Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 038

Wednesday, May 10 2006

• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim
• Re: Lavud
• Re: Lavud
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Married with AIDS
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• chazon ish vs rav ovadya yosef (Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura)
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• RE: Prusbul D'oraysa
• Re: Lavud

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

RGD responded:
> 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.

My understanding was that it had to be a siddur or a Chumash -- not just
any book -- because the dollar value of a book would not equal that of
the candlesticks, just as you said (unless it was a mint copy of the
first printing of the original pre-ban *Making of a Godol* of course).

The Chumash or siddur had to be one you were going to learn from or daven
from on Shabbos, thus making it comparable to the challa in being more
valuable to your Shabbos, intrinsically, than the candles.

[Email #2. -mi]

> 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.<<

The reason for pre-slicing your bread is that there is supposed to
be as little hefsek as possible between your bracha and your eating.
For the same reason, you don't make a bracha on an orange and then start
peeling it -- you peel it first.

However, the loaf is more chashuv if it is whole, so on the one hand
you want to cut it to minimize the hefsek between bracha and eating,
and OTOH you don't want to cut it because you want it to be whole (I'm
not sure if this applies to all food or just to bread -- maybe I should
have asked that question years ago!).

During the week you compromise by cutting the bread part-way through
before your bracha, so it is still a whole loaf but there is a minimum
hefsek. But on Shabbos you don't want to do that because of the risk
of cutting too far and ruining the whole-loafness of your challa before
you made the bracha. So on Shabbos you just make a scratch -- a siman,
as RGD said.

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

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?

Some have the practice to bring the challah to the table only /after/
Kiddush, "ki hekhi de-titi seudata miykara de-Shabta," i.e. by waiting
until after Kiddush, it is more evident that the food is being placed
on the table in honor of Shabbos. According to this practice, having
the challahs on the table and covering them is a concession (along the
lines of "pores mapa u-mekadesh") because it may not be convenient to
bring out the challah and the rest of the food only after kiddush. I
believe that this is mentioned by the She'iltos, observed by the GRA,
and also plays a part in story about RYBS at a rabbinic conference where
he was disappointed to see so much food on the table before Kiddush.

I thought I had headed you off at the pass by saying I was aware of
yekara he mipeninim; the point is what is its value to the table or to
the seuda?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RGD writes:
> I thought I had headed you off at the pass by saying I was aware of
> yekara he mipeninim; the point is what is its value to the table or
> to the seuda?

Because my learning is so shallow -- all my Torah shebe'al peh I learned
only be'al peh, or mimetically -- I'm always afraid that I'm on the edge
of staying something really ignorant. That should be my sig line, in
fact -- "I don't know what I'm talking about, caveat lector." However,
my answer to this present question of yours is that the Chumash is
studied at the table. Where else would you learn or daven, where else
would you put a sefer but on the table?

If that does not quite answer your question, how about this: what
kind of a Shabbos would it be without learning? The Chumash or siddur
is not critical to the Se'udah, necessarily, but to the Shabbos.
More critical than the candles.

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

"Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> Or you could have a Siddur or Chumash on the table rather than a
>> challa when you bentsh lecht

> 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.

Is that really the basis of the heter we rely on? That the challah is
worth more than what it costs from the baker, because it will be used
for seudas shabbos? I thought the reasoning was that the candlesticks
themselves are not really muktzeh, they're just a base for the candle;
to prevent the table from also becoming a base for the candle, all that's
required is something that's worth more than the candle, which the challos
generally are. If so, then the same would apply to a siddur or chumash.

On Tue, 9 May 2006 16:07:23 -0400, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 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?

CH?

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

I don't accept that it lay fallow for 1500 years.

>> 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.

I put it between quotes for a reason. You were the one who raised it
as an excuse for the issue never having been discussed. Shall I fetch
the post in which you did so?

> 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.

That's all after the fact. After a fact which you have yet to
substantiate.

> 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.

You continue to dodge the question. Which is that neither Chazal, nor
the Rishonim, nor any early Achronim, ever saw these different values
as both existing in our Torah.

Lisa

"Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com> wrote:
>> 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"?

I was thinking of meshalshelim defanos (I also thought I must have
misunderstood the question), but inability of gediyim bok'im bo MAY not
be the same as lavud.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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?

I always get in trouble when trying to respond to these questions by
memory, and especially given that this is a comment about Mas. Eruvin
to RYGB who has done much work in the area, but --

Isn't it the case that in evaluating mechitzot, we apply the "within 3
tefachim" rule both to fences with e.g. reeds which must be "connected"
horizontally (if I have your definitions) to form a "wall," as well as
the rope fence around a caravan, where we "connect" them vertically?
I won't promise that this is precisely the concept of Lavud, but it
seems very close (assuming I am remembering any of this correctly).

Shalom L. Kohn 	

On Tue, 9 May 2006 12:51:21 EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>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...

As you say, they were k'sheirim only by comparison. And what the Torah
has to say about such people is "ha-tov she-ba-goyim harog".

>Since the Shira distinguishes between different levels of reshaim,
>it strongly implies that their death does bother us.

That doesn't follow at all. The Torah uses a multiplicity of phrases
in Shirat HaYam. So a reason is given. There is not a smidgeon of a
trace of a remez that this means it should 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.

That's an assumption I don't think you can substantiate, but it's moot
in any case, because they didn't suffer as much. As you pointed out
yourself.

>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.

That claim has been made here several times. There is still no source
which substantiates it. It's just a bald claim.

>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.

That's not the case. Had it been as you suggest, it would not have been
immediately followed with the clarification that while Hashem Himself
doesn't rejoice in such situations, He most definitely does give us
to rejoice.

The reason that clarification was necessary was davka in order to prevent
the mistaken notion that it was supposed to be a lesson for humans.
And only by stopping the story, as so many people have a distressing
tendency to do, just before it finishes with that caveat, is is possible
to make that mistake.

>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.

Indeed. But the message is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
It's that Hashem mourns even when He has to punish reshaim. Why?
Because they, too, are His creations. That's an important thing to know.
But it's also important to know that we aren't expected to share that
concern for the wellbeing of those who seek our harm. And therefore, the
Gemara continues by specifying that "Hu eino sas, aval acherim meisis."

>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.

Certainly, He does. But He doesn't expect us to. Not when they try
and kill us.

>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,

You don't know that. You'd like to think that, but I suspect that
Hashem's love of His creations isn't quite so limited.

>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.

If they merit Divine compassion, then they will receive Divine compassion.
That doesn't mean they merit having us reduce our joy in any way when
we are saved from them.

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

Well phrased, but I'm afraid it applies more to what you are claiming.

Lisa

R' David Hojda in the name of the Nishmat Avrohom (emphasis mine, MYG):
"Rav Neuwirth shlita told me that the husband is only obligated to give
his wife a get if she demands one. If, however, she wishes to continue
to live with him, accepting the risk involved in married life without
any protection, it is possible that she would be permitted to do so and
certainly if they do not as yet have children. **She only puts _herself_
into possible danger,** which might be permitted for their continued
marriage in such special circumstances."

I don't understand, doesn't someone with AIDS automatically pass the
virus to his or her children?

KT,
MYG

On Tue, 9 May 2006 17:13:24 -0400 "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name> writes:
> "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
>> 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.

> Is that really the basis of the heter we rely on? That the challah is
> worth more than what it costs from the baker, because it will be used
> for seudas shabbos? I thought the reasoning was that the candlesticks
> themselves are not really muktzeh, they're just a base for the candle;
> to prevent the table from also becoming a base for the candle, all that's
> required is something that's worth more than the candle, which the challos
> generally are. If so, then the same would apply to a siddur or 
> chumash.

The explanation I gave was from Rabbi Yisrael Reisman.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>why would anyone do ..."pre-slicing"?

Sorry I don't have the mekor, but I've seen the reason is to take the
time, before making the hamotzi, to calculate the shiur to cut, to avoid
unnnecessary hefsek between the beracha and the achila.

Also, I saw that the proper depth to cut (again, to avoid unnnecessary
hefsek) is as much as can be done that will still leave enough uncut,
that if you lift up one end of the challah, it won't break.

Also, if one keeps the neiros not on the table but at a side platform
(or perhaps above the table chandelier-like, which I have an impression
was an early way of providing table light, and upon which the bircas
hadlaka was made), this would seem to alleviate the problem of allowing
the table to become a bosis l'muktseh, namely for the neiros.

The recent biography of ROY, "Ben Porat Yosef " (great reading, btw),
cites a speech ROY gave in 1993 in which he said, "the gaon, the chazon
ish, was not a 'more horaah'. he , 'alav hashalom', stayed in his
house. he wasn;t an 'av beit din' who carried the responsibilities of
'horaah'. he wrote 'sefarim'.... what can we do- the chazon ish loved
to be 'machmir'. he added 'chumra' upon 'chumra'.." (my translation)-

This observation was also made by the 'Grach', who, on the one
hand preferred that local shayles be poskined by the dayyan
(Rav Simcha Zelig?) of Brisk, and on the other hand, once said
(http://www.etzion.org.il/dk/5764/944sipur.htm) regarding the Chofetz
Chaim's psak that one shouldn't make tea in a keli sheni, "he's a tzadik,
and thats what happens when a tzaddik paskens".

David Brofsky
Alon Shevut

Everyone in this thread is taking for granted that the Shabbat
candlesticks are on the same table as the Shabbat meal. Both my mother a"h
and my wife tblh"a have always lit candles on a separate table or dresser
(that is in the ba'al habayit's sightline during kiddush). Is there a
reason why everybody else uses the dining table? Are there sources?

Has anyone brought up as a factor and analysed the concluding line in
"Al Naharos Bavel" regarding the issue of the proper emotions one should
feel regarding enemy nations?

Zvi Lampel

There is no question that there is a mechanism that works min hatorah.
Howeer, there is a machlokes Harishonim whether this mechanism is pruzbul
or not. Tosafos in Makos 3b DH Hamoser states that moser shtarosav lbeis
din works min hatorah, while pruzbul only works m'drabanan and is a
different mechanism.

Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
>> 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"?

That is horizontal; RYBS is attacking the vertical lavud.

[Email #2 -mi]

Kohn, Shalom wrote:
> Isn't it the case that in evaluating mechitzot, we apply the "within 3
> tefachim" rule both to fences with e.g. reeds which must be "connected"
> horizontally (if I have your definitions) to form a "wall," as well as
> the rope fence around a caravan, where we "connect" them vertically?
> I won't promise that this is precisely the concept of Lavud, but it
> seems very close (assuming I am remembering any of this correctly).

I see I mixed everyone up.


This I am calling horizontal:

______________________________
3>
______________________________
3>
______________________________


and this vertical:

|3>   |3>   |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |

YGB

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


[ 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         ]