Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 103

Sunday, August 6 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:54:34 +0200
From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
Re: music

R' CBK wrote:
> beer and liquor was known, and common, in those days, and still they  
> were not included in the gezeira.

True, but the social function of beer and liquor vs. wine wasn't  
necessarily the same.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:49:36 -0400
From: "Silverman, Philip B" <Philip.Silverman@bcbsga.com>
Where, aiphoh

I'm not sure if this might help your Tisha B'av shiur, Joel, but I
once saw an insight by Nechama Liebowitz on the word "where." It
was raised while discussing the story of Avraham, Sara, and the
angel. If I remember correctly, there are two Hebrew words for
"where". In English, I can ask my wife, "Where are my keys?" or, a
teacher can ask his student, "Where is your homework?"  In the
second case, the teacher doesn't care where the homework is; he
just wants to know why it isn't here. In these cases, the Hebrew
word for "where" would be different. I believe that the latter use
of "where" is the word used when the malach asked Avraham where
Sara was.   Actually he was asking why Sara was not there. Hence
the unusual explanation given in the Talmud (Baba Metzia daf 87),
that Sara was modest.

Hopefully, I understood Liebowitz correctly.
(Oh wait! I just found it. See footnote 4 in 

I would've guessed that "eiphoh" would be the word used to describe
the "why not here" (ei-po) definition of "where". However the word
"ayo" is used in this episode. Thus, my guess would've been wrong.

Joel, may your shiur really make the impact you want it to.

All the best,
Phil Silverman

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

I wrote:
> I think that eiyfoh (with a hei) is the normative spelling for "where". My
> sevarah is:
>      koh : eiykhah :: poh : eiyfoh
> Koh means "like this", eiykhah "means how could it be like this?"
> Poh is "here", eiyfoh is "where?"

Thought of another example: eiy + zeh = eiyzeh.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:19:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: MB/Yeshiva Communities

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:53:14 -0400, v17n98, RRW <rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com> wrote:
> Anshei knesses hagdola did not have v'sechezeinu talking about a return
> to Tziyyon until after 70.

You reminded me of a theory about the hanging "ve'ishei Yisrael"
in Retzeih.

As "Mesorah" types know, there is a machloqes about where to put
the period.  Do we say "ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabeil beratzon"
or "vehasheiv es ha'avodah lidvir veisekha ve'ishei Yisrael"?

This first version is structurally simpler in terms of the grammar
of the sentences. The second makes a list of objects for the hashavah
out of "ha'avodah lidvir beisekha" and "ishei Yisrael" which has
no location -- assymetric.

The idea is that this line of Retzei dates back to bayis sheini.
At that time, it would make sense to ask HQBH to accept our tefillos
and qorbanos -- version 1. When, ba'avoseinu harabim, the BHMQ was
destroyed, rather than removing the existing nusach, Chazal justified
the leading "ve'ishei yisrael" by making it the tail of a request
for the restoration of the avodah.


Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Eid Echad Ne'eman B'Issurin

RAM <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> The Aruch Hashulchan disagrees, and says that though he has neemanus
> regarding what he personally eats in his home, he does *not* have neemanus
> for what he sells in his store....

As already quoted by R"D JB, AhS YD 119:9 writes of purchases
"mei'adam she'ein makirin oso", which would seem to explicitly
exclude someone whose home you know you can eat in.

Can you give the se'if to look at?


Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:27:19 -0400
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <rygb@aishdas.org>
More Interesanter Shticklach from R' Chaim Kanievski

1. The Chazon Ish held that b'zman ha'zeh a husband need not light
and extinguish the Shabbos candles for his wife - since our candles
burn fine without preparation.

2. Some Mekuballim will not use a pen as a placeholder in a sefer
because of "Lo sonif aleihem barzel."

3. RCK said that it may be proper to put labels on products that
say "Birchaso She'Ha'Kol" and the like in Genizah (I guess that
means disposal b'derech kavod, but he is very machmir in this area),
since this is a halachah.

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:36:31 +0200
From: Allswang <aswang@netvision.net.il>
Re: Noshim daatan kalos

From: "Allswang" <aswang@netvision.net.il>
> Of course there are situations where the witness will have to come to Beis
> Din, just that when giving a Taama DiKra, it should be noted that the reason
> of kol kvuda does not cover many situations where public appearance is not
> needed, and the explanation that I gave applies to any situation where an
> eid must formulate a view, which is basically every eidus ...

> As to the use of the term NDK, I agree that the original poster misapplied
> the term as it is intended in the context used by Chazal, but I just wanted
> to move the focus of the Taama Dikra from being part of some overall
> limitations with respect to the woman due to norms of society such as Kol
> Kvuda, to an underlying understanding of the mahus of how she thinks and is
> influenced (by potentially anyone, to address your first question), which,
> albeit very remotely as stated, connects the two areas...

For the Maharal's view on the psul eidus of women (close to what I was
saying) see Netzach 57 and Rav Hartman's footnotes there. It seems to be a
topic that received a lot of attention in the Maharal's various works way
not all neeman people are also fit to be eidim. (I seem to recall the the
Mahari Ibn Lev has a lengthy halachic piece on the same basic question).

There is some formula that the Maharal uses, that nashim represent chomer
and men tzura. The Maharal in Gur Aryre Shemos 17 on the word "anashim"
(which, by the way is the same term on which the drasha of psul eidus of
women is derived in Shvuos 30), develops the chomer theory (not directly as
related to eidus), and connects it to the fact that women are more easily
influenced, and he, interestingly, makes reference there to NDK.


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:04:39 +0200
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Re: historical contingency and brachos

RAMiller's understanding of IM OH 4:41 is undoubtedly correct: If
one ate less than a k'zait of bread at a meal, the other foods he
ate are not mitztaref to require birchat hamazon.

Although R'Moshe does not cite this, it seems to me that OH 208:9
can be brought as a support for this psak (Interesingly, R' Moshe
cites *very few* sources from SA unosei keilav in this tshuva). If
one ate bread made of mixed grain flour, most of which is not from
the 5 grains, and what one ate is not a k'zait of 5-grain flour
within zman achilat pras, one does not say birchat hamazon. The
corn (for example) in the flour is not mitztaref to the wheat (for
example) to require birchat hamazon.

See, however, the Shaarei Tshuva there, who quotes Shu"T Beit Ephraim
who says that in many cases, if one is satieted by this bread, one
must say birkat hamazon. The Beur Halacha there cites this Shaarei
Tshuva. He expresses some doubt as to whether we should pasken this
way. In any event, even if we do in this case, this may be because
taam k'ikkar, and the bread tastes like wheat bread. This does not
apply to a meal in which a small amount of bread was eaten, and the
other food does not taste like bread.

Saul Mashbaum

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:54:02 +0200
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Re: Erev Shabbos News Reports from Israel

: Regarding the suggestion that visiting the sites of the JP and other
: papers encourages chillul Shabbat because they expand their coverage
: of the war based on the number of "hits" on their sites: I *highly*
: doubt that this is the case.

> The problem is more straightforward: since one is reading the latest
> info available only through their chilul Shabbos, it's assur behana'ah
> (even if r"l the news isn't always stories that provide literal
> hana'ah).

I was merely relating to the claim that visiting such sites
*encourages* chillul Shabbat, that they expend more effort to produce
such news because I visit the site.

It is not obvious to me that the news reported by the JP is available
*only* through their chillul Shabbat, and not elsewhere, from
non-chillul Shabbat sources.

Even granting this point, the principle that RMB cites, that something
one could not obtain but for chillul Shabbat is assur b'hanaa, is
unclear to me. Is something in this category assur b'hanaa forever,
or only "bichdei sheyaaseh"? If it's already Sunday, and thus the
ChS-produced news is "old news" available from non-chillul Shabbat
(non-Jewish) sources, whereby this principle doesn't apply, is the
ChS-produced news permitted? What are the sources for this principle?

Saul Mashbaum

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:30:55 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>

Are there any "classic" answers as to why Tanach was written in
such a way as to necessitate medrashim to read sanhedrin, batei
medrash etc.  into Tanach rather than mention them outright in

Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:20:20 -0400
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <rygb@aishdas.org>
More Interesanter Shticklach from R' Chaim Kanievski II

RCK says the famous legend about the fellow who had a hard time
finding his daughter a shidduch, came to the Steipler, who asked
him if he made a kiddush when the daughter was born, etc. is "sheker."
And that he himself did not make kiddushim for most of his daughters.

My Belzer chevrusa (we learn "Sidduro shel Shabbos" together) told
me, however, that they say over the same ma'aseh concerning the
previous Belzer Rebbe. More tzugepast.

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:20:21 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Lo Tasur

We're all familiar with Rashi's statement that even if they tell
you that right is left you have to listen. AIUI the supercommentaries
understand Rashi to mean this literally, i.e. that the psak of Bet
Din establishes halachik reality for all.  Has anyone seen a
reconciliation of this position with the mishneh in Horiyot which
states that a member of bet din or talmid raui lhoraah can not rely
on bet din and if he acts on bet din's psak, knowing it's wrong,
he's chayav (according to rashi of misunderstanding the meaning of
lshmoa dvrei chachamim)

Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 00:43:25 -0400
From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
RE: Geirus while still beliving in Jesus as a prophet

R' AA:
> However, at no time was he asked about his beliefs regarding Jesus
> (whom he considers to be a Prophet sent to the non-Jewish community).
> He (foolishly) was open about his beliefs -- and has running into
> major opposition in his community, with people claiming his geirus
> was invalid.  (with obvious consequences on his family).
> On the one hand, Geirus requires Kabbalat Mitzvot. He did so.
> OTOH, the people attacking him say it requires more than that --
> it requires *rejection* of the idea of other, later prophets.

Well, does he believe that Oso Ha'Ish's "Nevuah" is included in the sixth
Ani Ma'amin (She'kol Divrei Ne'vi'im Emes)? 


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 >