Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 193

Thu, 22 May 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 21:49:15 GMT
Re: [Avodah] pesach sheni [from Hakhel]

<<I would like to know the source for those who do not eat matzah at all on Pesach Sheni so as not to add to the mitzvos.>>

I, on the other hand, would like to know what source, if any, there is for eating matza on Pesach Sheni.


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 19:47:04 -0400
[Avodah] Split Nusach

I have been in many shuls in EY where there is no set nusach. Instead,  
nusach goes by whomever is shaliach tzibbur.

So you will often have the circumstance where on Shabbat shacharit
is done in one nusach and Mussaf is done in the other.

...the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of having a shul with no set

As a chazzan for many years, let me try to respond:

The Talmud Yerushalmi Eruvin at the end of the third perek  
states: . . . ?do not change from the custom of your forefathers??  
This text is cited by the Mogen Avraham Orach Chaim 68,1 in reference  
to t?fila meaning not to change one?s own nusach of t?fila, whether  
Ashkenaz or S?fard.

Technically speaking, prayer modes constitute nusach hatefillah. They  
are very important since the nusach identifies whether it is Shabbos,  
Regel or Yomim Noraim. Shacharis IS different from Musaf. There are  
definite divisions of melody depending on the holiday and whether it  
is Shacharis, Mincha or Maariv. Therefore, for instance, there is one  
nusach for borchu for a regular ma'ariv, another for Shabbos ma'ariv,  
another for regel ma'ariv, another for yomim noraim ma'ariv, and  
another for Shabbos shacharis. As there are those illiterate in Ivri,  
there are those who are illiterate in nusach. One could be a musmach  
and still be unaware of proper nusach. I've heard many a yodea sefer  
who used the same nusach for everything.

I am very much against chazzanim who repeat words and who take 15  
minutes for birkat hachodesh. It was related to me that a chazzan took  
over 30 minutes chanting Hin'ni. It almost sounds like an oxymoron.

Kol tuv.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Kayza Zajac <s.zajac@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 22:41:37 -0400
[Avodah] Asei doche lav and mitzvah haba'ah ba'avererah

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 09:06 -0700, avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
> This thread was launched by a discussion of asei dokheh lav vs mitzvah
> habaah ba'aveira.

Fair point.  But, to be honest, I was really sloppy, because I was
focusing on the other issue.  What I was really thinking about was the
specific obligation that she had to not hug him, vs the question of what
her obligation to him was.  I seriously doubt that she had any specific
hahachik obligation to comfort him, certainly not in any way he chose.  

In any case, I don't really think that this is the real, main issue
here.  I see that others have said much the same thing that I did.
Insisting on a hug was out of line.  

I think, by the way, that Toby would be interested to note that this is
one more place where common sense and feminism would overlap - feminists
may not believe in being shomer negiah, but they sure do believe that if
a woman doesn't want to hug or kiss or touch in any other, it's wrong to
push it.

-- Kayza

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:20:02 -0400
Re: [Avodah] totafos [was: Lying to protect the simple of

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>   From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> >>I could be wrong but IIRC the Mishna calls a ttoefs as a tachshit a woman
> wers on her forehead <<
> >>>>>
> Jastrow says totefes is an ornament worn on the forehead, and Alkalay
> suggests a root from tiftef (tes peh tes peh) meaning to sparkle.
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*

Which suggests the drasha about 4 from foreign languages was not necessarily
due to lack of internal info but was going outside the box  [pun intended!]
to equate  them to 4 parshiyyos.

I humbly suggest that often Jews - including Rabbis - have been
super-imposing models on  how Hazal work w/o taklng what they say at face

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Hazal played fast and loose in creating
Halcah from loosely constructe Midrash. I AM suggesting that they Asmachted
some fast and loose Midrash to support existing Tradition.

Example [A piece of myh OWN Purim Torah]
Q: How do we know that Haman was from Amaleik?
A: Because Parshas Amaeli is saumch to parshas Haman [vi.z in Beshlach]

Everyone gives me a good guffaw and thinks my pun is silly
Now waht is Hazal'sdrasha [or pun?]

The source for Haman in the torah is: [Hamin Ho'etz Hazeh..}  al tirkrei
Now people will Hazal all kinds of creidt for a genius drasha and show how
the orgianl sin is tied to Ameleik etc. etc. and maybe that is true

But I will bet tht had I punned Hamin ho'etz Hazah and Hazal used the
parshas Haman connexion that people would find that drash EQUALLY amazing
and full of valuable insights of how Haman caused fasting which is the
opposite of the food in Parshas Haman and how the money he paid was opposite
of the free food gifted by HKBH etc,.

Point? who says that Hazla's pun was REALLY so specific that it is THE
DEFINITIVE source for Drush etc.?  maybe any o ther pun they would have
picked would have been equally valuable all along and darshaning and
Maggidim would have come up with just as much Torah anyway.   IOW is the
intrinsic DRUSH or the source that counts!

So let's say that Hazal neglected their drash on Totsafos and that one of US
said Totafos refers to a doulbe pair based upon Africki etc. would we be
pilloried for saying it or just following Hazla's own example in other
cases?  Certainly this drasha creates no NEW halachah, the number 4 for the
parshiyos is probably is HLMM anyway so what harm is there?
As I've posted before, the old generation from Eurpore that I grew up with
did not take Hazal quote as seriously as we seem to. Theyseemed to get more
hana'ah out of Hazal's cleverness and wit and were less concerned about
being "frum" about it.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:37:43 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Matza

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Jacob Sasson <jsasson@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>The problem? The Mishan/Haggadah with the questions equate year 'round
> teh eating of Hametz uMatza - which presupposes that they are equally valid
> for kevia's S'eduha all year Round. FWI I actually heard this quoted from a
> Sephardic Hacham.
> Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wonders why Sephardim say Mezonot on Matza.  The real
> question is why anyone would say hamotzi on matza.
> The halacha, as codified by the Shulchan Aruch, proscribes a mezonot for
> "Pat Haba'a Bekisnin".  Three definitions are given for PH"B, one of which
> is a cracker.  In principle, Matza is a cracker and the default rule on PHB
> is that they require a mezonot.  Ashkenazim say hamotzi on Matza only
> because it is normally eaten as a meal.  Thus, matza is an exception to the
> PHB rule but is not lechem in and of itself.  To put it in Brisker terms,
> Matza does not have a "chalos shem pas."
> The "problem" of comparing hametz and matza in the mishna/haggada is only a
> problem if you assume that the "matza" referred to is the same cracker like
> matza eaten today.  It was not.  Traditionally, matza was made of unleavened
> dough.  Many sephardim (myself included) still eat this "soft matza" on
> Pesach, which explains the comparison between hametz and matza quite well.
> They are distinguished only by the fact that the matza didn't have time to
> rise.
> One of the obligations on Pesach is the eating of the korech "sandwhich."
> Korech means to "fold".  The real questions are how ashkenazim "fold" their
> matza and when the cracker we call matza replaced the original "soft" matza.
> Jacob
> I heard this in the name of one of your family members.

I hear your point, that the original Matzah was softer and that today's
matzah is hard like a cracker. But that does not explain the use of lechem
oni as the reason. Perhaps I heard the WRONG reason for saying mezonos

The Rambam refers to Matzah as a Rekik - meaning Wafer. It does not seem at
least in HIS day to have been soft. AIUI it would seem that MOST of the
Menachos were both hard and matzah. The Lechem Hapanim seems to have been
quite firm and not soft or pliable at all. And this thread is related to the
Lechem hapanim being matza.  If the lechem hapanim were indeed soft, it
would not have stayed in its hmold very well.

The fact that lechem hapanim was both Matza and called Lechem is part of the
proof for this. Now it IS possible that lechem hapanim was firm but still
soft somehow and not a true cracker. I don't know for sure. It certainly was
not flat it was shaped sort of like a "U"

Ashkenazic Cracker Matza is based upon a Humra to make it as dry as possible
and as thoroughly baked as possible. I think this Humra makes sense because
today's matza is very unlikely to have the concern of unbaked flour that
plagued  Matzos of  earlier generations.  AISI this humra leads us safely to
being lenient on  matzo shruya because the possibility of unbaked flour in
our hard crackers is indeed minimal.

At any rate, Pas Habba bekisnin IS hamotzi any time one is kovei'a a se'udah
upon it. Thus, crackers WOULD be hamotzi when used  for kevi'as se'udah
anyway. So the only question would be upon the issue ofsnacking on matzah.

Tangentially, AISI, any time one is kovei'a a s'udah on Shabbas would
convert a pas habba bekisnin into Hamotzi. That is why matzah Ashira is
hamozi for any se'udah on Shabbos even though we might say mezonos on it
during the week as a snack. This is a form of Achshevei. the requirement of
Kevi'as se'udah on Shabbos PROMOTES the matzah ashira from pas habba
beksinin mezonos to hamozi merely by the context of a Sahbbos Se'udah.

The only problem I have is having crackers at our s-called "kiddushes" on
Shsbbos after services.  This actually cannot work in my system [i.e I would
required hamotzi] and I am told the GRA insisted on hamotzi davka after
Kiddush.  This WAS true of my old shul in the Heights that USED to have
davka hamotzi for kiddush on Shabbos and Yom Tov in the "good old days".

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:46:33 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Prozbul

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> If I may add to RRW's constellation of interlocking reasons:
> Tanakh is a seifer mussar. The primary lessons of all the naarative is
> to provide archetypes of people, behavioral examples to emulate or take
> warning from. The nevi'im acharonim are rife with behavioral warnings
> and instruction.
> Why would chumash be any different?
> And thus, the text says "ayin tacvhas ayin" because morally, the person
> needs to realize on some level that's what he deserves. However, the
> TSBP gives us halakhah.
> (This is sort of a (2b).)
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> --
> Micha Berger

Not only a sefer Mussar, but a description leading to our visaulizaion of an
ideal society. By keeping that ideal in our mind's eye, we have that as our
traget, Hazal take care of the pragmatic adjustments needs to make Torah
work in the real world.

This ties in with unenshalm parim sefaseinu - except that instead of LIP
korbanos I am suggesting imagined Korbanos, seen in the mind''s eye

Thus the Nachmanidean symbolism of a Chatas - wherein the sinner sees
himself as  worthy of having is OWN blood shed - still works but w/o a
PHYSICAL symbol but a textual one  instead.

And this is OUR musaph Avodah on YK isntead of the phsyically REAL Avodah
done by the KBG in the BhM,  We recite it and re-eneact it to an extant
insted of doing it physically.

And we sort of re-enact the Exodus on Seder night. It's not just a
comemoration, it's a kind of revival of the original  experience.

Re: ayyin tachas Ayyin, Rav Gorelick is my source for saying that this is
what the perpetrator DESERVES, and he should realize that.  I thought he was
paraphrasing thee RambaN, but I saw somewhere that the Rashbam says this.
Maybe both did.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:56:40 -0400
Re: [Avodah] haaramah

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> It doesn't answer the question, because the investor's repayment and
> dividend is supposed to come out of the profits the business produces.
> A residential house doesn't produce any profits until it's sold (and
> it may not do so then either).  Unless you decide that the house belongs
> to the "iska", and the "borrower" is actually buying it from the "iska"
> in instalments, and paying rent in the meantime.  That could work with
> a house, and I suppose it might work with shares too, since I believe
> there's a short-term rental market for shares, but then why make it an
> "iska", why not just buy it in the "lender's" name, and do the
> instalments and rent directly?
> And what will you do with a car?  A private car is certainly not a
> profit-making business!  And a chasunah doesn't even leave something
> that can be sold!  The only way I can see an actual "heter iska" in the
> original sense working is if we all agree to pretend there's a business
> going on, and the one who claims the emperor is naked has an impossible
> burden of proof, even though everyone knows he's right.  I'm pretty sure
> that level of sham can't be sustained halachically.  Whereas the KSA's
> scheme with the cheques doesn't depend on any business, and can be used
> for any purpose.  Ditto for the SA Harav's scheme with the building,
> except that you have to actually have a building (or buy one for this
> purpose).
> --
> Zev Sero

First: I have a lot of family in the real estate business. I don't know a
lot about he technicalities of heter iska,

My original post was to make a distinction - hilluk -between real estate and
auto loans etc. Ein Hachi name, I do not see a car loan as an "iska" at all
- unless one invests in antique cars, etc.

But even when one lives in a house, the investment aspect is a big part of
the heshbon in getting a mortgage fro most people. And Many people "trade"
houses quite frequently
B"H I have been in the same house for almost 18 years. But I have refied my
original mortgage about 7-8 times already AND I have taken out TWO distinct
Helocs.  The business aspect of home-ownership is very much in the
foreground of my mind. Not to mention the taz write-offs etc.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 01:34:49 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Dancing on Shabbos

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 06:40:00PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : And I confess there was a straw man aspect. I  was most cetainly
> attacking
> : the idea that O's can over-turn Halachah jsut becauase they do it but if
> C's
> : do something similar it must be wrong...
> That's like citing C citing pruzbul as a source. It's not just a "can
> over-turn Halachah" it's the when and why.
> But I would have thought we would actually be on the same side on the
> issue of dancing on Shabbos.
> The aggadists would find a tzad heter for dancing, since it aids in the
> feeling of Shabbos.
> Since mimetically most Jews do dance, you as a minhag avos supporter
> Should have equal reason to rely on the da'as yachidim of Tosafos or the
> implication of the Y-mi.
> Overturning norm to be loyal to the books was something you decried
> earlier in this thread. What's the difference here?
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> --
> Micha Berger

Funny you should ask because I was going to post a Hilluk on this!

First of all I ma not a pure Mimeticist.
AISI Mimetics trumps Bavli only if it is evidence of a pre-existing
paralllel source from more-or-less the same era.  [E.G. Rav Amram Gaon can
kinda trump Bavli on hefsek for piyyutim. Why requires a book]

Disclaimer, merely walking around the bima is problem not DANCING that is
prohibited on Shabbos and YT

TWO cases and TWO opposite positions by RRW:

1. Bassar Behalav - 6 hours.
Yekke Mimetics makes sense? Why Tosafos says 0-1 hours is OK. so does Rema
at the outset. Plus the Talmujd is silent,. the FIRST source for 6 hours is
[drum roll plz] RAMBAM!  Rif only says fro mmorning meal to evening meal. In
a 3-day a meal society even RIF might have endorsed the Yekke 3-hour rule
[and that is my version of its source]  Mimeitcs triumps over extrapolation
of Bavli by Rishonim.

Tangentialy, it would seem from teh quote of Rabbi Yochanan inthe Bavli that
his origainl position before emended by the Bavli to confrom with Rav isda
was taht NO WIATING AT ALL was required. This supposrts the idea taht if in
EY they were NTO choseish for Rav Hsda, then they probably held that no
waiting was required and this explains RT and Tosafos in a way that has
NOTHING to do with Mar Ukva at all.

2. Dancing on Shabbos: [Disclaeimer:  I do not like to dance but this also
includes clapping and banging]

   1. It's a MISHNA not a Bavli so the EY vs. Bavel dynamic essentialy
   cannot be involved [except perhaps that you feel Yerushalmi has a different
   read of the nature of the gzeira]
   2. The Bavli plays no games with this Mishna,
   3. Nor does the SA who codifies it virtually verbatim
   4. This one Tosafos  is NOT endorsed by Rema AISI [as opposed to waiting
   after meat above] his FIRST answer is MUTAV [compare his  defense re:
   Kapparos] Nor RMF for that matter
   5. The mimeitcs aisi is not a conintous TRADITION dating backto Tosafos,
   but a rejected Shita revived and defended post facto

At any rate, my essentail shita on non-textual minhaggim is that they are
non-textal in the Talmudic era but were preserved orally in parallel. If you
were to show me the FIRST example of a Minhag was the Taz [e.g. temimos]
then yekkes do NOT subscribe.  The whole point of preserving Minhaggim is
that they pre-dated the ratifcation of a given text [e.g. the Bavli].  And
had Rema ratified this minhag of dancing, then I Might have flipped my

I once posted on this list that Teimanim ALWAYS follow Rambam. Someone
pointed me to a website that gave 40 exceptions of Teimani TSBP that
PRE-DATED the Rambam.

In a real sense the following is my shita
SA came to make final rules.  Rema emended SA with PRE-EXISITNG Ashkenaz

Back up one step
Rambam codified rules - Hagahos maimoniyos partialyl documented how Ashk,.
differed ALREADY.

Back up one more step

Bavli imposes Halacha, but SOME of that is ONLY Minhag Bavle [think Aveilus!
or perhaps hasiba] Tosafos comes to document pre-existing Minhg Ashk. that
traces back to other customs. I value this asepct of Tosafos as a preserver
of tradition fmor than his pilpulism

But this is a LOT harder to do against a Mishna from EY than a Bavli in my
world-view.  So aisi Tsofos over-stepped his boudns. Rema seems to agree and
so does RMF Orach Chaim  Pt. 2 #100 Ayein Sham for a really radical POV On
the entire matter.

Also, at one time all the ancient mimetics were oral/mimeitc.  By NOW we
have dozens of Seforim preserving the ancient Ashekanzic practices.  It dos
not seem that much slipped through the cracks.  The point is that I value
Yosef Ometz as a valid alternate source on a par with an era earlier but
even I have limits> IOW my defense of Mimetics is more about how can
Ashekanz have piyyutim that step on the hefsek rules..

Now new Minhaggim that are not a problem are OK wwith me. I certainly do NOT
endorse Ashk. NOT wearing Tefilin on ChhM against the Rema. This to me is
shinuy not hiddush!

So Catholic Israel has its limits. But of course the fact that people
endorse the GRA re: Tefilin but still use 3 matzos at the Seer kinda baffles
me anyway. It's a kind a of Catholic Israel to eclectically pick poseik X in
1 case and poseik Y in another as opposed to having a shita..

[if you're stil lreading this then:]
 I should note that aiui the Yerushalmi implies that BOTH feet leave th
ground. I know one wild guy at the Friday Night Carlebac who does just that
[but it might be bein hashemashos] I know the ba'al Habeyis is ocncerned
becasue his wife is a piano techer and this guy [unlike Tosafos] is UNTUNING
the piano every Friday night by jumping up and down. So for hilchosShabbos
he is mekalkel and is probably pattur. But for Chosehn Mishpat he probably
owes the owner a tuning every week!

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 193

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 >