Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 110

Fri, 24 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Baruch She'amar (Dov Kaiser)
• 4. Re: Baruch She'amar (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Taking Midrashim Literally (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Baruch She'amar (Daniel Bukingolts)
• 8. Re: Minhag Yisrael (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Saul Guberman)
• 10. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: What should you wear for davening? (Harry Maryles)
• 13. Wearing Red Clothing (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Proper Attire for Bentching (Prof. Levine)
• 15. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (T6...@aol.com)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>>> Why do we say Baruch She'amar? Because it was on a piece of paper 
>>> that fell from heaven.
>>
>> A piece of paper that fell from heaven. I'm not even sure how to 
>> respond to that. I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of 
>> paper that fall from heaven.
>
> Except that that is *exactly* how we got Baruch She'amar. ?I'm not 
> sure how to respond to someone who openly says they don't believe that.
> See Taz OC 51:1

See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14392&;st=&pgnum=61&hilite=
(ot samech at the foot of the page).
_______________________________________________
R' Simon,
Do you think he had a mesorah of what was stated in the footnote, or is it a libi omer li based on a general hashkafic approach?
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.

At 10:37 PM 6/23/2011, Simon Montagu wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> >>> Why do we say Baruch She'amar? Because it was on a piece of paper that
> >>> fell from heaven.
> >>
> >> A piece of paper that fell from heaven. I'm not even sure how to respond
> >> to that. I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of paper that fall
> >> from heaven.
> >
> > Except that that is *exactly* how we got Baruch She'amar.  I'm not sure
> > how to respond to someone who openly says they don't believe that.
> > See Taz OC 51:1
>
>See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14392&;st=&pgnum=61&hilite=
>(ot samech at the foot of the page).

See, now, that makes a lot more sense.

Lisa 

Rn. LL wrote:
> A piece of paper that fell from heaven. I'm not even sure how to
> respond to that. I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of paper
> that fall from heaven.

RZS then replied:
>>Except that that is *exactly* how we got Baruch She'amar. I'm not sure
>>how to respond to someone who openly says they don't believe that.
>>See Taz OC 51:1
 
So I suppose you would have trouble responding to the Peri Chadash. In last
week's alon Shabbat b'Shabbato, R. Yosef Tzvi Rimon discussed Baruch
She'amar and noted that Peri Chadash (OH 51) asked (rhetorically) "It
surprises me - since the Talmud has been closed and sealed, how were the
Geonim able to institute new berachos?" So the Peri Chodosh seemed to
accept that Baruch She'amar postdated the Talmud, and was not instituted by
the Anshei Knesses Hagedola based on a heavenly note or otherwise. I have
not seen the PC inside, but presume that he was familiar with the Mordechai
and Taz who record the note-from-heaven story.
 
Also, the earliest source for the note falling from heaven in the times of
the Anshei Knesses Hagedola is the Taz, citing the Tolaas Yaakov, in turn
citing the Ohr Zaruah. I guess you need emunah of a chassidic variety to
believe that a mediaeval Rishon knew what had happened a thousand years
before, or had a tradition which no-one else happened to mention.
 
The discomfort that Rn. LL, Prof. Levine and I feel when faced with the
assertion that the Ari was taught by Eliyahu Hanavi may stem from the fact
that it makes halacha depend on the personal experiences of mystics, rather
than group revelation, as at Har Sinai, or group acceptance by Klal
Yisroel, through acceptance of the Talmud Bavli and subsequent minhagim.
This is apart from the question whether the mystics in question were
actually spoken to by Eliyahu or whoever. I have met a number of Chabad
chassidim, in particular, who could not understand why every observant Jew
would not be one of them, given that Eliyahu spoke to the Ari, the Baal
Shem Tov, and then their Rebbes experienced additional revelations. This
approach leaves no room for eilu v'eilu and effectively delegitimizes any
form of Yahadut other than Chabad Chassidus. However, the bottom line is
that, if you accept their premisses (of the various revelations, etc), they
are completely correct, we should all be C
 habad Chassidim. Which is one reason I have trouble acccepting their premisses.
 
Kol tuv,
Dov Kaiser                                        
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/0b890ff4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:16:50PM +0300, Dov Kaiser wrote:
: So I suppose you would have trouble responding to the Peri Chadash. In
: last week's alon Shabbat b'Shabbato, R. Yosef Tzvi Rimon discussed
: Baruch She'amar and noted that Peri Chadash (OH 51) asked (rhetorically)
: "It surprises me - since the Talmud has been closed and sealed, how were
: the Geonim able to institute new berachos?" So the Peri Chodosh seemed to
: accept that Baruch She'amar postdated the Talmud...

Beiurei Tefila, in this case
<http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Origin_of_Baruch_Sh_Amar.pdf>,
is a great resource!

And the Birkei Yoseif (OC 51 s"q 1) answers that since it was mentioned
in the Zohar it obviously (to him) predates the ge'onim. He also notes
that the Tur quotes seifer Heichalos that BsH contains 87 words (gematria
"rosho kesem PAZ") -- and seifer Heikhalos is attributed to R' Yishmael.

The bit about the pasqa nafal meirqia' dates back to the siddur of R'
Yaaqov Emden.

But in any case, I still fail to see the relevence to our initial topic.
We're discussing the idea of using a heavenly source to pasqen. In order
to say that Barukh sheAmar is an example of this, you not only have
to say the words were found on a note from heaven but the note said "say
the following words daily".

We drifted off into the topic of which midrashim and other astounding
stories must be believed, but we never resolved the original question.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 07:45:47AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: To tie this discussion with another, this is exactly my point. We have
: an obscure midrash about MbY.

"Obscure"? It's a gemara!

:                               The Rambam is clear about taking midrashim
: literally (he doesn't). So take that idea, his silence in Hilchot Milachim
: regarding MbY, and I come to the conclusion that the Rambam doesn't hold
: that one has to believe that this person will ever come.

But he is silent in a list of things he tells you not to take for granted!
That's a reverse sense. As I said, I could argue this either way, and
therefore the absence from that list signifies nothing.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On 23/06/2011 11:29 PM, Richard Wolberg wrote:
>> ...certainly one who refuses ever to believe the literal meaning of a medrash is a kofer in the whole torah.
>      Upon what source do you base this statement?
>
> Certainly you are aware there are rationalist meforshim who interpret
> the incident of Bilaam's talking donkey in a NON-LITERAL manner. Rambam
> sees it occurring in a dream. The Ramchal suggests that the donkey
> brayed plaintively and Bilaam intuited what it was trying to convey.
>  And this is not a medrah; this is from the Torah. Are they also kofrim?

First of all, I'd like to see these inside before I believe that they
really thought this was the meaning.  The Rambam, of course, has his
shita on nev'ah, that anyone except Moshe Rabbenu has to be in a trance
to see mal'achim; that doesn't mean he was also in a trance when the
donkey spoke.  (But if this is from the Moreh then it's no problem in the
first place; how can you derive the Rambam's actual opinion from a book
of apologetics specifically written for those whose dabbling in philosophy
has left them with problems in emunah?)

In any case, even if you're accurately reporting what they held about
this specific story, what do you think it proves?  Do you imagine they
didn't believe in any story that appears in the chumash, tanach, or
medrash?!  Do you imagine they didn't believe in miracles, r"l?!  How
can you even suggest such a thing?

As the saying goes about unverified Baal Shem Tov stories, one doesn't
have to believe any specific story happened (unless it's reliably
attested to), and one doesn't even have to believe that every such story
could have happened if there's a specific reason not to;  but one  who
believes that *none* of them could have happened has betrayed himself
as a kofer.

Consider, for instance, how Shimon Hakofer exposed himself; by his
reluctance to teach children Rashi's second explanation about Yitzchok
trembling when Esov came to him, that he saw Gehenom open under him
(Toldos 27:33).

The bottom line is that Judaism is not Protestantism.

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

Does anyone know why we hold and kiss our tzitzit after Baruch She'amar?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/f05d7331/attachment-0001.htm>

At 07:28 PM 6/23/2011, Poppers, Michael wrote:
>BTW, it's certainly not the custom of everyone whose maqom 
>says/sings "L'cha Dodi" as part of Qabbalas Shabbas to switch tunes 
>prior to the second-lamed line -- no switching is done at 
>KAJ/"Breuer's" (Minhag Frankfurt), and AFAIK no switching is done in 
>Minhag Ashk'naz (NB: when I use that term, I mean what RDrYL called 
>"the original Nusach Ashkenaz minhag").  Anyone who thinks k'lal 
>Yisrael w/out exception change the tune apparently isn't an AishDas member :).

There are places where Lecha Dodi is not sung at all.  The Chazzan 
simply "chants" it.  This was the case in R. A. Miller's shul. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/29ed2eee/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 07:30, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> Wow, *that's* a stretch!  Bimchilas kevodo, where did he come up with it?
> He says he's responding to mockers, but how can anyone possibly find that
> convoluted explanation easier to accept than the straightforward meaning?
> A person who believes in Hashem has no difficulty accepting the plain
> meaning, and a mocker will only laugh at the knots into which the apologist
> twists himself to explain this away.  So why bother coming up with it?
> In any event, we are certainly not required to accept it.
>

I am not sure how this footnote explanation is any more of a stretch than a
piece of paper falling from heaven.  I don't think either explanation is
"required" to be accepted.  Both say AKH is the source.  It is just a
question of how AKH was inspired to put it in the Tefillah.

Shabbat Shalom,

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/ea6e6bba/attachment-0001.htm>

On 24/06/2011 9:57 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
-
>> See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14392&;st=&pgnum=61&hilite=
>> (ot samech at the foot of the page).
>
> See, now, that makes a lot more sense.

How?  How does such a tortuous "explanation" make *more* sense than the
plain meaning, that the Taz clearly understood it to mean?  Why would
any maamin have a problem with the plain meaning of this story?  If the
Taz had no problem with it, why should you?


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

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:31:39AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> How?  How does such a tortuous "explanation" make *more* sense than the
> plain meaning, that the Taz clearly understood it to mean?  Why would
> any maamin have a problem with the plain meaning of this story?  If the
> Taz had no problem with it, why should you?

The Taz mentions the story? As I already posted, the fine people at
Biurei Tefilah couldn't find an older source than R' Yaaqov Emden (who
was born 30 years after the Taz's petirah, according to wikipedia).

Bar Ilan couldn't find "peteq" nor "pitqa" in the Taz. Searching for
"Bruch She'amar", there are only pragmatic comments (OC 54:1, 89:2,
132:2).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com> wrote:







In a message dated 6/23/2011, llev...@stevens.edu writes:
From http://tinyurl.com/6yyq2r2

The gemara (Shabbos 10) states that a person cannot daven without a gartel (belt).
I was learning recently in (I think) the Chayei Adam that it is a machloket
whether this is an actual requirement or not., but if you regularly daven
with a belt, then it is necessary.
Based on this, if you regularly wear underwear with an elastic, you would be unable to daven without underwear and without a belt.
----------------------------------------
?
I haven't really been following this thread so much and apolgize if this has been mentioned. 
?
The primary idea of a Gartel (belt) is to make a separation between the heart and the Erva. 
?
Back in the good old days when both men and women wore one?piece?robe like
outer garments there was no separation. So?a Gartel was required for
prayer. Today where the vast majority of men wear pants, the sepeartion is
alraedy there and there is no need for a Gartel at all. 
?
Chasidim still wear one because putting on a?Gartel shows that one is
preparing for prayer (which is IIRC is?also mentioned in the SA). Misnagdim
(mostly from Lita) just put on a jacket or hat or simply do any act at all
(e.g. buttoning or straightening a jacket) to show prerparation. The idea
being that one should not just rush into prayer but take a moment to show
that he knows before Whom he is standing and demonstrate proper respect and
awe.
?
The bottom line is that if you wear pants?there is absolutely no Halachic reason to put on a Gartel today other then to perpetuate the Minhag.
?
HM
?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/55e292d1/attachment-0001.htm>

Someone sent me the following, but did not indicate where it is 
from.  However, it does give sources for the statements below. YL

Red Clothing

Many women wear different color garments during the summer months. The color
red is not permitted to be worn by a woman since it is a sign of 
pritzos. 36 Included in
this is a red headband, or red stockings. 37 If a garment has a 
minute amount of red in it,
then it is permitted to be worn.38 Some quote the opinion of Horav 
Yaakov Kamenetsky
zt"/ who maintains wearing red is permitted today since it is not 
viewed as a garment
of pritzos. 39

36. Rama YD. 178:1, Shach 3, Chochmas Adorn 89:1, Kitzur Shulchan 
Aruch 3:2, Be'er Moshe 4:147:13, Halichos
Bas Yisroel 7:3. See Be'er Moshe 4: 140.
37. Be'er Moshe 4: 147:13.
38. Halichos Sh1omo Tefilla 20:footnote 12. Children who did not 
reach the age a chinuch may put on red garments
(Shevet Ha'Levi 6:24:2).
39. Quoted in Divrei Chachumim page 256:46.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/1a1f42fe/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from  Halachically Speaking, Birchas HaMazon - 
Selected Halachos

http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume%206%20Issue%2012.pdf

One should be properly dressed while reciting bentching.43  Wearing a 
bathrobe is
unacceptable.44  Some say that it is proper to wear a hat and 
jacket.45  The Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch46 says that doing so brings one to fear of Hashem and will 
increase concentration
during bentching. The Chazzon Ish zt"l only wore a big yarmulke and 
did not wear a hat
for bentching. The Stiepler zt"l only wore a hat without a jacket.47


43. V'sein Beracha page 312:footnote 29.
44. V'sein Beracha page 311. See Rivevos Ephraim 5:106, Ashri 
Yiladito 1:page 216:28.
45. See Meseches Berochos 51b, Bach 183, Magen Avraham 5, Elya Rabbah 
16, Machtzis Ha'shekel 5, Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch 44:6, Mishnah Berurah 11, Salmas Chaim 181:page 51, 
Ohr L'tzyion 2:13:3. The Halichos Shlomo
Tefillah 2:73 is lenient for a cholah not to put the jacket on all 
the way, rather over the shoulders is fine. Refer to Vezos
Ha'beracha page 140:4, who quotes from the Chazzon Ish zt"l that the 
jacket may be worn on the shoulders even not
for a cholah, see Orchos Rabbeinu 3:page 207:7. The Aruch Hashulchan 
183:4 holds there is no need for a jacket, see
Tzitz Eliezer 13:13. Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita says not wearing a 
hat and jacket while bentching is something that
one should grow out of as he matures (Refer to Doleh U'mashka page 111).
46. 44:6.
47. Orchos Rabbeinu 1:74:page 83.

Does the statement, "Wearing a bathrobe is unacceptable." apply to 
women as well?  The author does not say.

I presume that the "Shabbos robes" that are commonly worn by many 
women are not in the category of bathrobe.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/be5b2de3/attachment-0001.htm>

 
I always  thought that it is a mitzva to be ethical, honest and have
integrity.  "V'asita hatov v'hayashar" for starters. So how can it be that
being honest  and ethical is outside the definition of being "frum" if you
define frum as  "keeping the mitzvos"?

David I. Cohen

 
>>>>>
 
EVERYONE sins, but if he keeps the basics he is frum.  
 
Frum just means observant, Orthodox.  It is not a synonym for  righteous 
and perfect in all taryag mitzvos, though it would be a wonderful  world if it 
were. I am just defining the word in its common, long-time  usage.  
 
As for ehrlichkeit, it can mean adhering strictly to halachos regarding  
honesty in business and in all your dealings, but sometimes it also means 
going  above and beyond, lifnim meshuras hadin -- for example, paying someone 
who  thinks you owe him even if me'ikar hadin you don't, because you don't 
want  to leave him with hard feelings or because you are free of debt on a 
halachic  technicality but on some level you still feel that you really do owe 
him.   Ehrlech also means trustworthy, that you can trust a man's word.  An  
ehrlicher person can be relied on to do what he said he would do and  
doesn't wriggle out on technicalities.
 
 
--Toby Katz
================






_____________________  





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110624/b1a5081c/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 110
***************************************

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..."