Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 63

Fri, 05 Mar 2010

• 1. yerushalayim habenuya (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: L'shana Habaah Biyrushalayim (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: L'shana Habaah Biyrushalayim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: L'shana Habaah Biyrushalayim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: L'shana Habaah Biyrushalayim (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: L'shana haba'ah birushalayim (D&E-H Bannett)
• 7. Re: (Avodah) Who First Said it? (D&E-H Bannett)
• 8. Re: Who First Said it? (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: (Avodah) Who First Said it? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Who First Said it? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Geirut for marriage (Micha Berger)
• 12. tefillin in the right place (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: tefillin in the right place (Micha Berger)
• 14. Dvar Torah on Parshat Ki Tisa (Liron Kopinsky)

<<
Does anyone know the history of adding the word "hab'nuyah" to the
traditional "L'shana habaah b'Yerushalayim"?
>>

I heard the Griz refused to say "habenuya" because it was a modern invention

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 07:06:28PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: > "L'shana Habaah
: > Biyrushalayim", and that the "habaah" actually refers to the *current*
: > year, not next year.

: And so how should we parse
: "Miyyom Kippurim zeh ad yom hakippurim haba..."?

But the whole point of the Rashi is that "ba'ah" has two meanings, which
differ only in where the emphasis is placed. It is not about "haba", nor
does it rule out the existence of the other meaning of "ba'ah" -- just
that it's misplaced here.

The SR's point was buttressed by the timing of the declaration, 10 days
after Rosh haShanah and 15 days after R"Ch Nissan, the Rosh haShanah
leRegalim. Given that it is said when there was a "year that [just]
came", it makes more sense to emphasize the word as "haBA'ah", rather
than "haba'AH" and speaking of the subsequent year (even if we mean
that mei'eis le'eis).

There is no such ambiguity WRT "ad Yom haKippurim haba"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

> "L'shana Habaah
> Biyrushalayim", and that the "habaah" actually refers to the *current*
> year, not next year.

And so how should we parse
"Miyyom Kippurim zeh ad yom hakippurim haba..."?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha
> The SR's point was buttressed by the timing of the declaration, 10 days
> after Rosh haShanah and 15 days after R"Ch Nissan, the Rosh haShanah
> leRegalim. Given that it is said when there was a "year that [just]
> came", it makes more sense to emphasize the word as "haBA'ah", rather
> than "haba'AH" and speaking of the subsequent year (even if we mean
> that mei'eis le'eis).

> There is no such ambiguity WRT "ad Yom haKippurim haba"

Yeahbut
Kinda begs the question + viz:
Why choose an ambiguous phrase and not Simply have the nusach state
"l'shana hazzos Beerushalayim"?

IOW last night when we said "habba" we meant next year, and tonight when
we say habba'ah we mean this year?!?

And to use the "yisrael saba" argument, who before ever learned it as
THIS year? Has it ever been teitched that way?

Of course we talmudists can fit the square pegs into the round holes -
that's what we do! The question is should we? I guess this dovetails
into the area of: "Is pilpul good for the Jews or not?". ;-)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> IOW last night when we said "habba" we meant next year, and tonight when
> we say habba'ah we mean this year?!?

The question is whether you said it mil'eil or mil'ra.  

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

Re: R Micha's comment on the added hab'nuya, <<I was also 
inclined to answer "when?" with 1967 CE.>>

I arrived in Israel in 1949 and heard hab'nuya that year and 
evey year since wherever I happened to be.  So, 1967 is 
definitely wrong.


David

 Re: RnTK's comment on zeikher/zekher: <<I doubt if anyone 
here older than fifty ever heard it read both ways in his 
youth.>>

I started learn to read the Torah some 75 years ago in 
Flatbush and was taught to read both ways.  We did not 
repeat the entire pasuk but only the phrase "timcheh et 
zeikher Amalek".  I don't remember if I was taught the order 
but, many years later, I decided to read the incorrect 
zekher first and then correct myself by saying zeikher the 
second time.  Similarly, in the megilla, when the megilla 
has the incorrect bifneihem and laharog I read as written 
and then correct myself by repeating the phrase only: 
v'ish.... lifneihem and k'hashmid.... v'laharog.  If the 
megilla is correct I read only once.

Anyone slightly interested in the subject should read 
R'Mordekhai Breuer's article.  Those very interested should 
go directly to R' Prof Penkower's article. He gives the 
entire history, about 45 pages, including statistics on 
manuscripts from the time of ben Asher as well as customs of 
reading, etc.
The double reading evidently started slightly before the 
Hafetz Hayyim made it popular. Penkower cites a ba'al Kriah 
who was instructed by R' Sh'neur Zalman mi'Lublin to read 
twice. This R' Sh"Z died in 1902.  The Mishna B'rura was 
printed in 1906.

I was delighted to read that R' Penkower read twice despite 
his indisputable proofs that zeikher is correct.  A few 
years ago I gave a Friday night talk proving that there is 
absolutely no justification for double reading.  On the 
following morning I read parashat zakhor and read zekher 
followed by zeikher.  I too do as I was taught and do not 
allow myself to be confused with facts.  I am overjoyed to 
find that I follow the derekh of the expert.

It should be pointed out that no eidah other than the 
Ashkenazi ever questioned the correct reading.  AFAIK, 
Yekkes are the only Ashkenazi unaffected by the 
double-reading syndrome.

As to developments in Israel:  One of my grandchildren told 
me his rosh yeshiva told him to read only once (based on 
Breuer).  On the other hand I davenned this year at a 
yeshiva where in addition to reading in Abazit, Ashkenoz, 
Moroccan, and Yemenite they also had Parsi and what might 
have been Iraqi.

I have also heard a ba'al k'riah reading in mivta Ashkenazi 
repeat Machlas and Mochlas, and yahalom and yohalom.  He 
told me that he was told to do so by Harav Nebenzahl.  At 
this rate, it won't be long before we'll be hearing hundreds 
of p'sukim read twice.


David

 

From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 

>> Lub has always  respected the GRA, even at the height of his 
persecution.  
He was  always assumed to have been making a terrible mistake, and that
while his  actions were wicked and against halacha his motivation was
genuinely lesheim  shomayim, so it wasn't held against him.  It was
believed that he had  been misled by false witnesses reporting serious
breaches of halacha, and  that had he known the truth he would not have 
acted as he did.

When  the Chevraya Kadisha wanted to put him in a strong cherem that would
cut him  off from the shoresh of his neshama and guarantee that he would
shmad, ch"v,  the Alter Rebbe refused to join them, and he suffered from
their kepeida as a  result, but the cherem did not proceed.  When the GRA
died, the AR  issued a public letter referring to him as "hagaon hechasid",
and warning  chassidim not to rejoice at his passing.

So it's not at all surprising  that hebrewbooks.org should have Maaseh Rav.
There's nothing to  forgive.

-- 
Zev  Sero                      

 
 
 
>>>>>
My father said that the Vilna Gaon's opposition had ultimately been very  
good for chassidus, because it forced the chassidim to rein in their own  
extreme, non-normative, anti-nomian elements, and to stay on the straight and  
narrow (aka the strait and narrow).  Had the Vilna Gaon not acted, it is  
quite likely that the entire chassidic movement would have gone off the  
rails.  My father was a Gerrer chossid and had plenty of choice  words for 
Litvaks, believe me, but he was a man who believed in being modeh al  ha'emes.  
The early chassidim had a lot of strange fringe elements, and not  all the 
reports that were brought to the Gaon's ears were false.
 
Having said that, I would add that my father would have agreed with today's 
 Lubs (and other chassidim) that it was a pity the Vilna Gaon never met the 
Baal  HaTanya.  (But then again, my father would have said that the  Baal 
HaTanya wouldn't have recognized today's Chabad as anything he ever would  
have wanted or imagined.)
 
The story about "cutting off  the roots of his soul" -- that  the Gra would 
have converted to Christianity if not for the Ba'al HaTanya  -- is 
scurrilous nonsense.  Where do you get this stuff?
 

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100304/27990bce/attachment-0001.htm>

db...@zahav.net.il:
> I have also heard a ba'al k'riah reading in mivta Ashkenazi 
> repeat Machlas and Mochlas, and yahalom and yohalom. He 
> told me that he was told to do so by Harav Nebenzahl. At 
> this rate, it won't be long before we'll be hearing hundreds 
> of p'sukim read twice. 

The Mishnah B'rurah clearly [pun intended] states that the repetition is
due to the dynamic of Zachor being a d'oraisso and that zecher/zeicher
would be a s'feiq d'oraisso. This new legislation -- to require repeating
the above -- is very strange to me. There is no ch'shash of a d'oraisso
there.
 
GS 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:22:41PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: My father said that the Vilna Gaon's opposition had ultimately been very  
: good for chassidus, because it forced the chassidim to rein in their own  
: extreme, non-normative, anti-nomian elements, and to stay on the straight and  
: narrow (aka the strait and narrow).  Had the Vilna Gaon not acted, it is  
: quite likely that the entire chassidic movement would have gone off the  
: rails...

And there were little rebbeles of the first generation who were. We have
writings from L's Alter Rebbe condemning a few of them.

For that matter, your father's sentiment about how the Gra saved
Chassidus is also attributed to the Rebbe Rashab. (I doubt he was
refering to Chabad Chassidus...)

But crediting someone with having a good unintended consequence and
accepting someone who put you into cherem are two different things.
BH, L believes in qabeil es ha'emes mimi she'omro.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 02:07:23PM -0000, Chana wrote:
: > First point of disagreement (POD #1): I don't see this as a "reading of
: > the SA", which is a phrasing that makes it sound like the SA's words
: > can be taken different ways.

: I agree this is POD (#1) as indeed I think they can.  There is the way that
: one might naively, not knowing how the Shulchan Aruch generally works, read
: these words, and there is the more standard way.
...
: Now the  general understanding of this format of the Shulchan Aruch is that
: there is an essential din brought "the stam" and then there is a second
: opinion brought "the yesh omrim".  And then there is a rule that "stam
: v'yesh omrim, halacha k'stam"....

I must confess I was mildly offended by this reply, as it implies an
underestimation of my exposure to the SA. (One that I would
have hoped my posting history would show I am past.)

The question isn't whether "The halakhah is A, some say B, means a
machloqes, it's whether the default when B doesn't conflict with A to
read it as:

My Take:
    The halakhah is A
    Some way we need B too. We hold only A.
2 dinim that aren't explicitly peices of a whole aren't assumed to be in
contrast. The SA would exclude the "both" possibility when such a
possibility makes sense.

Your take:
    The halakhah is A
    Some way we need B instead.

Your proofs are from cases where A and B do conflict, and so there is
no parallel. It makes it sound like you don't think I know that the
SA standardly refers to the norm without telling you to look ahead
for exceptions, rather than our having a more subtle (and informed)
distinction.

Here's the case:
: "Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim Hilchot Megila v'Purim Siman 689 si'if 1: All
: are obligated in its reading, men and women and converts and freed slaves
: ...
: Si'f 2: Whether one reads or whether one listens to the reading one fulfils
: one's obligation, and this is if one hears from one who is obligated in
: reading.  Therefore if a deaf person or a minor or an idiot reads, and one
: hears from him, he does not fulfil his obligation, and there are those who
: say [vyesh omrim] that women cannot exempt the obligation of men."

See, se'if 2's yeish omerim states that it is based on assumptions that
are not shared by the stam of se'if 1. It's not a parallel case.

Tangentially, the SA does this general and exceptional thing not just
WRT shitos and pesaqim, but also special cases in metzi'us. One se'if
will say we do X, and the next will say but in rare case A, we do Y
instead. Personally, it makes me nervous. The first line doesn't even say
"we usually do X", it's written in the same language as something without
exceptions. The possibilty of abuse by partial citation, or someone
who thinks they found the se'if but are too ADD to keep on reading,
just tenses me out.

...
: b) and not only this, but you then want to go back to the original language
: of the second opinion see what he has to say, look at some of the bits that
: the Shulchan Aruch does not quote from his opinion and incorporate that into
: the total halacha.  In the megilla case, that means eg going back to the
: Behag, finding some quotes in the  Behag, saying that because the Shulchan
: Aruch brought a yesh omrim without an aval, we need to read those halachos
: as brought by the Behag but not the Shulchan Aruch into our understanding of
: kriat megilla...

The SA cites a Rambam. YOU said that Rambam must be explicit
and in our locaiton in the Yad, and therefore the SA can't be saying what
I think he does. I'm saying that the SA may be assigning the opinion I
see his text assigning to the Rambam based on something else in the
Rambam. Not that the SA must be taken beyond his own words; rather than
his words may be based on something in the Rambam we aren't seeing.

I'm saying you must go beyond your own understanding of the Rambam
before assuming you know what the SA could have meant. Including the
possibility the SA was basing himself on a deduction from the Rambam.
Not that the SA is saying more about the Rambam than is explicit in the
SA.

...
: > POD #2:
: >: a) QOM as a legal action - very similar to a shavuah in fact, in
: >: which the person says in front of a beis din of three - "from here on in, I
: >: will keep the mitzvot".   This is what Tosphos and the Rosh understands when
: >: they refer to QOM....

: > Where do you see this in Tosafos or the Rosh?

: OK here is a full translation of the Tosphos on Yevamot 45b d"h "mi"  

: "Did she not toyvel for nidah: And this is surprising because it says there
: (46b) that a convert needs three [judges] because "judgement" is written in
: connection with him...
:                   and below (47b) they say we do not toyvel a ger at night
: but they did not write "judgement" except on the acceptance of the
: commandment it is fine, and that which they do not toyvel him [at night]
: this is l'chatchila m'drabbanan."

So, according to Tosafos, it's a heqesh mishpat-mishpat, a gezeiras
hakasuv. Nothing mentioned about QOM being a shevu'ah. Or even a legal
action. But more to the point, nothing that would imply that those who
are choleqim assume that QOM is NOT a legal action just because there is
a lack of BD. (Qinyan is also a legal action, and doesn't require BD.)

...
: It is not that a general shavuah requires a beit din - I was just likening
: it to a shavuah, but you don't need to use the term.  What Tosphos says is
: that there has got to be a kabalat mitzvot in front of three qualified
: judges in the day.  And if you don't have that no gerus.

It was only your comparison I was asking about. Yes, according to
Tosafos, geirus requires a BD because of that gezeira shava, and since
QOM is the essence of geirus, that's the one bit that needs a BD even
bedi'eved.

: Now you could quibble about what is meant by kabbalat mitzvoth...

Why? We agree on that point.

: > POD #3:
...
: > You just created a new category -- someone who isn't a standard Jew nor
: > a goy. Unless you're classing him with avadim Kenaanim, that's an
: > entirely new concept to me and in either case would require major
: > evidence that people can fall into this "no man's land".

: No, I am not creating a new category.  I am referring to an old category,
: that of a Yisrael mumar.  A Yisrael mumar is *not a standard Jew*...

But as I later wrote, his qiddushin is chal, so the Rambam isn't saying
that a geir without QOM is a Yisrael mumar. He is talking about someone
who is less Jewish than that.

...
:> The Bach is a daas yachid in how he understands the Rambam, and only
:> presents his version of the Rambam in order to reject it. I don't see
:> why you return to the Bach so frequently.

: Because the only person I know who says that the Bach is necessarily a daas
: yachid is you.  If you want to read the Rambam like you do, you are in
: direct contradiction with the Bach...

Actually, with your read of the Bach, as discussed below. To restate
my words more properly: If the Bach said what you attribute to him,
he would have been a daas yachid.

I said it more this way in the continuation:
:> IOW, why not take the same tack with the Bach as you do with the SA.
:> Since the Bach appears to deny the Rambam's explicit requirement for
:> QOM, why not assume you're misreading the Bach?

: Well, partly because my reading of the Bach is actually Rav YH Henkin's
: reading of the Bach (that is where I got it from, as I told you last time)....

Like I remember? How many details do you think one head can juggle from
months back? I'm not as young (or maybe as well rested) as you are; my
memory can't hack it. Sorry.

I still don't see it in the Bach, WADR to RYHH (CC-ed, so hopefully he
will clarify).

: And because there is plenty of other muttering in the olam about minority
: positions that deny the need for KOM.  Ie you have your Rav Uzziel's etc
: etc.  We are talking major talmidei chachimim here, not just me. 

R' Uzziel doesn't deny QOM in that he uses the idiom. What I see
instead is that he uses it very differently. IOW, he defines it in
terms of joining the nation under the ol, rather than the mitzvos in
particular. Unless we have a new POD, how to read R' Uzziel.

Thus it would seem that R' Uzziel would say the Rambam holds that a
declaration of "ameikh ami" must be done before a BD.

...
: > A mumar who marries a Yisraelis, the qidushin is chal. Not so the
: > person who is nisgayeir but doesn't accept QOM. They are different things.

: And this, of course, is that ikkar POD.  I am saying that, according to the
: Rambam, a person who is nisgayeir but doesn't accept QOM, his qiddushin is
: chal...

But as I see it: IB 12:17 drags in marriage ("umutarim lehikaneis beqehal
Hashem miyad), which means status as a Jew, which then means the Rambam
is requiring some kind of QOM, however you take those words, to make a
real Jew in addition to requiring geirus.

And I agree that that's our original point of departure. (And basically
POD #3.) From there comes the whole difference on what chosheshin means
(POD #8), and what the SA could be taking the Rambam to mean (POD #1),
etc...

...
:> But as you appear to agree, in my citation later on he does later down
:> say the Rambam requires QOM, albeit without a BD.

: No. I don't believe I said anything of the sort.

You didn't correct my reading of the Bach, you tell me I'm reading the
wrong part. If so, then what do you do with the part I did quote, in
which he mentions QOM albeit without BD? That's why I said "you *appear*
to agree" since you don't dismiss it, just pull my eyes upward on the
page.

: > So here's how I read the Bach's "kol ikar"... The tevilah wasn't lesheim
: > QOM explicitly, however since it was for a mitzvah, there is some kind of
: > connection to QOM in the tevilah. IOW, "kol ikar" modified the tevilah,
: > which is the feminin noun in the "shelo hayta", not QOM. I don't see how
: > you can read this part of the Bach as referring to anything but the need
: > for lesheim QOM within the tevilah, not QOM itself.

: So you are postulating that the Bach suddenly magics up a new requirement of
: QOM within tevila, in order to then say well the Rambam doesn't require it.

It's the words of the Bach (YD 268).

1- Tevilah lesheim QOM: See d"h "UM"SH veT"Ch omedim al tevilaso".
Quoting Rashi: "... Hilkhakh beshe'as tevilah mitzvah tzarikh leqabeil
alav ol mitzvos"

So, saying that tevilah leshaim tum'as niddah is sufficient only because
taharas hamishpachah is part of that ol mitzvos isn't "suddenly magicked
up".

2- The Rambam requiring QOM, albeit not before BD, in Bach d"h "UM"SH
uleR' Elfas vechu'", starting with "Vezos his shitas haRambam", phrases
the woman who doesn't keep halakhah as ho'il vehuchzequ goyim. Not
Yisrael mumar.

...
: > You also lump cheshash and cheshad as synonyms. They aren't, and that's
: > relevent here. Cheshad is a statement of accusation. Cheshash is
: > entertainment of doubt. It's relevent that this is a cheshash in
: > particular.

: I don't regard chashad and chashash as synonyms.  Rather Chashash is a state
: before Chashad.  It is where you are entitled to protect yourself because
: you do not know the situation. Chashad is where you have real reasons to
: accuse...

What I meant:
Cheshash applies to a situation, cheshad to a noun. You are chosheid
someone, but your are chosheish for a possibility.

But this is all irrelevent, given what I said about ruling out mumar due
to what the Rambam said in the previous pereq.

: My understanding is that the Rambam had a similar test vis a vis gerim.
: Since you cannot be sure that anybody who is known to be a ger is shomer
: mitzvos, since so many traditionally weren't, so you have to be choshesh
: them until we establish some basic simple tests...

... except if the geirus was before a beis din of mumchin, which
pre-empts any doubt.

: > I'm contrasting the afilu chozer to the person who makes it clear he
: > never had a QOM to return from. The whole concept of "chozer" implies a
: > need for QOM. Otherwise, you could have a geir who is oveid AZ who
: > never left AZ, no chazarah involved. Nor tzidqus.

: Exactly.

Exactly? So, the difference between someone who was QOM and was chozeres,
and thus their marriage to SHimshon and Shelomo was valid, and someone
who never was QOM (and therefore what about their marriage?) shows that
QOM is required for marriage -- and thus true Judaism?

Of course that's not what you mean, since you quote me and continue:
:>  And the whole discussion of
:> Shimshon and Shelomo's wives wouldn't work without assuming some kind
:> of QOM -- with or without it being a step requiring BD.

: L'ehefech. The whole point about Shimshon and Shelomo's wives is that in
: fact they were rotten through and through.  There was no QOM at all.  And
: yet, they went through the procedure and their marriage to Shishon and
: Shlomo was chal...

Where do you see there was no QOM? In 13:17, the Rambam writes about
someone who returns to AZ and adds "ULEFIKHAKH qiyyam Shimshon
uShelomo neshoseihem". Doesn't that mean he considers them an instance
someone who returned to their old ways?

I see the Rambam saying that it is only because a chozeir leAZ is a Jew
that the marriages were chal!

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

from Rav Aviner

It is related in the book "Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Le-Beit Brisk" (vol. 3,
pp. 189-180) that Ha-Griz ? Ha-Rav Velevele Soloveitchik ? once
visited a city and used a mirror to make sure his Tefillin was in the
correct place, as was his custom. At his seat, someone placed a copy
of Shut Divrei Chaim opened to the Teshuvah which refers to looking in
a mirror to adjust one's Tefillin as a "custom of ignoramuses."
Ha-Griz said to the people there: "I will use a Chasidic story (since
the Divrei Chaim was Chasidic, while he was a Mitnaged). Reb Moshe
Leib Sasober once said about the Halachah that one who sits in a
Sukkah while it is raining is an idiot (Rama, Orach Chaim 639:7): 'It
is worthwhile for me to be called an idiot as long as I fulfill the
mitzvah of dwelling in the Sukkah.' I say the same thing: 'It is
worthwhile for me to be called an ignoramus as long as the Tefillin
sit in the precise spot on my head."

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:18:24PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: from Rav Aviner
: It is related ... that Ha-Griz ... visited a city and used a mirror
: to make sure his Tefillin was in the correct place, as was his
: custom. At his seat, someone placed a copy of Shut Divrei Chaim opened
: to the Teshuvah which refers to looking in a mirror to adjust one's
: Tefillin as a "custom of ignoramuses."
:                                "... I say the same thing: 'It is
: worthwhile for me to be called an ignoramus as long as the Tefillin
: sit in the precise spot on my head."

From Aspaqlaria
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/02/tefillin-mirrors.shtml>:
    When I started wearing tefillin, few people used small hand mirrors
    to see whether or not it was properly centered. I recall men using
    the shiny metal area indicating where to push on a door, the window
    in a door to a darkened stairwell, and other awkward solutions.
    Compared to that, the current ubiquity of mirrors, whether in the
    tefillin bag or even glued to the bottom of the tefillin box is a
    G-d-send. But for most of Jewish history, mirrors were not cheap to
    come by. So what did the Ribbono shel olam expect us to do?

    We lived for millenia before the heter iska allowed someone to give
    someone else money in a mechanism that allowed him to make money on
    the deal. The current interest free gema"ch is laudable, but we no
    longer feel the sense of brotherhood of "achikha ha'evyon" (your
    impoverished brother) that the Torah speaks of receiving your loan.
    Not to the extent that someone could buy a home off gema"ch money.
    Jewish society decayed, and workarounds had to be provided to
    minimize the impact of that decay.

    Without the mirror, the only way to fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin
    correctly is through areivus, each person in the minyan taking
    responsibility for each other's tefillin. Tefillin actually
    underscored the unity of the minyan, and the brotherhood of all
    Jews. But Jewish society decayed, and workarounds had to be provided
    to minimize the impact of that decay. The mirror is a better
    solution than trying to catch your reflection in a doorknob.

    But now that we have mirrors, all we can see is ourselves.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Hi All,
Please see http://mydvar.com/2010/03/shabbat-duality/ for a Dvar Torah I
wrote on this week's Parsha based on the Abravanel.

If you haven't had a chance to see what the Abravanel says about Shabbat in
this week's parsha, I highly recommend it. It can be found here if you don't
have the sefer http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14386&;st=&pgnum=304

Shabbat Shalom,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100305/1c41a8ac/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 63
**************************************

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..."