Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 32

Mon, 09 Feb 2009

• 1. Brisk (Eli Turkel)
• 2. ancient minhagim (Eli Turkel)
• 3. RSRH on Earning a Livelihood (Yitzchok Levine)
• 4. Re: ancient minhagim (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: ancient minhagim (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Darchei Limud (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Rabbi Noah Weinberg zt'l (Cantor Wolberg)
• 9. Re: ancient minhagim (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 11. TU B'SHVAT (Cantor Wolberg)
• 12. Tu Bi Shvat Seder (M Cohen)
• 13. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: shatz saying things out loud a.k.a silent ga'al (Michael Poppers)
• 15. Tur choshen mishpat (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

<<I was told that R chaim brisker was saving bachurim from college by
making gmara intellectually competitve

Was this hora'as sha'ah? I dunno.

I have always enjoyed brisker learning but I doubted its halachic veracity
early on.>>

I dont believe the story. If anything the problem in Voloshin was
haskala and not university per se. As I pointed out RCS himself always
insisted there was nothing new in his drech.

OTOH RYBS has stated that he could not compete for the minds of his
students especially in Boston who attended Harvard and MIT without
Brisker Torah to give them the intellectual challenge.
i.e. he felt that on an American campus of the 1950's 1960s one could
not compete with the atmosphere there by offering "pots and pans"
instead of a highly intellectual/philosophical Judaism

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel

<<You remind me of Moshe Rabeinu not knowing what Rabbi Akiva was  talking
about, and R' Akiva saying it's halacha leMoshe miSinai!  The story
implies that
whatever Chazal were later to deduce was already implicit in the  Torah that
Moshe received.>>

The implication is that Rambam and other rishonim wrote with Ruach HaKodesh
and implied meanings that they themselves did not realize.
I have no trouble that the Torah has messages that weren't decoded
until centuries
later since the earlier ones didnt have the means to understand certain ideas.
It is harder to say that Rambam wrote things that contained hidden meanings
(outside of Moreh Nevuchim where he says so explicitly)

The story goes that Brisk concentrated on Rambam precisely because he didnt
give reasons and it is easier to put ideas into a psak of the Rambam rather
than a Ran or Ritva or are more explicit

-- 
Eli Turkel

We are all aware of what is going on today with 
the economy. Indeed, the financial situation of 
many is precarious. Others, who are presently ok, 
are worried about what will happen to their financial situation.

In Parshas Beshalach RSRH discusses what our 
attitude toward earning a livelihood should be 
from a Torah standpoint. The selections below are 
taken from his commentary on Shemos 16 : 2

?The provision of one?s daily bread
is more difficult than the splitting of the Red Sea? (Yalkut Shimoni,
Yeshayahu, 474). The threat of hunger ? real or imagined ? undermines
all principles and rescinds all noble resolves. As long as a man
cannot disengage himself, not from the responsibility to provide for his
family, but from the overwhelming anxiety resulting from this responsibility,
he is unable to fully realize God?s Torah.

Freedom from this overwhelming anxiety comes only with the deep
awareness that concern about one?s livelihood, the foremost among all
human concerns, does not rest ? not even primarily ? on man alone.
He must realize that toward this end, too, man can and should do only
his part ? namely, what God expects him to contribute toward the
achievement of this objective. As for the success of his efforts, he must
leave that to God, Who watches over every household and every single
human soul and extends His mercy to all His creatures. Man must
realize that his work for his livelihood is not a privilege [with which
one is endowed], but a duty [with which one is charged].

As long as man is not instilled with this awareness; as long as he
feels that it is he and he alone who, with his limited powers, is bound
to the yoke of earning his livelihood, there is no end to his anxiety.
This anxiety is likely to turn his world into a wilderness, even if he
dwells in the midst of civilization, where there is much wealth but also
much competition. His anxiety can make him believe that he must
secure not only the morrow, but his whole future, and even that of his
children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. This belief goads him
into an endless and ruthless pursuit of greater wealth, leaving him no
time for the pursuit of other aims and goals.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090208/a419ae8b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The implication is that Rambam and other rishonim wrote with Ruach HaKodesh
: and implied meanings that they themselves did not realize.

Or, that halakhah is emes, and has more consistency within it than the
people who write it realized. The Rambam could come up with his peshat
for one reason, but since his shitah is a consistent way of looking at
divrei E-lokim chaim, it has more depth than any human being could fully
encompass.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 12:20:34AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: You remind me of Moshe Rabeinu not knowing what Rabbi Akiva was  talking 
: about, and R' Akiva saying it's halacha leMoshe miSinai!  The story  implies that 
: whatever Chazal were later to deduce was already implicit in the  Torah that 
: Moshe received.

Or, as Rashi takes it, that MRAH had that vision before the end of the 40
days. And that by the time Moshe was ready to come down the mountain,
he did learn how to derive mountains of halakhos from the tagin on
the letters.

I agree with RnTK's take, but the meaning of that medrash isn't a given.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> RLK?: Do we know if the standard used to exempt yayin mevushal from 
> the takanah of stam yayin is based on what would make it pasul for use 
> in the Bh"M or what would pasul it for (l'havdil) AZ?
>
>> Me: See YD 123:4.  Honey is assur b'mashehu on the mizbeah (IIRC it's 
>> in the third perek of Pesahim) so that implies psul for the mizbeah 
>> is insufficient.
>
> RZS: Honey is assur bemashehu to be *burnt on the mizbeach*, as or with a
> korban ("lo taktiru mimenu isheh").  That tells us nothing about what
> amount would make wine pasul for the nesachim.
This is the opinion of R. Eliezer, but the Rambam paskens like R. 
Akiva.  I didn't have that much time over Shabbos, and I couldn't find 
anyone who specifically discussed whether nisuch is included in the 
issur according to RA.  OTOH yayin mazug is passul for nisuch, and 
adding a bit of water is much simpler than bishul, so I'd guess that's 
more evidence (though not proof positive) that not rauy for nisuch is 
not measured by our standards, but by "theirs" (though who "they" are 
today I can't even guess).
>   Rambam Issurei Mizbeach
> 6:8 doesn't specifically mention with with stuff mixed into it, unless
> that's what's meant by "matok", which is passul.
Rashi certainly doesn't understand it that way.

David Riceman
>
>

> Chaim's analyses are not historically true. He writes that it is
> clear that the Rambam's derech was not R' Chaim's. All you have to
> do is look at the Teshuvos Harambam where he deals with some of the
> issues/contradictions.


I am disturbed how many Briskers dismiss the kessef mishnah's answers
to the same questions. Kessef mishnah is closer in time and culture to
rambam and lich'ora would better kow oeiginal intent.

Then again Y'shalmi is closer to mishna than bavli is in both time and
culuture but accept for some academics it seems to matter not.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

One of Rabbi Weinberg's lectures has as its title "If Your Prayers  
Could Be Answered".  In it he points out that when we pray we are  
entering into God's space. What I found interesting is one of the  
names employed for God is HaMakom, which is often translated as the  
Place (or Space). HaMakom is an unusual and infrequently used Name for  
God.

The Rambam writes this explicitly in the Laws of the Foundations of  
Torah (1:11):
Once it has been clearly demonstrated that He is not physical, it  
becomes clear that He has no physical properties or conditions: not  
combination or separation, not place or measure, not ascent or  
descent, not right or left, not front or back, not sitting or  
standing, nor does He exist in time ? which would necessitate Him  
having a beginning and an end, and therefore partake of multiplicity ?  
and He does not change, for there is nothing capable of causing Him to  
change.
The Sages (Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 27; Bereishis Rabbah 68:9) give the  
following explanation of the name ?Ha?Makom?: ?He is the Place of the  
universe, but the universe is not His place.?

What I find more fascinating is the following:  The Avudarham provides  
us with one more hint. He writes: ?And you will find that the gematria  
of ?Makom? is the same as gematria of YKVH according to its cheshbon  
gadol (greater calculation).? The cheshbon gadol of YKVH is the sum of  
each letter multiplied by its own numerical value: (10 x 10) + (5 x 5)  
+ (6 x 6) + (5 x 5) = 186, which is equivalent to the numerical value  
of MaKOM: 40 + 100 + 6 + 40 = 186.

According to this definition of place, the meaning of the Sages  
becomes clear. ?He is the place of the universe, and the universe is  
not His place? means that His Existence ?supports? the existence of  
the universe, but the universe does not ?support? His Existence. In  
other words, He is the Cause of the universe?s existence, but the  
universe is not the cause of His Existence.
Now we can understand what the Avudarham meant when he said that the  
gematria of Makom is equivalent to the cheshbon-gadol gematria of  
YKVH. He means that the idea of the name Ha?Makom alludes to the idea  
of the name YKVH. What is the idea of the name YKVH? The Rambam begins  
the Laws of the Fundamentals of Torah with the statement, ?Yesode  
Ha?yesodosV?amud Ha?Chochmos? which clearly alludes to the name YKVH.  
The translation is as follows:

1:1 The foundation of foundations and the pillar of all sciences is to  
know that there is a Primary Existent, Who brought into existence all  
existences, and all of the existences from heaven to earth and  
everything in between only exist by the reality of His Existence.

1:2 And if one could entertain the thought that He did not Exist,  
nothing else would be able to exist.

1:3 And if one could entertain the thought that all of the other  
existences besides Him didn?t exist, He alone would be Existent, and  
He would not be negated by their negation, for all the existences need  
Him, but He ? blessed is He ? does not need them, nor any one of them.
?He is the place of the universe, but the universe is not His place.?  
He causes the universe?s existence, but the universe does not cause  
His existence. He is the Independent (or Necessary) Existence, whereas  
the universe is a dependent (or contingent) existence.

Excerpted from: Kankan Chadas baruch ha-Makom #1

This was the theme of many of Rabbi Weinberg's lessons.

Eleanor Roosevelt once remarked ?that many people walk in and out of  
our lives, but few leave footprints in our heart?. Rabbi Weinberg  
always left large footprints! He rekindled faith in many thousands.  
Now that he is gone, the legacy of his lifetime will do no less.
T'hey Nishmaso Tzruro B'tzror Hachayim..

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090208/418d0dc3/attachment-0001.htm>

T6...@aol.com wrote:  
> From: Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org <mailto:mi...@aishdas.org>

>> OTOH, I think the Rambam would agree with most applications of gavra vs
>> cheftza, if he heard RCB present it. The reduction of the Rambam's art
>> to a science.

> You remind me of Moshe Rabeinu not knowing what Rabbi Akiva was talking 
> about, and R' Akiva saying it's halacha leMoshe miSinai!  The story 
> implies that whatever Chazal were later to deduce was already implicit 
> in the Torah that Moshe received.

I think you've got the story confused.  IIRC there's nothing to indicate
that MR didn't recognise the halacha that was quoted in his name.  He was
worried that with RA deducing halachot through methods of drash that he
had not explored and couldn't follow, his own role had been forgotten; he
was reassured when he saw that he was still being quoted, and that there
were halachot that even RA couldn't prove but had to rely on MR's word.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

David Riceman wrote:

>>> Me: See YD 123:4.  Honey is assur b'mashehu on the mizbeah (IIRC it's 
>>> in the third perek of Pesahim) so that implies psul for the mizbeah 
>>> is insufficient.

>> RZS: Honey is assur bemashehu to be *burnt on the mizbeach*, as or with a
>> korban ("lo taktiru mimenu isheh").  That tells us nothing about what
>> amount would make wine pasul for the nesachim.

> This is the opinion of R. Eliezer, but the Rambam paskens like R. 
> Akiva.

Are you referring to the machlokes in Menachot 58a?  If so, the gemara
there says that the only difference between them is the flesh of chatat
ha'of.  Neither of them bans honey that is not burnt as part of a korban,
or as a korban.  And the Rambam explicitly paskens that honey can be
brought up, even to be burnt, if it's not intended as a korban.  Clearly
nesachim, which are not burnt at all, are excluded from this prohibition.
Issurei Mizbeach 5:1-2.


> OTOH yayin mazug is passul for nisuch

Where is this?  Do you mean for our nisuch, or for theirs?  If for ours,
I can't find any reference to it in Issurei Mizbeach 6:8-9



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

 From Talmud Taanit 5b

A man was travelling through the desert, hungry, thirsty, and tired,  
when he came upon a tree bearing luscious fruit and affording plenty  
of shade, underneath which ran a spring of water. He ate of the fruit,  
drank of the water, and rested beneath the shade.

When he was about to leave he turned to the tree and said: 'Tree, oh,  
tree, with what should I bless you?

"Should I bless you that your fruit be sweet? Your fruit is already  
sweet.

"Should I bless you that your shade be plentiful? Your shade is  
plentiful. That a spring of water should run beneath you? A spring of  
water runs beneath you."

"There is one thing with which I can bless you: May it be God's will  
that all the trees planted from your seed should be like you..."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090209/4131e817/attachment-0001.htm>

1. is there a Hebrew or English translation of  the Pri Etz Hadar available

(for the zohar sections)

 

2. many 'modern' tu bishvat seders talk about 4 cups of wine

ie
<http://www.aish.com/tubshvat/tubshvatcustoms/Kabbalistic_Tu_Bshvat_
Seder.as
p>
http://www.aish.com/tubshvat/tubshvatcustoms/Kabbalistic_Tu_Bshvat
_Seder.asp

 

The sefer 'Pri Eitz Hadar' (where the TuBshevat Seder is sourced) only
speaks 

about 2 cups.

 

Am I missing something, or is the 4 cups a modern invention/artistic
license?

 

If anyone can enlighten me, it would me much appreciated.

 

mordechai cohen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090209/cdfbf9bb/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote:
> Are you referring to the machlokes in Menachot 58a?  If so, the gemara
> there says that the only difference between them is the flesh of chatat
> ha'of.  Neither of them bans honey that is not burnt as part of a korban,
> or as a korban.  And the Rambam explicitly paskens that honey can be
> brought up, even to be burnt, if it's not intended as a korban.  Clearly
> nesachim, which are not burnt at all, are excluded from this prohibition.
> Issurei Mizbeach 5:1-2.
The Rambam (Ma'aseh HaKarbanos 2:1) says that nesachim which come "im 
hakorban" are poured, not burnt, on the altar.  He says (Issurei Mizbeah 
5:1) that you are hayyav on seor and dvash if you offer them (hiktiram) 
"im hakorban o l'shem korban".  It's clear then, that if "hiktiram" 
means "bringing them onto the altar as part of a korban" then you are 
hayyav.  You maintain, on the contrary, that "hiktiram" means burning.  
But the sugya in Menahos demonstrates that that can't be because, as you 
correctly point out, hatas haof isn't burnt.  The law in 5:3 that you 
cite says that things that are brought "l'sheim eitzim" are not 
considered to be brought "im hakorban", but that can't apply to nesachim 
since the Rambam specifically says that nesachim are offered "im hakorban".
>
> Me:
>> OTOH yayin mazug is passul for nisuch
> RZS:
> Where is this?  Do you mean for our nisuch, or for theirs?  If for ours,
> I can't find any reference to it in Issurei Mizbeach 6:8-9
See Aruch HaShulhan HeAsid H. Issurei Mizbeah 61:7 citing Bava Basra 97b.

David Riceman
>
>
>

(I'm working backwards through digests -- again, forgive me if someone
responded to the RDB point I respond to below....)

In Avodah Digest V26#28, RDB wrote:
> Re: RKM's adding of Oseh shalom bimromav to self amens  and question <<
It seems to me that if someone chose to include
Oseh Shalom in these prayers, they could just as easily have
ended it at "v'al kol Yisrael", leaving off the "v'imru
amen". I wonder why they didn't.  >>
> But they did! .... <
[snip]
> In saying kaddish, one does not step forward to approach HKB"H, so why
step back? <
But one *does* step forward [in KAJ; in the JEC of Elizabeth, NJ; and
wherever the old custom of only one person saying Qaddish can be seen] :),
as one walks forward to the front of the Shul before saying Qaddish.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090209/3e48f9db/attachment-0001.htm>

Quick comment:

My chaveir David Kagan and I agreed to start Tur choshem mishpat. 
FWIW we will be learning separately but consult as needed.

As I began first siman I noticed a great deal of hahkafa and mussar
from tur reminiscent of the first tur in orach chaim and the first tur
in hilchos shabbas.

I wonder if this is the reason that some hassidim choose davka to learn
tur? At any rate it matches Micha's point about balancing ritual with
bein adam lechaveiro

Gut Yor
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 32
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

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