Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 228

Fri, 13 Nov 2009

• 1. Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Eli Turkel)
• 2. The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy (Yitzchok Levine)
• 3. Re: Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Alan Rubin)
• 5. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 6. Re: yishmael v. the mitzri??? (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Moda ani (Zev Sero)
• 8. Moda ani (SBA)
• 9. Re: Moda ani (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Moda ani (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: yishmael v. the mitzri??? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Moda ani (Arie Folger)
• 17. Re: The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy (Liron Kopinsky)
• 18. Re: yishmael v. the mitzri??? (David Riceman)
• 19. Re: The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy (Liron Kopinsky)
• 20. Re: Moda ani (T6...@aol.com)
• 21. Re: Moda ani (menucha)

<<FWIW RT and Tosafos proof is weak re: Hallel on Rosh Hodesh because the
brachah on Hallel probably came later than Rav in the aforementioned
story. Tosafos pre-supposes the brachah existed during Rav's time.
This is speculative.>>

BTW is the shitah of RT allowing women to say a beracha on mitzvat aseh
she-hazman gerama connected with teh RT on minhag?
If so this is completely accepted in all (well almost all) ashkenazi sectors

-- 
Eli Turkel

On the Pasuk Bereishis 24

4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife 
for my son, for Yitzchak.

RSRH writes

Lib'ni l'Yitzchok. Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: 
First, Lib'ni;
she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify
my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This
is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can
each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence,
l'Yitzchok; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with
Yitzchak's individual character.

Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean
woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans,
too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not
the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy.

Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected.
Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart
and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find
among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his
son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the
purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091112/34bcedf9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:10:46PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:>R' Jachter cites Machzor Vitri.

: As does Tosfos (Brachos 14a), but Machzor Vitri was not written by Rashi,
: and surely if he attributed this to Rashi then Tosfos would have said so.

"Surely"? R' Velvel didn't agree, so how can you be so sure of such a
deduction?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:

>While trying to find an answer, BTW, I found that R' Tam holds that yom
>tov sheini is actually minhag (in the technical sense), not a taqanah.
>He uses this on Beitzah 4b as an example of making berakhos on minhagim.

The issue of the status of second day Yom Tov as minhag, derabannan or
even darraisa is interesting, not least because it seems that
declarations about the stringency of the 2nd day have been influenced
by battles against reformers.

For instance Saddiah Gaon  stated that 2nd day Yom Tov went back to
Moshe but this may have been an exaggerated response to Karaites who
claimed that 2nd Day Yom Tov violated ?Lo Tosif?. Rav Hai Gaon
considered it to have been instituted by the prophets Daniel and
Ezekiel. The Chasam Sofer categorised it as derabannan and later in
his life wrote that it was close to being mideraissa because it had
been instituted by a Beis Din.

When Rabbi Eleazer Landau, the grandson of the Noda beYehudah
permitted a man who was on his deathbed to write a get, to avoid
agunah problems on 2nd day Yom Tov, the Chasam Sofer opposed his
decision on the basis that public acceptance of 2nd day Yom Tov had
transformed it into a neder which could not be abrogated. This was all
on the background a battle against reformers who were trying to
abolish the second day.

Alan Rubin

> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:03:33 -0500
> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit
> Mikdash

> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Micha:
>>> Rabban Gamliel insisted on a particular date for Yom Kippur
[del]
>> Mashma he would have NOT been meqabbel sans the Cheshbon
>> I assume Bartenura culled this from Shas
>
> Yes.  Had his cheshbon shown that the eidim must be lying, he
> wouldn't have accepted them; since he believed it was possible that
> they were telling the truth, and he had no reason to suspect them
> of lying, he accepted them.  This shows that he did *not* have a
> preference for a particular outcome, but rather he was following
> the evidence wherever it took him, and indeed felt obliged to do so.

I wish I recalled the sources, but I was taught that there was always the 
knowledge of Cheshbon, i.e. Sod Ha'Ibbur. But, when possible they used 
Eidim.

The issue was that Chazal had the ability to set the Chodesh regardless of 
the Cheshbon, usually for reasons of community necessity.  That is the 
meaning of HaChodesh HaZeh Lachem - the accent on "Lachem" - that you decide 
it.

Of course in cases where there was no Tzorech Tzibbur one way or another - 
Chazal would have followed the Eidim wherever they led.

Proof of Chazal's using this ability we see in Chazal's decision to limit 
the time of when the Eidim can come forth. I recall that there are other 
cases, but I don't have the sources.  I wouldn't be surprise if the issue of 
Rabban Gamliel vs. Rabbi Yehoshua had to do with just such an issue.  Rabban 
Gamliel as Nassi had the Tzorech of the Tzibbur in mind when he made 
rulings.  We see this in other cases (See Masechet Avodah Zara).


Shoshana L. Boublil

Micha Berger wrote:
> To me it seems obvious that Moshe was looking at ba'asher hu sham,
> so that as a chakham, he would "ro'eh es hanolad". IOW, he looked into
> the Egyptian's soul to see if any seeds existed within it capable of
> producing something positive.
>   
I had originally thought you meant children, but I see you artfully said 
"seeds".  Am I to deduce that you claim that God had denied the Mitzri 
the possibility of doing tshuva (see H. Tshuva 6:3)?

If you did mean children this raises more problems than it solves.  See 
Nida 16b "v'ilu tzaddik v'rasha lo k'amar", see H. Tshuva 5:1 and (with 
respect to Egyptians in general) the Ra'avad on 6:5.

On counterfactuals in general see KLH Pithei Hochmah #86.
> Koach haTefillah is the power to change baasher hu sham.
I thought that was tshuva.  According to this what's the difference 
between the two?

David Riceman

Micha Berger wrote:

> Modeh Ani post-dates the rishonim. They said E-lokai Netzor when waking
> up

I think you meant to type "Neshama".


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

From: menucha 
I am wondering about the various women's nuschaot of moda vs. modeh ani.  I
was quite surprised to see that in the Artscroll women's siddur it said
Modeh. 
>>

Has anyone ever seen a siddur (or indeed any reference to) pre-WW2 which
mentions "modah"?

SBA

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 01:24:56AM +1100, SBA wrote:
: Has anyone ever seen a siddur (or indeed any reference to) pre-WW2 which
: mentions "modah"?

"Modah Ani" and "... shelo asani shifchah" are Gra-isms.

Tangent:
Shelo asani goyah is a non-issue, since the Gra sides with the rishonim
who have "she'asani Yisrael". "Shelo asani goy" is problematic, since
the usage of "goy" for "[member of another] nation" is late -- as far as
we can tell after censors played with such terms. Hashem said we're the
"goy qadosh", so it seems He did make us a goy, although in the primary
sense of the word rather than the intended one.

But the sevara I gave earlier seems compelling to me. Why would a 17th
cent. CE phrase be a matbei'ah so enshrined that we wouldn't play with
it to be grammatically correct?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 

When Rabbi Eleazer Landau, the grandson of the Noda beYehudah permitted a
man who was on his deathbed to write a get, to avoid agunah problems on 2nd
day Yom Tov, the Chasam Sofer opposed his decision on the basis that public
acceptance of 2nd day Yom Tov had transformed it into a neder which could
not be abrogated. This was all on the background a battle against reformers
who were trying to abolish the second day.

Alan Rubin
_______________________________________________
Perhaps someone could clarify for me the mechanism of this neder (e.g. how
does one generation make a neder for another? Does it have to be
articulated as such? ...)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:10:46PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> :>R' Jachter cites Machzor Vitri.
> 
> : As does Tosfos (Brachos 14a), but Machzor Vitri was not written by Rashi,
> : and surely if he attributed this to Rashi then Tosfos would have said so.
> 
> "Surely"? R' Velvel didn't agree, so how can you be so sure of such a
> deduction?

Come again?  Didn't agree with what?  What is there to disagree about?
*Does* the Machzor Vitri quote this in Rashi's name?

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

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:03:33 -0500
>> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
>> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit
>> Mikdash
> 
>> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Micha:
>>>> Rabban Gamliel insisted on a particular date for Yom Kippur
> [del]
>>> Mashma he would have NOT been meqabbel sans the Cheshbon
>>> I assume Bartenura culled this from Shas
>>
>> Yes.  Had his cheshbon shown that the eidim must be lying, he
>> wouldn't have accepted them; since he believed it was possible that
>> they were telling the truth, and he had no reason to suspect them
>> of lying, he accepted them.  This shows that he did *not* have a
>> preference for a particular outcome, but rather he was following
>> the evidence wherever it took him, and indeed felt obliged to do so.

> I wish I recalled the sources, but I was taught that there was always 
> the knowledge of Cheshbon, i.e. Sod Ha'Ibbur. But, when possible they 
> used Eidim.

Of course they *knew* the cheshbon, and not just the grossly simplified
model that we use, but the actual astronomical calculations that predict
where and when the moon really will be visible.  That's the knowledge of
the Bnei Yissachar, "yod'ei binah le'itim".   But (except apparently
according to Rabbenu Chananel) this could not directly affect kiddush
hachodesh, any more than a knowledge of forensic science allows a beis
din convict a criminal; it was merely an aid to know whether to believe
eidim.

 
> The issue was that Chazal had the ability to set the Chodesh regardless 
> of the Cheshbon, usually for reasons of community necessity.  That is 
> the meaning of HaChodesh HaZeh Lachem - the accent on "Lachem" - that 
> you decide it.

"Ability" or "right"?  That they have the *ability* is clear: "atem
afilu shogegim, atem afilu mezidim" (though it's not clear whether
this ability includes declaring a short month with no eidim at all, or
merely choosing not to question witnesses too closely).  But where do
you get that they have the *right* to do so?  All R Akiva tells
R Yehoshua in the mishneh is that what's done is done, and even if
R Gamliel was completely wrong yomtov was still when he said it was.
He doesn't suggest that R Gamliel was right to believe the eidim, or
that it didn't matter whether the eidim were telling the truth.


> Proof of Chazal's using this ability we see in Chazal's decision to 
> limit the time of when the Eidim can come forth.

What kind of proof is that?  All it shows is that BD is able to
arrange for a long month by the simple expedient of not being there
when the eidim arrive.  After all, the Torah doesn't regulate their
working hours!  And if they don't hear testimony from eidim they
*can't* declare a short month, so perforce the month will be long.
But how do you get from there to a right to declare a rosh chodesh
without eidim, based simply on cheshbon and/or tzorech hatzibur?
Tzorech hatzibur can be taken into account for ibbur shana, but for
ibbur chodesh?


> I wouldn't be surprise if 
> the issue of Rabban Gamliel vs. Rabbi Yehoshua had to do with just such 
> an issue.  Rabban Gamliel as Nassi had the Tzorech of the Tzibbur in 
> mind when he made rulings.

Where do you get this?  There is not the slightest hint of it in the
mishneh, or in any commentary that I've seen.  It's clear from the
mishneh that the machlokes was about metzius: was it scientifically
possible for the eidim to have seen what they claimed to have seen.
R Yehoshua accepted R Dosa ben Horkinas's claim that it was impossible,
and therefore that R Gamliel had no right to accept their testimony,
and therefore that the BD had no choice but to declare a 30-day Elul,
while R Gamliel maintained that his astronomical knowledge was better
that R Dosa's, and the testimony was indeed plausible, and there was
no reason to disbelieve it.  He did *not* give any reason to prefer
one result over the other, and nor did he assert any halachic authority
to knowingly accept false eidim.  He maintained that the eidim were
telling the truth, and therefore that he had no choice but to have a
short Elul.


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

> Has anyone ever seen a siddur (or indeed any reference to) pre-WW2 which
> mentions "modah"?
> SBA

Good point

AIUI Yekkes and Sephardim did follow the diqduq of modah for females
long before WWII.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Rich, Joel wrote:
> Perhaps someone could clarify for me the mechanism of this neder (e.g.
> how does one generation make a neder for another? Does it have to be
> articulated as such? ...)
>
>   
See Hochmath Adam klal 102.

David Riceman

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:13:36AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: I had originally thought you meant children, but I see you artfully said 
: "seeds".  Am I to deduce that you claim that God had denied the Mitzri 
: the possibility of doing tshuva (see H. Tshuva 6:3)?

I would deduce from the Pesikhta (40 "bachodesh hashevi'i") and as is
discussed at length by the Rambam and Briskers since, that teshuvah
creates a beryah chadashah. There was nothing in the Mitzri then,
"baasher hu sham" to warrant saving him. The greatness of teshuvah is
its ability to create a new "hu".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

More than that: I have seen several old, old siddurim that feminize
shelo 'assani shifkha and goya/nokhri.

On 11/12/09, SBA <s...@sba2.com> wrote:
> From: menucha
> I am wondering about the various women's nuschaot of moda vs. modeh ani.  I
> was quite surprised to see that in the Artscroll women's siddur it said
> Modeh.
>>>
>
> Has anyone ever seen a siddur (or indeed any reference to) pre-WW2 which
> mentions "modah"?
>
> SBA
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!

The Abarbanel brings almost the same idea as R' Hirsch in the name of the
Ran on why Avraham chose Beit Lavan over the Canaanim.
See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14387&;st=&pgnum=284 first
column on the right.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091112/edc68a10/attachment-0002.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> I would deduce from the Pesikhta (40 "bachodesh hashevi'i")
The section is quite long.  Could you give a more detailed reference 
(and tell me which edition - -  I imagine Friedmann=Ish Shalom).
>  and as is
> discussed at length by the Rambam and Briskers since, that teshuvah
> creates a beryah chadashah.
I don't see how to harmonize this with either zdonos na'asim lo 
kishgagos or kizchuyos.  Either way he's got the same history.  It's not 
like his past was erased and replaced with something different.
>  There was nothing in the Mitzri then,
> "baasher hu sham" to warrant saving him. The greatness of teshuvah is
> its ability to create a new "hu".
>   
David Riceman

The Abarbanel brings almost the same idea as R' Hirsch in the name of the
Ran on why Avraham chose Beit Lavan over the Canaanim.
See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14387&;st=&pgnum=284 first
column on the right.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091112/edc68a10/attachment-0003.htm>

From: menucha _m...@inter.net.il_ (mailto:m...@inter.net.il) 

>> I am  wondering about the various women's nuschaot of moda vs. modeh 
ani.  I  was quite surprised to see that in the Artscroll women's siddur 
it said  Modeh. <<
thanks
menucha
 

>>>>>
 
This was discussed at least once before on avodah (a long time ago) and I  
don't remember what conclusion was drawn -- probably none, since Avodah 
threads  don't ever reach any conclusions but just keep coming 'round again.  My 
own  feeling is that "Modeh ani" is a kind of fixed text that everyone says 
just the  way it was fixed, like the pasuk, "Na'ar hayisi gam zakanti velo 
ra'isi tzadik  ne'ezav" -- which I have no problem saying even thought I was 
never a na'ar and  am not yet a zekeina.  
 
If there /was/ a siddur that had "moda ani" for women, ArtScroll would be  
the last siddur I'd expect to have it.  I'd look in the new YU or any other  
MO or DL siddur first.    You'd want to look in a siddur that has  women 
thanking G-d "shelo asani shifcha" and "shelo asani goya" -- as if being  
female were an absolute given that never had any possibility of being any other  
way, whereas non-freedom or non-Jewishness could have been an option.
 

--Toby Katz
==========




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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091112/44095710/attachment-0001.htm>

Please, I would really appreciate a source for this Gra-ism.
For those, who were surprised that I was surprised at the artscroll 
women's siddur use of Modeh, thinking that moda was more in their "not 
modern" type nusach, remember that artscroll did put the brackets around 
the "male bits" in Tefilla Zaka.
menucha

Micha Berger wrote:

>
>"Modah Ani" and "... shelo asani shifchah" are Gra-isms.
>
>  
>



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 228
***************************************

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..."