat horrible -- had suffered as
much as the Egyptians who were the most horrible.

You are correct that we do not mourn the deaths of the Egyptians, but
our joy at their deaths is somewhat tempered by other feelings.

Even the famous medrash about Hashem telling the malachim not to sing
shira "because My creatures are drowning in the sea" conveys a certain
lesson to HUMANS -- not just to malachim. Had the message been intended
SOLELY for the malachim, as you have elsewhere implied, it would not
have been recorded and told to us humans.

The very fact that that medrash is part of the Torah (Torah shebe'al peh,
but still Torah) means there is a message for US.

You had a very good point when you said in one or two of your posts
that B"Y would not have been happy merely to have been rescued, but
also needed the satisfaction of seeing their enemies punished by Hashem.
Those who have been cruelly wronged want to see justice, they don't
just want to be saved. You are right about that.

Yet at the same time, our satisfaction at the punishment of our enemies
is still mixed with an awareness of their humanity. The Torah shows
exquisite sensitivity on this point.

Here is another example of that sensitivity and complexity of which
I speak:

Shmos 14:30 says "Va'yar Yisrael es Mitzrayim meis al sefas hayam."
Rashi there says that the Egyptians didn't just disappear at sea, but
their bodies were thrown up on shore so that the Jews could see with
their own eyes that the Egyptians were dead. This way, they would not
have to worry that perhaps the Egyptians had survived and had exited
from the sea at another point, and would still come to pursue them.

Rashi BTW doesn't say the Jews needed to see justice done, but that they
needed to see they were safe.

Later, in the Shiras Hayam (Shmos 15:12), there is a pasuk, "Natisa
yemincha, tivla'emo aretz" -- "You tilted Your hand, the earth would
swallow them" -- and Rashi says there that the Egyptians merited burial.

This suggests (sorry I don't remember who says this) that another
reason for the Egyptians' bodies washing up on shore was so that their
relatives could come and bury them. Or it could be that Hashem Himself
buried them. Anyway, Rashi /does/ say that they had a zechus -- that
they merited burial because they had once said, "Hashem Hu hatzaddik."

RSC:
> Of course it is referring to the nation. But it is also
> referring to the personalities. That's why the navi mentions that they
> were brothers and yet Hashem loves one and despises the other.

Please see Devarim 23:8 -- both parts of which are most germane to our  
present discussion.

Part 1: "Lo sesa'ev Adomi ki achicha hu." Astonishing! Our enemy --
yet still our brother!

When Yakov says to Esav, "Go ahead to Seir and I'll catch up with you
there" Rashi says this will be in the time of Moshiach. Edom will
accept Hashem, accept that Yakov really had the right to the bechorah,
accept that B"Y really are the Chosen People -- and the brothers will
then be reconciled -- with goyim and Jews both serving Hashem.

Part 2: "Lo sesa'ev Mitzri ki ger hayisa be'artzo." Again, astonishing!
After all they did to us, we owe them gratitude?!

Yet see Rashi (I'm quoting the Artscroll translation): "You shall
not abhor an Egyptian utterly, even though they cast your males into
the river. What is the reason? For they were your host (achsanya)
at a time of pressing need, i.e, the time of the famine."

RSC:
> (R' Avigdor Miller is midayek that the goyim  are not even a drop in the
> bucket...they are k'mar *M*idli", outside the  bucket!)

R' Avigdor Miller's was distinctly a minority view even in that part
of the charedi world which considers separation from the goyim to be an
optimal Torah desiteratum. Certainly to those of us who believe in Torah
Im Derech Eretz, this is not in consonance with the many, many pesukim and
Chazal's that indicate that Hashem loves and cares for all His creatures.

There are reshaim who are so utterly evil that they completely forfeit
any sign of love or sympathy on our part or on the part of Hashem, but
even among the most evil nations, there are degrees of evil and there
are individuals who do evoke Divine compassion -- like the Egyptians
who sank like lead, and merited burial.

The Torah does not allow us to lose sight of the humanity even of
our enemies. That is our enemies -- as for other goyim who are not
necessarily our enemies -- I do not agree that they are all "outside
the bucket."

The preponderance of the Torah's statements on the subject, taken as a
whole, do not support that view.

 -Toby  Katz
=============


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 17:17:19 GMT
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Lavud


> In the Hararei Kedem to Sukkah 7a it is stated that RYBS suggested
> that lavud only is effective (in creating a wall) horizontally, not
> vertically. It is very convenient to say so in the sugyah there, but
> very mechudash. Anyone ever heard such a thing before?

It must be a total lack of understanding on my part, but isn't the
opposite a mishna m'fureshes in Eiruvin 16b, "Makifin bishlosha chavalim
zeh l'ma'lah mizeh"?

EMT


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:51
From: "Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il>
Subject:
"Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim


Apart from the gemara in Megilla 16a which EXPLICITLY limits "binfol
oyivcha" to a fellow Jew [and actually insists that it isn't valid for an
enemy of the Jews], there are many other sources that hold this position
[Tashbetz's commentary Magen Avot; Pirkei d'rabbi Eliezer 49; Rav Ovadya
Yosef in Yabia Omer V Orach Chayim 19).

KT
Josh 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:11:00 -0400
From: "Lisa Liel" <lisa@starways.net>
Subject:
RE: "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim


On Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:51, backon@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>Apart from the gemara in Megilla 16a which EXPLICITLY limits
>"binfol oyivcha" to a fellow Jew [and actually insists that
>it isn't valid for an enemy of the Jews], there are many other
>sources that hold this position [Tashbetz's commentary Magen
>Avot; Pirkei d'rabbi Eliezer 49; Rav Ovadya Yosef in Yabia
>Omer V Orach Chayim 19).

And before we hear the same voices saying, "Yes, but that's not the
only view in Chazal", I want to point out, yet again, that if there
were diametrically opposed statements in Chazal on this issue, the
conflict would have been addressed in the past.  Either by Chazal
themselves, or by Rishonim, or at the very least by major Achronim.

No one ever has.  No one.  Ever.

And while I'm aware that some people are happy to apply "dialectic
tension" to the idea of our tradition being happy with two opposite
concepts without anyone taking note, I will repeat, for the umpteenth
time, that this has no basis in our tradition.  It's not the way
Torah sources work.  We look for apparent conflicts *just like this*
and do our utmost to reconcile them.  This one dynamic accounts for a
majority of the entire sea of Torah literature.

Chazal noted the apparent conflict between "binfol oyivcha al
tismach" and "ba-avod reshaim rinah", and commented on it.  And
concluded that "binfol oyivcha" does not apply to non-Jews.  Given
this, and given the fact that there is no dissenting view given in
Chazal, it is impossible to understand later authorities as
dismissing what Chazal actually say.

It is possible to read them according to what R' Micha so charitably
called "dochak".  It's possible to read them as apologia, intended
for an audience that perhaps did not understand, or was unwilling to
accept, what the Torah actually says.  But it is not possible to read
later sources as being cholek on Chazal.

That is all.

Lisa


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:07:23 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim


On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 02:11:00PM -0400, Lisa Liel wrote:
: And before we hear the same voices saying, "Yes, but that's not the
: only view in Chazal", I want to point out, yet again, that if there
: were diametrically opposed statements in Chazal on this issue, the
: conflict would have been addressed in the past.  Either by Chazal
: themselves, or by Rishonim, or at the very least by major Achronim.
: No one ever has.  No one.  Ever.

So perhaps we should go with a maamar chazal the rishonim and acharonim
ran with and expanded upon, like CH on day 7 of Pesach?

But no one tries to address the two? What is the body of RMT's shiur
about if not criteria for doing just that?

: And while I'm aware that some people are happy to apply "dialectic
: tension" to the idea of our tradition being happy with two opposite
: concepts without anyone taking note...

That's not what dialectic tension means. I suggest learning RYBS's
philosophy rather than repeatedly mischaracterizing it.

Dialectic tention means that the human condition includes conflicting
truths. RYBS writes that halakhah must therefore address an inherently
conflicted person. Such as acknowledging a time for celebration that is
clouded by mourning.

Without the fancy terminology and existentialism, it's sufficient to
acknowledge the ubiquity of ambivalence.

I suggested that since people are self-conflicting in this way, calls
for opposing reactions need not come from conflicting sources. Rather,
we can see them as lauding different values that coexist and can be
simultaneously lived.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?


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 >