Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 122

Fri, 25 May 2007

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 00:51:10 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Ascending Har Habayit

> From: "Yisrael Medad" <yisrael.medad@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Ascending Har Habayit

> A possible superimposition of the Temple courtyards over the current 
> Temple
> Mount:
> http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2007/05/possible-location-of-temple.html

This Shavu'ot my brother told us that he had been to Har HaBayit that 

Several things he said I consider important enough to share.

First, before going up the first time, he heard a lecture about the whole 
issue.  He said that the result was that he actually didn't go the first 
time he intended to go, b/c the lecture showed him the true import of Morah 
Mikdash and gave him much food for thought.  This time when he went, he 
didn't really have the words with which to describe the exprience.

Second, while it was my impression from the discussions here and elsewhere 
that it was extremely problematic to go on Har HaBayit b/c any second you 
could cross over onto forbidden territory, my brother said that Erev 
Shavu'ot he spent over an  hour(!) on the Mount, walking around continuously 
with 2 others who knew the exact boundaries.  So, there is apparently quite 
a bit of territory to walk, even when going according to the Most Machmir 
opinions on where you're not allowed to go!

Third, apparently the police accompany any obvious Jew (with kipa) and they 
too know the boundaries and warn when/if they are about to cross them.

Fourth the extent of the arab control is such that you can't even move your 
lips in prayer on the Temple Mount -- without getting thrown in jail.  The 
Wakf representatives follow the religious Jews closely, to prevent any 
possibility of prayer by a Jew on the Temple Mount.  Also, while tourists 
are allowed into the mosques, religious Jews are forbidden to enter.

There is  a lecture and tour, lasting 2 hours, by an expert Rabbi.  For 
details contact me privately.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:32:26 +0200
[Avodah] determining G-d's actions

I saw a nice vort from the Brisker Rav over Shavuot.
He mentions that according to the Medrash Tanchuma Boaz dies the very night
that he married Ruth after she was pregnant. The Griz said that he imagined
wags of the day stating that it was obvious that Boaz was punished for
Ruth the Moabite. After all both Machlon and Boaz died and Boaz immediately
the marriage. The "obvious" conclusion is that G-d was announcing that it
prohibited to marry a Moabite and Boaz was a sinner.

The truth was that King David and the Moshiach descend from them and in fact
Boaz was
kept alive at 80 so that he could have that one night.

The upshot the Griz concludes is that one should not attempt to guess why
happen to people. One is just as likely to guess exactly wrong as to guess

kol tuv

Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070524/7b2cfd06/attachment.html 

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:31:36 +1000
[Avodah] more aveiros than mitzvos

From: "Samuel Groner" <>
I wouldn't know where to begin arguing with someone who believes that
"someone who is not very very confident that his mitsvos outweigh his
averiros should definitely avoid being in EY."  My view is that even
if we cannot all live in Israel for practical reasons, it is certainly
the ideal that we all strive to live in Israel if possible.
Admittedly, as RAYW notes, I have not tried to rebut any of RAYW's
proofs.  I wonder though whether any posek actually rules in line with
RAYW's way of thinking, in advising people not to move to Israel if
they have more aveiros than mitzvos.

For a start you could try studying the Vayoel Moshe, 'Maamar Yishuv EY'
where it is thoroughly discussed and explained (in just under 200 pages)
quoting 100s of sources from Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim.

For those who just wish to learn the final psak and the conditions upon 
which one may be mekayem Mitzvas Yishuv EY, it has a 4-page summary
 beginning page 344. 


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Meir Rabi" <meirabi@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:35:13 -0700
[Avodah] SoVar VeKibbel



Michael responded:

Sovar v'kibbel ("He thought and he accepted") can only be a halacha in daas,
and thus can only work in an area where daas is relevant.  In dinei mamonus,
I have the right to be mochel, so B"D understands that your participating
implies a thought-out (savar) acceptance (kibel) of the risk.  For dinei
nefashos, where mechila is irrelevant i.e. daas isn't a p'tur, assumptions
about daas kol shekein will not generate a p'tur.


Is it not clear that in defining the types of activities that are
"acceptable and not too risky" like bungee jumping etc., we use people of a
particular society or culture to make that evaluation? Well, that's
something to do with diney nefashos and yet we see the mindset of the people
is critical in establishing the acceptable standards. Surely it is not too
great a leap to argue that we determine the scales of Shoggeg and Mezzid by
taking in to account the Sovar Vekibbel of the participants in this
dangerous game. BTW I assume that Halacha did not forbid playing this game
because it was, at least in those times, a fairly acceptable risk taking
behaviour even though it offered no benefit and there was no need to engage
in such activities.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070525/0ee53cd8/attachment-0001.htm 

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: mkopinsky@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:58:55 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Wording of Kaddish

On 5/22/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2007 2:51 pm, ramiller500@aol.com wrote:
> > : 1.  In the Kaddish, when, where, and by whom was the earliest known
> > : use of these word forms? (pardon my layman's orthography)---
> > : a.  Yisgadeil
> > : b.  V'Yiskadeish
> > : c.  Tiskabeil
> > : d.  Any others heard in some shul(s), where a tzeire has (seemingly at
> > : least!) replaced a patach
> >
> > As far as I know, c and d are errors caused by (a). IOW, someone is
> > about to give some reason I never heard for them.
> The [ARI]'s siddur has "yisgadal veyiskadash", but "tiskabeil".  So they
> don't seem to be related.

I did a bit of a survey over yom tov:

Siddur Tefillas Yosef (based on psakim of the MB) had Yisgadeil
v'yiskadeish, with a footnote offering yisgadal as an alternative.  Most
other siddurim just had yisgadal.  I was suprised to find that both
tiskabeil and tiskabal are common, with no apparent pattern about which
siddurim had which.  No siddurim that I saw, however, listed both as
possibilities, as I found with yisgadal/yisgadeil. I wonder why this is
the case.

As a side question (not entirely related to the question about kaddish,
where the words should actually be Hebrew):

How do we know what is correct nikkud for Aramaic?  Are there old
manuscripts with nikkud written in?  And since Aramaic is not Leshon
Hakodesh, why do pronunciations need to be static?  Should we be davening
with modern day Aramaic pronunciations?  According to Artscroll Gemaras,
"yes" in Aramaic is technically "Ein", not "een" as is commonly used.
(R. Frank in "Practical Talmud Dictionary" has "een", and Jastrow has
both.)  According to Artscroll, what makes "een" any more wrong that
"bu'on" for button (to use RMB's example from a little while back)?


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Moshe Feldman" <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:56:08 +0300
Re: [Avodah] shmitta

I wrote:
> >See Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Shu"t Har Tzvi OC 2:68 who understands
> >the Ramban that there is a mitzvah to eat peiros sheviis and quotes
> >some others who understood the Ramban that way.  He does not mention
> >that this understanding of the Ramban is a subject of dispute.

BTW, the Machon Yerushalayim printing of the Minchas Chinuch has in
back the Minchas Chinuch's comments on the Ramban's Minyan HaMitzvos.
There, the Ramban is quoted "Mitzvas aseh le'echol peiros shevi'is" --
which is the same as the Megillas Esther's version and not the same as
the standard printing of the Ramban.  There may be a girsa issue.
Anyone know what is the most meduyak version of the Ramban?

From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
> I fail to follow the logic here. His failing to mention the CI's position
> causes it not to exist?

No.  My only point is that he is quoting a number of different sources
on the matter, so I was surprised that he didn't mention the CI's
view.  In contrast, the Seridei Aish is not giving a list of sources,
and just stating his own view.

> Aren't we forced to say that the real poshut p'shat in the Ramban is that
> the Ramban doesn't hold there's a mitzvah do eat peiros sheviis? This would
> explain, both the Seridie Aish as well as the CI.

But there are many more meforshim who say otherwise: Megillas Esther,
Rav Kook, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (citing Pe'as HaShulchan who cites the
ABD of Brode and the ABD of Dambrava?), and possibly the Minchas

> Furthermore, in a previous
> post you agreed, after reading the Ramban inside, that "poshut pshat" is not
> so poshut after all. I.E. You were able to see both interpretations as
> fitting with the words.

That is only according the version of the Ramban printed in the
standard Sefer HaMitzvos and not according to the version of the
Ramban printed in the Megillas Esther or printed in the Minchas

Shabbat Shalom.

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 16:05:27 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Rashi and geography

> From: Yisrael Herczeg <yherczg1@013.net>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rashi and geography

>>Working with the assumption that Kush is Ethiopia, it appears that Rashi
>>has it backwards. Any suggestions?
> Rashi seems to hold that Kush is India. See his comments to Yoma 34b and
> 81b, and Kiddushin 22b.

I asked my father (Prof. Aaron Skaist) about this one, and he told me that 
there are actually three possibilities:

A. The least known are the Kassites. They conquered Babylon and the area. 
Apparently it is suggested that they came from Iran

Here are 2 sources for further information:



The point is that in some Akkadian sources (the language they used at least 
at times) the name appears with a "shin" (K'sh).

They are also the closest geographical match for the "kush" in Bereishit.

B. Northern Sinai - in the Megilla when they talk about "MeiHodu VeAd Kush" 
they are actually talking about the border with Egypt.

C. Kush - Ethiopia.  This is actually a much later (historically speaking) 
usage of the term Kush.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 16:28:56 +0300
[Avodah] tachanun & lamnatzeach

>>it is clear that "har ha-bait" is MUCH below 
the level of all the nearby hills including the Har-Hazeitim.
Har Tzion is some 30 meters above Har HaBayit
Indeed, Har Habayit (Har HaMoriah) is just one of the hills which surround the biblical Yerushalayim, Ir David..
When one now visits Ir David, "where it all started", the entrance to which is near Shaar HaAshpot, the first site usually visited is the "tatzpit", the observation point from which one can observe the surrounding area. One clearly sees the very nearby har-Habayit and har Tzion, the nearby har HaZeitim, and the hills of Armon HaNetziv somewhat in the distance. This is literally the meaning of the verse "Yerushalayim harim saviv la...".  I have rarely felt a geographical biblical verse come more alive than at that point
Har-Habayit being the most special hill, despite it's being lower than the other hills, sounds like Har Sinai, doesn't it?
Saul Mashbauim 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070525/057ffbb6/attachment.html 

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: ramiller500@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:33:40 -0400
[Avodah] Torah Lishmah

To what degree does Torah study "lishmah" mean one or more of these?

1.? Study to understand the subject matter as deeply as possible
2.? Study to become closer to HaShem
3.? Study for the sake of HaShem's glory
4.? Study to be able to practice mitzvot properly (or at least to know how, in the case of mitzvot that?the Jew?can't personally do because the Beit HaMikdash isn't operating, or?he's not a Kohen, etc.)
5.? Study for any other reason (give details)


Bob Miller

AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070525/802fb0de/attachment.htm 

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:45:17 -0400 (EDT)
Re: [Avodah] chumrot of sefardim

On Thu, May 17, 2007 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> I do not know when one can simply ignore a rejected shitah, and
:> even pasqen lequlah on de'Oraisos
:>  -- clearly NOT safeiq behavior, and when we treat a
:> machloqes like a safeiq. I have asked this on-list before.

: I am not sure I understand what you are asking here.  If you are
: asking
: when you can go against local psak when there are others who pasken
: differently ...

I'm not. You wrote on Mon, May 14, 2007 6:42 pm:
: It is more complicated than that.  Basically there is are concepts in
: halacha that even if you hold one way in l'chatchila circumstances -
: l'din, if there are other poskim who hold differently, you can rely on
: those other opinions (even if it is a yachid v'rabim type debate) in
: sha'a hadachak type situations).  The idea is that if you have a vadai
: machlokus haposkim, that is a form of safek d'rabbanan, on which you
: can rule l'kula if you have extenuating circumstances...

IOW, there are times when a machloqes is treated as a form of safeiq.
However, in most cases we do not; we even often rule lequlah on
deOraisos based on choosing one shitah over another. I was commenting
on my inability to distinguish between the two circumstances. When is
a machloqes "a form of safeiq derabbanan" and when not?

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:57:19 -0400 (EDT)
[Avodah] ROY on diluted wine

On Fri, May 18, 2007 7:19 am, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: [BADATZ] have a similar
: fight with ROY because they refuse to say on their wines and grape
: juices which are too diluted for Sephardom to use. Therefore ROY had
: probited all eda charedit wines and grape juices unless one knows for
: sure that they are not diluted with water.

We learn in the gemara (Eiruvin 54a) that normal mezigas hakos is 1
part wine to two parts water, and Rava was identifiable for mixing 1
part wine to 3 parts water. (R' Yosef, who was blind, could tell Rava
mixed his wine.) So, (1) I'm surprised to learn this issue is a
machloqes between Ashk and Sepharad, and (2) I'm surprised to learn
there is wine sold that is more than 75% added water! There is nothing
in the gemara suggesting that Rava's ma'aseh rav is a rejected shitah.

I'm obviously missing something.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Re: [Avodah] shemitta

On Sun, May 20, 2007 12:56 am, R  Samuel Svarc wrote:
: No one is undermining, they are simply not facilitating. And since
: according to R' Moshe it's a mitzvah kiyumis, I don't understand how
: one can require someone else to facilitate their own mitzvah kiyumis,
: as you are arguing.

For centuries Jews sent money to support the yishuv. Think of how they
survived in 19th cent Y-m. This isn't some RZ-specific thing.

On Mon, May 21, 2007 5:10 pm, R Samuel Groner wrote:
: I wouldn't know where to begin arguing with someone who believes that
: "someone who is not very very confident that his mitsvos outweigh his
: averiros should definitely avoid being in EY." ...

RSBA already cited VaYo'el Mosheh. I believe the Minchaz Elazar (R'
Chaim Elazar Shapira, the Muncaczer Rebbe) also writes about this
danger, and does so in more vibrant language.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
Re: [Avodah] Going up to Har HaBayis

On Sun, May 20, 2007 7:57 pm, R Dov Bloom wrote:
: The subject of going up to Har Habayit nowadays has been written about
: in dozens if not hundreds of tshuvot and articles over the last 40
: years since 1967, as well as a number of monographs, books and
: scholarly articles and lectures. The main effort is to determine the
: exact location of the "mekom hamikdash" and therby identify the parts
: of "har habayit" - the area enclosed in the inner walls of the Temple
: Mount - that Jews should be permitted to enter.

I would think that people who do not wear Radziner or murex dyed
tzitzis for the Brisker reason that scientific research lacks the
halachic authority to reestablish mesorah would not change their
practice due to such efforts.

This may explain why RALichtenstein would be opposed to going up to
Har haBayis. Even if he thought the science was theoretically correct,
it carries no halachic weight.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 122

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

< Previous Next >