Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 123

Sun, 03 Jul 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 11:03:28 -0700
Re: [Avodah] Pas Akum and Shabbos

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  The following is from http://www.thehalacha.com/attach/Volume4/Issue4.pdf
> One should try not to buy pas akum foods (even for a snack)27 out of honor
> for Shabbos

Why would not buying pas akum "out of honor for Shabbos" override eating
your favorite cookies on Shabbos for the same reason?

Shabbat Shalom,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 19:11:19 GMT
Re: [Avodah] R. Hirsch as a Modern Orthodox Leader

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> Rav Gifter remained steadfast in his opposition to Zionism.  The
> following is from
> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/gifter.cfm
> "We know the truth. The truth is that Zionism is a curse, and
> that's the way it is. Zionism is murder! And that's what it
> really is, because it is true!"
> See the above URL for the rest of this speech about Zionism.

I *did* look at the URL. And with all due respect to Rav Gifter zt"l, I
don't see where his explained himself adequately. He gave examples of
Zionists who were murderers, and even examples of high-ranking zionist who
were willing to murder to advance the goals of Zionism. But that does not
convince me that the goals of Zionism are wrong, or that "Zionism is a

It is entirely possible that the goals of Zionism are praiseworthy, and
that *other* Zionists who would find ways of reaching those goals in proper
ways. I did not see anything in that article to suggest otherwise.

Akiva Miller

Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Aryeh Stein <aryehst...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:48:26 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise!

>>>In this case, Halachah Berurah 125:2 (R' David Yosef) says specifically
"The minhag yisrael is like the opinion of the Ari Z"L, that the whole
tzibbur says the whole nusach of kedushah word for word together with
the shalicah tzibur, from the words 'nakishach v'na'aritzach' until the
end of the whole kedushah."

.... I do see the Mishnah Berurah in that list, though clearly the
Mishnah Berurah never mentions
the Ari Z"L.>>>


And neither does the Aruch Hashulchan.  The Aruch Hashulchan (125:2)
explains the original din that only the chazan says "nakdishach" as a
way to prepare and invite the tzibbur to say "Kadosh, Kadosh,
Kadosh...." similar to when the chazan says kadish and only the chazan
says "Yisgadal v'Yiskdasash and tzibur only says "Yehei Shmei

The Aruch Hashulchan continues that there are still a few places that
are still noheg this way, but "b'kol medinasainu," the tzibur does
indeed recite "nakdishach" or "nekadesh" and there is no problem with
this, as this is way for the tzibur to prepare *themselves* to say
"Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh...."

[The Aruch Hashulchan does not say this, but perhaps the change was
needed because our attention spans have gotten shorter and maybe
listening to the chazan say "nakdishach" or "nekadesh" wasn't enough
to get our attention; therefore the minhag became that everyone should
say it themselves as a way to get ourselves ready to recite kedusha.]

(And the Aruch Hashulchan continues to explain the two tzedadim
regarding whether the tzibur should say "l'umasam baruch yomeiru" and
"u'vdivrei kadshecha kasu laimor", ayin sham.)

KT and GS,

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:33:34 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Ten Tribes (was Yovel)

In response to RKM about how the 10 tribes became "unJewish."
I do not usually quote Torah from the JPOST, but this was a quick google
and right on point from R. Shlomo Brody. No time to look for more right
now, but this should be good for a start.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

Ask the Rabbi: Am I Jewish or not?
09/11/2007 11:58 

While a rabbi vouched for my halachic Jewishness, the tricky part is that although my mother was born Jewish, she converted to Christianity before my birth.
Q I am an American immigrant and am engaged to an Israeli. A Conservative
rabbi vouched for my halachic Jewishness since I was born to a Jewish
mother. The tricky part is that although my mother was born Jewish, she
converted to Christianity well before my birth. I was raised Catholic -
from baptism through confirmation - but my mother later allowed me to
practice Judaism with friends and their families. Am I Jewish? A Mazal tov!
I wish you both happiness together here. Frequent apostasies to other
religions, sometimes willful but frequently forced, propelled the status of
apostates into one of medieval Jewry's most significant controversies.
Scholars struggled to define Jewishness in a manner that recognized the
sociological implications of apostasy but preserved the inborn nature of
Jewish identity. Three major positions developed in rabbinic sources. The
first contended that an apostate loses his status as a Jew. These scholars
highlighted the talmudic declaration proclaim
 ing descendents of the Ten Lost Tribes as gentiles (Yevamot 17a).
 Accordingly, once apostates become "completely absorbed into their
 surroundings," they lose their Jewish status. The apostate's total
 assimilation into gentile society nullifies his legal connection to
 Judaism. Consequently, a deserted spouse does not require a get (divorce
 writ) to remarry, since their initial marriage automatically dissolves.
 Despite this potential benefit, the vast majority of scholars contended
 that apostasy cannot rescindJewish identity. Regarding the national sin of
 the golden calf, the Talmud declares, "Even though [the people] have
 sinned, they are still [called] Israel" (Sanhedrin 44a). Rashi (1040-1105)
 transforms this principle to apply to individual sinners as well. The
 Talmud, Rashi and Maimonides claim, rules that even a convert (ger) who
 later adopts a different religion retains his status as a Jew (Yevamot
 47b). While the Lost Tribes represent a unique case addressing the histo
 ric exile of a mass community, individuals maintain their inalienable
 Jewish identity. An apostate, no matter how distant he becomes from the
 people and its traditions, remains legally a part of the Jewish nation.
 Yet this does not necessarily mean "once a Jew, always a Jew." Many
 scholars took a middle position by agreeing with Rashi regarding matters
 of personal status, but claiming that the apostate loses other legal
 privileges. As Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein and Prof. Ya'acov Blidstein have
 documented, several medieval rabbis ruled that an apostate loses his
 inheritance rights, while others permitted Jews to charge him interest for
 loans, usually prohibited to fellow Jews. In other words, an apostate can
 retain his rank as a Jew for certain purposes, but lose it for others.
 Nonetheless, regarding the central question of their personal status, most
 scholars ruled that the apostate retains his Jewishness. This position
 eased the path for apostates to repent. Especially in ca
 ses of forced conversions, rabbis permitted remorseful apostates toreturn
 to the community immediately, at most requiring a symbolic immersion in
 the mikve or minor penitent actions. This ruling, however, sometimes
 tragically stranded women as agunot (abandoned wives unable to marry),
 since their still technically Jewish husbands, fully absorbed into the
 frequently hostile non-Jewish society, would not issue them a formal
 divorce allowing them to remarry. A few sages took an interesting fourth
 position that directly addresses your question. They contended that while
 the apostate remains a Jew, we treat his children as gentiles. This
 position, sometimes attributed to the author of Halachot Gedolot (eighth
 century), might stem from the child's assimilation at birth into gentile
 culture. R. Ya'acov ibn Habib (16th century) gave a different explanation,
 postulating that while the apostate was "conceived and born in holiness"
 to faithful Jews, his children, offspring of sinners, 
 were not. Yet few accepted this opinion, contending that the "holiness" of
 Jewish identity granted at birth stems from formal biological criteria,
 not the spiritual commitment of the parents. As long as their biological
 mother was born Jewish, the children of apostates retain their legal
 Jewish identity, and require no formal conversion process should they
 return to the fold (Pit'hei Teshuva YD 268:10). If the details you provide
 are accurate, then the overwhelming majority of rabbis would affirm your
 Jewishness. One notable exception is Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who ruled that
 a child born to a non-Jewish father and an apostate mother requires full
 conversion (Igrot Moshe EH 1:8). Although Rabbi Feinstein creatively
 advocates this position in a fascinating excursus (Dibrot Moshe Yevamot
 1:13), the rabbinic consensus rejects this opinion (Tzitz Eliezer 13:93).
 Therefore, your case will thankfully not erupt into a dispute between
 different denominations. As someone born into the
  Catholic community, however, you will need to prove your mother's
  Jewishness. As with all cases of personal status, you should consult with
  a local rabbi to certify your Jewish pedigree and prevent any future
  doubts regarding your status. The writer, a rabbi, is the on-line editor
  of TraditionOnline.org and teaches in Jerusalem, where he is pursuing a
  doctorate in Jewish philosophy at Hebrew University.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 20:13:26 GMT
Re: [Avodah] loshon of the gemorrah/kol mi she'omer

R' Harvey Benton wrote:

> the gemorrah loshon is "kol mi she' omer"....that dovid didn't
> sin, etc, ela only toeh....

My thoughts have been similar to RHB's, but I focused on a different part
of that quote. Namely: "Aino elah toeh -- he is merely mistaken." It does
not say that such a person is *wrong*. One who says David sinned is *not*
wrong, but he *is* mistaken.

In other words, one who says such a thing is making a mistake. There are
several possibilities what that mistake is. Perhaps the mistake is that he
shouldn't say such a thing, even if it is true. Or maybe is it somewhat
true, but not to the extent that this person is making it out to be. In any
case, the person is making a mistake, but he's not flat-out wrong.

Akiva Miller

57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 20:06:30 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Pas Akum and Shabbos

R' Yitzchok Levine quoted from

> One should try not to buy pas akum foods 26 (even for a
> snack) 27 out of honor for Shabbos, 28 even if one normally
> eats it during the week.
> 26 Magen Avraham 242:4, Elya Rabbah 10, Shulchan Aruch Harav 12,
>    Chai Adom Shabbos 1:4, Chesed L'alafim 3, Mishnah Berurah 6.
> 27 Shar Ha'tzyion 18.
> 28 Elya Rabbah 10.

I would hope that NONE of us "normally eat pas akum foods during the week". We might eat pas palter, but as far as I know, pas akum is assur.

The M"A referred to mentions neither pas akum nor pas palter, but does
mention eating "pas kasher" rather than "pas acher". Ditto for Elya Rabbah.
No problem; I presume that this is how they referred to pas yisrael and pas
palter, and I would not dare accuse them of allowing pas akum into the

Sh"A Harav doesn't even use those terms. He says to make homemade bread,
"and not to get bread from the market like on other days." If there were no
Jewish bakeries in his area, then it is again a pas yisrael vs. pas palter
issue. But if he *did* have Jewish bakeries, then he seems to be advocating
for homemade bread, and not even bread from the Jewish bakery is good
enough for Shabbos.

The Chayei Adam explicitly says to use "pas yisrael" rather than "pas palter". (He also advocates homemade bread.) The M"B says pretty much the same thing.

I'm omitting the Chesed L'alafim only because I'm not familiar with it and do not have a copy.

The Shaar Hatziyun seems to be somewhat misquoted, or perhaps my MB has a
typo. My version of the Shaar Hatziun says that according to all of the
above, "even during the meal it is proper to be careful." I would
understand this as meaning that one might think that only the bread used
for Hamotzi and/or for Lechem Mishneh should be superior, but the bread one
eats during the meal can be ordinary. The point of the Shaar Hatziyun is
that even during the meal it is proper to be careful about this. I can
easily see extrapolating from this, to say that the foods one eats as a
snack on Shabbos should also be superior, even though they are not for
Hamotzi or Lechem Mishneh. But that's *not* what the Shaar Hatziun actually
said, unless the author's editions had the words "even *not* during the

It is very disappointing and troubling to see pas palter being referred to as pas akum. I'll stop here, before my yetzer hara starts ranting.

Akiva Miller

57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 23:18:25 EDT
Re: [Avodah] loshon of the gemorrah/kol mi she'omer

From: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>

the  gemorrah loshon is "kol mi she' omer"....that dovid didn't sin, etc, 
only toeh....
the gemorah does not say that dovid, and shlomo, etc did  not sin, 
because the loshon and tone of the novi, is that they did  definitely sin 
(otherwise why the rebuke from the novi re: batsheva, and his  first-
born dying, etc???)
however, the gemorro is teaching us  perhaps, that, on our level, 
"kol mi she' omer" whoever "says" that they  sinned, is mistaken, 
because on our level we dont' really understand what  their sin was....
and are therefore unable to say it 
(eg, above out pay  grades, but not above the novi's pay grade....)
otherwise, how to  explain this discrepancy from novi to gemmorrah??

You are concentrating on "whoever says" but the part you should  
concentrate on is "he didn't sin."  The Gemara is not addressing  the issue of whether 
a person should give voice to his thoughts.
Your main question has already been asked and answered on Avodah more than  
once, but it's easier for me to summarize the answer than to find the old 
thread  in the archives.
"Whoever says Dovid sinned is mistaken"  MEANS "Whoever thinks that  Dovid 
committed the sin that a simple reading of the pesukim would imply --  i.e., 
whoever thinks he committed the sin of adultery -- is mistaken."  
Batsheva wasn't married because her husband had given her a get before he  
went off to war, as all Jewish soldiers did back then, to prevent questions 
of  agunah from arising.
At the same time, it is glaringly obvious from the sharp words of Nasan  
Hanavi that even if Dovid didn't technically sin, what he did was nevertheless 
 very wrong, especially for a man on his madreiga.  He had used a halachic  
technicality to take another man's wife "legally."  (He then sent the man  
into the most dangerous part of the battle in order to get him killed in  
battle, but as king he had the technical right to send any soldier wherever he 
 wanted; additionally the man was chayav misah because he had disobeyed the 
 king's orders -- although I'll admit that whole case is cloudy, hard to  
understand and hard to justify.)
From the navi's words, and most of all from Dovid's response to Nasan  and 
his lifelong remorse and emotional Tehillim of repentance, it is  obvious 
that "he didn't sin" is not meant literally.  Dovid said to  Nasan, "Chatasi 
So you have to understand what the Gemara means when it says "he  didn't 
sin."   People who have learned a lot of Gemara, like people  who have read a 
lot of any given literature, pick up a sense of what words  and phrases 
mean.  Like when somebody says, "Well blow me  down!   You could knock me over 
with a feather!" -- an  overly literal reading would lead to a 
misunderstanding.  You might  try to blow the guy down or push him down with a feather, 
and then accuse him of  lying if he remained standing.  So, an overly literal 
reading  of the  Gemara leads to many questions that would be easily 
resolved or not even arise  if people just had a feel for the flow of language.
--Toby Katz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 10:12:27 -0400
Re: [Avodah] The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi


<<Is there any ikkar, any belief, that the Rambam holds, which are not 
on clear sources?>>

They're not all coherent outside of the Aristotelian framework.  For 
example, I don't know what the ikkar asserting God's simplicity means.  
See, in Hilary Putnam's book "Ethics Without Ontology", the chapter 
entitled "Objectivity Without Objects".

David Riceman

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 14:24:04 -0400
[Avodah] TWO CHIDDUSHIM Chukas & Balak

   "You won?t go broke if you follow the chok, but if you don?t keep trying, you?ll keep on dying."

Regarding the mystery of the para aduma whereby the ashes purify the defiled and defile the pure, I have given the following analogy
to my classes. If in the 17th century doctors were told there was a machine that gives off invisible rays and if you stand in front of it
for any length of time, it will kill you, the doctors would have you committed to a mental hospital. Well, fast forward...such a machine
indeed exists. X-Rays are invisible. For a sick people who have cancer, the invisible rays can save their lives. For healthy people, the
invisible rays can kill. Very interesting parallel to the mystery of the para aduma.  

We see in this week's portion that Bil'am strikes his donkey three times,
until God gives the power of speech to the donkey,			   
				 who castigates Bil'am for his evil. Then
God opens the eyes of Bil'am allowing him to see the angel, and Bil'am
confesses his iniquity. 						   
								    I can't
help but notice an amazing parallel to the previous sidra Chukas. [Moshe
also strikes the first rock once (Shmos:17:6)				   
		   and this time twice (Bamidbar 20:11) making a total of
three times].  Moshe is supposed to speak to the rock but instead,	   
							  he strikes it and
then the water pours forth. Bil'am strikes the donkey three times and (as
Moshe was supposed to have spoken					   
	 to the rock), the donkey speaks to Bil'am. One of the main reasons
given for Moshe's sin was that had he spoken to the rock as		   
				God commanded, it would have been a much
 Kiddush HaShem. Also, we get more with words (reasoning and communication)
						than with violence
 (striking). So as it turns out in the Sidra Balak, the donkey is the one
 who sanctifies God and teaches us the power of speech. 		   
	This is one animal that's far from dumb!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 300px-Red_Angus_Heifer.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27294 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 123

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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

< Previous Next >