Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 195

Tue, 29 Sep 2009

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Michael Poppers <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:39:17 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] a community taking seriously the text of piyutim it




Since some point to the pizmon of "B'motzaei m'nuchah" as evidence that
Ashk'nazim should start saying Elul-week S'lichos on Saturday night after
chatzos halayla rather than prior to Shacharis on Sunday morning, I thought
I would mention two phrases which those "some" presumably said on the first
day of Rosh haShanah (the first phrase is in the yotzros, a/k/a/ the
piyutim said as part of the pre-Shma b'rachah of "Yotzeir or", and the
second is in the q'rovos, a/k/a/ the piyutim said during chazaras haSHaTZ,
of Shacharis; translation taken from JMarmorstein translation of Roedelheim
Machzor, (C) Copyright 1965 by VGoldschmidt Publishers, Basle) and invite
comment:
-1-
Melech taliso kasheleg m'tzuchtzach/The King whose cloak is like purified
snow....

Do you wear an all-white talis/dress in white?  How 'bout your community?

(I consider this point about as strong as the "B'motzaei m'nuchah" point,
i.e. not very :).  The next one, I consider to be stronger....)

-2-
(This time, in order to emphasize that precisely "ten" is meant, I'm going
to quote and then translate the entire stanza, line by line, with the line
in question highlighted.)
Ya'amiru oz malchuyos eser/They revere in ten verses the acknowledgement of
divine rule;
T'vuos l'sheim buchan b'eser/They are based on him who was ten times tested
(Abraham);
** Chaq zichronos _v'qolos_ eser/the measure of remembrance _and of Shofar
tones_ is ten **;
Zeicher m'vareich g'vir (nusach acheir: g'viro) b'eser/in memory of him who
with ten blessings made his son master.

Does your community have exactly ten "Shofar tones" during the Amidah (or
at least during the chazarah)?

Best wishes for a guten Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom and a g'mar tov from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090924/6073c33d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:40:56 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] a community taking seriously the text of piyutim


Michael Poppers wrote:
> Since some point to the pizmon of "B'motzaei m'nuchah" as evidence
> that Ashk'nazim should start saying Elul-week S'lichos on Saturday
> night after chatzos halayla rather than prior to Shacharis on Sunday
> morning, I thought I would mention two phrases which those "some"
> presumably said on the first day of Rosh haShanah

Actually I said neither, and had never heard of these piyutim until
just now, but never mind.  In both cases you have seriously
misinterpreted the piyut, which says nothing even remotely similar
to what you think it does.


> Melech taliso kasheleg m'tzuchtzach/The King whose cloak is like 
> purified snow....
> 
> Do you wear an all-white talis/dress in white? How 'bout your
> community?

No.  Why would we do so?  What do you see in this line to suggest
that we ought to do so?  The reference is obviously to Daniel 7:9
and is completely uncontroversial, but what has it go to to do with
our own taleisim?  If anything it can be taken to (very slightly)
imply that we should *not* wear an all-white talles, unlike those
who do.



> (I consider this point about as strong as the "B'motzaei m'nuchah" 
> point, i.e. not very :).

Huh?  How are they even remotely similar?


> The next one, I consider to be stronger....) 
> -2-

> ** Chaq zichronos _v'qolos_ eser/the measure of remembrance _and of 
> Shofar tones_ is ten **;
> Does your community have exactly ten "Shofar tones" during the Amidah 
> (or at least during the chazarah)?

Again, you have seriously misinterpreted this line.  Like every
community we do indeed say ten malchiyos, ten zichronos, and ten
shofros, just as the piyut says we do.  Actually we say more than
ten malchiyos, but -- contrary to your claim -- the piyut does *not*
say we limit ourselves to exactly ten; it just says that we do say
ten, which is perfectly true.  Even if the piyut *had* said that
we blow the shofar ten times, there would be no contradiction, since
we all do that -- and then most of us blow many more; but the fact
is that it doesn't, and doesn't even hint at such a thing.

If you want something equivalent to "Bemotza'ei menucha", see the
serious discussion about "Avur ki fana yom" which is followed some
time later by "Hayom yifneh, hashemesh yavo veyifneh", and how to
avoid speaking falsehood.

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



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:27:26 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] A Nice Holiday Vort


In response to   "... After all, on Shabbat You have  decreed that one  
cannot write.
How then, can You fulfill 'On Rosh Hashanah it is written down'?"
Chana wrote:
I clearly must be missing something.  Last I heard, writing was not  
included
in ochel nefesh, and prohibited on Yom Tov too, so this ought to be true
every year.

Chana, you are absolutely correct and I thought the exact same thing.
However, it is not my midrash. Were I to have been smart enough to
write such a midrash, I would have written:  "After all on Shabbat AND
Yom Tov, You have decreed that one cannot write..." etc.

Therefore, it ought to be true every year, as you said. So we'd all be
the recipient of even more chessed.



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:36:43 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kaparos


RMB wrote:
> (It may be that Iyov's "SECHvi" means heart, but "sechVI" means "rooster".)

I heard this before, but have found no evidence whatsoever.

By the way, Rashi says in Iyov that belashon 'hakhamim it is a
rooster, which implies that it really means heart, Ralbag says it
means intellect, which is really the same thing as "heart," but less
poetically stated, and Avudraham says it means rooster, period. It is
difficult to figure out what Rambam holds.

So far only Rashi's view is a correction to what you stated. However,
I should also add that Rosh does not say that ???? is man's heart, but
rather that it means both: biblically, it means man's heart, but
'hakhamim instructed us to make the blessing asher natan lasekhvi vina
when hearing the rooster, because sekhvi means rooster in Arabic.

I don't read Arabic, but asked around, and while sekhvi does not mean
rooster in Arabic, it is attested and must be the same word, because
it is a rare four letter root or otherwise arcane form, which is
rarely found in either Hebrew or Arabic. Hence, if the word (in Arabic
Sakawa) appears in both languages, it is the same word. In yea olde
Arabic, it has the connotation of complaint, cackle, olde man, hence,
the link to the cackle of the rooster is readily apparent.

I wrote all this from memory, though I recently dealt with this issue
in depth, so I hope I didn't majorly misstate anything. Regarding the
Arabic etymology, it was given to me in much greater detail by a
semitics expert who is a member of this list, and I will let him
provide the full details when he wants to. Meanwhile, let it be clear
that I should not be credited or quoted regarding the Hebrew-Arabic
comparative etymology, of which I have little understanding and no
expertise; I am merely transmitting someone else's wisdom.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Educating Children About the Evil of Nazism
* Complex Memories ? the Notion of ?? ????
* Judentum und westliche Gesellschaft im Einklang
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:16:31 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] psak and rationality


R' Saul Newman wrote:

> in relation to a comment that a certain gadol paskened
> that goyim have different numbers of teeth than jews,
> someone online  remarked--
> Technically speaking, saying that Jews have a different
> number of teeth than non-Jews isn't irrational, it is
> empirically false

I didn't see the original post being quoted, so I can't comment on that. But I do want to say this:

We come back again to my strong belief in the importance of defining one's
terms. It seems (and I stress "seems", because I'm admittedly guessing)
that the way you and I understand the word "teeth" is not the same as the
way that gadol understands that word. Perhaps for non-Jews he counts
"teeth" as the white things that stick out of one's gums, and that for
Jews, "teeth" are the points and ridges on top of those white things. Or
some other distinction.

For example, my understanding is that the word "giluach" has different
meanings for men and for women. The act of scraping away facial hair with a
blade is called "giluach" for a man, and therefore it is assur because the
Torah prohibited "giluach". But that same act is not called "giluach" on a
woman, and since "giluach" is what the Torah forbade, a woman is allowed.
Similarly, it is possible that some of those white things in a Jewish mouth
are called "teeth" while the same things in a non-Jewish mouth are not
called "teeth". Or maybe vice versa -- did that gadol say what the
different numbers are?

RSN asks:

> does a posek's belief in what appears to be false
> beliefs  figure in ones' assessment of whether one
> should generally follow a particular posek?

It is admirable that you wrote "APPEARS to be false" rather than blindlly
branding it as such. And therefore, I suggest that the effort to answer
this question might include a followup, to better understand what that
posek meant when he made that comment.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsEGrHyVS4w6e6NFFY3C0HtIOiJBrhwuIG8GDE8YdlrgPWsFZnEYVa/



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:20:32 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] Wanted Sources on Critical thinking in English


My daughter is writing a paper on "critical thinking in religion"
She wants only "frum" sources - preferably with English
She is looking to quote
    Mishna
    Gmara
    Rambam
    RYD Soloeveichik

For mishna she is looking at Avos 5 - the 2 mishnayos on arba middos
betalmidim and yoshvim lifnei chachamim...

We need suggestions for the other sources.

I also considered some of the analysis in Chovos Halevavos as being
examplary of critical thinking - especially hakdamah and Shaar haYichud.

Any help with sources is most appreciated

GCT
RRW

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:44:46 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] A Nice Holiday Vort


Someone tried to post the following idea a couple of days ago. I
rejected the post with a request that they snip down some of the
quoting, but the 2nd version never arrived. My apologies that I do not
recall who it was.

Hashem's "mitzvas hayom" kavayachol for Rosh haShanah is to write in
those books. Therefore, of course the writting is permitted on Rosh
haShanah. It is only writing when RH is on Shabbos that's a problem,
as the mitzvas hayom for RH wouldn't trump Shabbos. (Not without an
equivalent to beris milah's "bayom hashemini".) Writing for hatzalas
nefashos IS allowed, thus leading the Barditchever to argue that this
was the only thing Hashem was allowed to write on Shabbos RH.

That said, a cerebral analysis of a vort from the Barditchever misses
the whole point.

GCT and :-)@@ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:12:52 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] What we say in Tefillos are they normative Beliefs


Zev:

> If you want something equivalent to "Bemotza'ei menucha", see the
> serious discussion about "Avur ki fana yom" which is followed some
> time later by "Hayom yifneh, hashemesh yavo veyifneh", and how to
> avoid speaking falsehood.
>

The statement above pre-supposes that anything we daven cannot be false
[there may be poetic license, but not a emesikke falshkeit]

About a decade ago I posted that liturgy has required emunos.  maybe not
Ikarei emunah but normative emunah

Assuming Zev's Premise is correct - and I do! - Then anything we continue to
recite Must be normatie belief?  If not, what's the big deal of saying
machnisei rachamim et al.!  After all if we can say things we DO NOT believe
in then there would be no ketatah

OR iow, if we state it -,and there is no objection or macha'ah top stating
it, -if cannot be False. Exactly how normative it is as an emunah might be a
gray area, but this is at least true.

GCT
-- 
Shana Tova - A Good New Year 5770
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090925/7c45ebc1/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:05:52 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] brain death


knesset law on brain death okay with halakha

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116642.html

-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:21:52 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] R Elyashiv and crocs on YK


R/ Elyashiv paskens that crocs are inappropriate for YK

crocs on yom kippure

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3781873,00.html

-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:31:04 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] lulav on shabbat


I am having difficulties with the gemara on lulav on shabbat and would
like some help

Short synopsis of the gemara

Mishna: Succah 42b

If the first of Succot is on shabbat we use the lulav but not if
shabbat is during chol hamoed
If Hoshana Raba is one shabbat we use the aravah but not if shabbat is
another day of succot

Gemara: Why not use the lulav on shabbat - because of the gezerah of
Rabbah that perhaps
some will carry the lulav on shabbat and carry 4 amot in reshut harabim
If so why not prohibit it on the first day if it is shabbat?
Since the first day is from the Torah even outside the bet hamikdash
they didnt prohibit it
If so why is it prohibited outside of Israel?
Because we dont know the exact date (obviously before the fixed
calendar} but in EY
where they know the true date of succot they use the lulav
Conclusion (temporary) in EY the lulav is carried the first day even
on shabbat (43a)

The gemara brings a proof from 2 beraitot one that says they brought
the lulavim to
the bet hamikdash and one says to the bet haknesset. So we see that even later
they used the lulav on shabbat

On 43b the gemara discusses arvavah  with a similar discussion. There
Bar Hedya who
came from EY answered that Hoshana rabbah never comes out on shabbat.
When Ravin came
from EY he said that Hoshana Rabbah does come out on shabbat

On the top pf 44a the gemara (because of some questions) reverses
itself and says that
since outside of EY the don't use the lulav on shabbat so also inside
EY. The gemara
now ansers the contradiction of the beraitot that the one talking
about bet knesset
is while the Temple stood but outside of Jerusalem/bet hamikdash

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



1. How can ther be a makhloket between Bar Hedya and Ravin whether
Hoshana Rabbah
actually falls on shabbat - its a factual question. Furthermore why
rely on these people coming from
EY. Even the Babylonians eventually found out when RH was and hence
Hoshana Rabbah
(and in fact Hoshana Rabbah on the 21st most communities knew in time).
Of course we know that with the fixed calendar Hoshana Rabbah cannot
fall on shabbat like
Bar Hedya.

2. Tevhnical problem that "lo Titgodedu" doesnt apply to two countries.
see http://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-044.htm for some answers

3. EY keeps one day yomtov while Bavel keeps 2 days
from the above daf yomi in the name of the Lechem Mishneh
"The Rabanan do not institute an active practice, a "Kum v'Aseh," such
as the requirement
for the Jews in Eretz Yisrael to observe a second day of Yom Tov"
However, this is exactly the later takanah when there was no longer a
safek that Jews outside
EY do keep 2 days. So they did institute a "kum aseh" when they wanted to.

Rabbi Kornfeld answers that for lulav there is both lo totgodedu and
the gezerah of Rabbah
while for 2nd day yomtov there is only lo titgodedu.
Rabbi Kornfeld assumes that there gezera was right after the churban
which is hard to accept
and again the Yerushalmi knows nothing of the gezerah of Rabbah and we
are talking
about the practice in EY

4. How does the gemara change its mind a full blatt later? Again
whether EY used the
lulav on the first day that was a shabbat is a factual question. The
Yerushalmi doesnt
seem to mention any such gezera.

When did this gezera occur? Mefarshim seem to assume at the time of
the destruction of the Temple.
To me it is inconceivable that the Tanaim who were overwhelming from
EY with very few exceptions would
have prohibited lulav in EY because of problems that the Babylonians
had because of safek. As mentioned
there is no hint of this in either tannaitic literature or the Yerushalmi.
We know the fight the sages of EY gave when Chananiah wanted to
perform kiddush hachodesh
in Bavel and they insisted on the priority of EY.
The center of  rabbinic Jewry was in Bavel only in Amoraic times. Even
early Amoraim like
R. Yochanan stressed the superiority of EY and it is unlikely they
would change the custom in EY
for the Babylonians.

For those that use the logic of a "stam" gemara, there is no names
mentioned in this sugya hinting
that in fact it may be a very late gemara perhaps after a fixed
calendar was introduced
As an aside the gemara answered that one beraita was talking about a
bet knesset outside of the Temple.
Some historians deny that batei knesset existed outside of Jerusalem
until after the churban.

----------------------------
In fact some groups are trying to reinstitute lulav in EY this year
when the first day falls aon shabbat.
However, my question is pshat in the gemara and not halacha lemaaseh.

chag sameach

-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:05:27 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Hashem" as God's name


Just over a year ago, R' Yonatan Kaganoff opened this thread, asking:

> I have been looking for some time into the origins of the
> recent use of "Hashem" as God's name in colloquial speech.
> For an example, my two year old says that I am going to
> shul to daven to "Hashem". I was told that fifty years
> ago, an Orthodox Jewish child would say that he davened to
> "God."
> At this point the use of "Hashem" to refer to God is
> fairly ubiquitous in English speaking Orthodox circles.
> Does anyone know when this began?? And when it became the
> de facto way of referring to God?

At that time, several people pointed to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 6:3, but nothing older than that, and then the discussion veered off into related topics.

I'd just like to add another data point, that of the Seder Avodah in today's musaf, in which we tell of the Kohen Gadol's viduy on Yom Kippur:

"V'kach haya omer: Ana haShaym, chatasi... Ana vaShaym, kaper na..."

The text seems based on Mishna Yoma 6:2, where it is clear that what the
Kohen Gadol actually said was the four-letter Shem Hameforash. Yet the
machzorim, mishnayos, and gemara spell it as shin-mem (and not as
heh-apostrophe). This is *not* an example of where "shaym" means
"reputation" (as R' Micha Berger explains the phrases "kiddush haSheym" and
"chilul haShaym"), but clearly seems to be a filler for the Four-Letter
Name.

This doesn't really answer the OP's question of when it entered
*colloquial* speech. Still, I think it is notable that the mishna et al
chose to use heh-shin-mem rather than aleph-dalet-nun-yod.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsEGrFjqyB8BffUGRJTasZdykZageOz2S9HEft66BCzgbTzzSYfxTa/



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:34:26 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Hashem" as God's name


Ibn Kaspi, in his commentary on the IE, uses "Hashem" (spelled
hei-shin-nun).

R' Yosef ben Abba Mari ibn Kaspi, 1280-1340 Largentier (a Friench villiage
whose name refers to the area's silver mines -- thus "Kaspi").

Of course, I don't know if that's how he actually wrote Peirush haSodos
shel IE al haTorah, or it entered somewhere along the way. The oldest
edition I could find, Pressburg 1903
<http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/pirush_hasodos_shel_ib
n_ezra.pdf>
already has "Hashem" in it. And besides, why would this one seifer show
a shift? Was it transcribed by someone with a different mindset than
those who copied other rishonim?

In case you're wondering... RZLampel recently sent me a quote about
"HaKenaani az baaretz" and RYIK's shitah that the IE's sowd has nothing
to do with later interpolations into the Chumash.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:15:07 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] lulav on shabbat


Eli Turkel wrote:

> 3. EY keeps one day yomtov while Bavel keeps 2 days
> from the above daf yomi in the name of the Lechem Mishneh
> "The Rabanan do not institute an active practice, a "Kum v'Aseh," such
> as the requirement for the Jews in Eretz Yisrael to observe a second
> day of Yom Tov"
> However, this is exactly the later takanah when there was no longer a
> safek that Jews outside EY do keep 2 days. So they did institute a
> "kum aseh" when they wanted to.

That wasn't an order to start doing something, it was an order not to
stop something they were already doing.  This explains why it applied
only to those places that were already keeping the 2nd day, even though
the reason given (that government decrees may suppress central halachic
authorities, leaving the calculation up to each individual, and people
may miscalculate) was actually stronger at that time in EY than it was
in Bavel.  It also explains why only 2 days are required, and not 3 in
case someone's miscalculation added a day instead of subtracting one.
These worries were not enough to justify imposing a change in existing
practise, but they were enough to justify forbidding such a change.

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



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:45:35 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Hashem" as God's name


kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> This doesn't really answer the OP's question of when it entered 
> *colloquial* speech. Still, I think it is notable that the mishna et 
> al chose to use heh-shin-mem rather than aleph-dalet-nun-yod.
See Ki Tavo 28:58 " ... l'yirah es hashem ..." spelled as heh-shin-mem.

David Riceman



Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:21:07 -0700
Subject:
[Avodah] 2 questions


see the  2  most  recent  posts  on http://myobiterdicta.blogspot.com/

1.   innuyim as ikkar  hayom.  would one   have to say , that   the  ikkar 
of  the yom  is  the innuyim as oppossed  to the  tfila  aspect.

this would  be nogea  to the issues of  eg here the Crocs---    would  be 
preferable to  be uncomfortable to the point of not  being  able  to 

concentrate   on tfila /vidui?     we all know  that  if  one is  so 
affected by  fasting  as to be  essentially  unfunctional , then that is 
what one must do  [  weak, elderly, thin teen girls etc]   [ i suppose 
standing  where  the  aron is open  is not  an included  innui, since  the 
rabbis specifically  tell people  they can sit- i suppose  this is because 
 it  was never  an obligatory innui]

2.  in re  shabbat  elevators,  what new  scientific  information was just 
 revealed that  now these distinguished  poskim now  sign onto--- this 
info  is apparently  contradictory to the Tzomet institute's  info......


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090929/114fcdcb/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:06:56 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 2 questions


On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 01:21:07PM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: 1. innuyim as ikkar hayom. would one have to say , that the ikkar
: of  the yom  is  the innuyim as oppossed  to the  tfila  aspect.
: this would  be nogea  to the issues of  eg here the Crocs...

I think the issue there is defining inui. Is inui discomfort, or a lack
of shoes for whatever reason aveilim don't wear shoes, or perhaps Moshe
Rabbeinu on Har Sinai or a kohein in the BHMQ wouldn't wear shoes?

I'm reminded of the machloqes about the minimum height of a mechitzah --
is 10 tefachim defning a new reshus enough, or does one have to accomplish
what one would intuitively think is the point of mechitzah?

FWIW, R' Elyashiv didn't say assur. He expressed a preference that one
not switch to something *more* comfortable than regular Yom Tov shoes.
YNetnews translated it as, "It is permissible legalistically, but it
is inadvisable."

...
: 2. in re shabbat elevators, what new scientific information was just
: revealed that  now these distinguished  poskim now  sign onto--- this 
: info  is apparently  contradictory to the Tzomet institute's  info......

If you followed RYLevine's later posts to Areivim, it turns out that R'
Elyashiv didn't agree to this one, and it's unclear the quality of the
electrical engineering that the rabbis who did sign it were provided with.

It sounds like the information isn't new, it's simply incorrect.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 195
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >