Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 126

Tue, 05 Jul 2011

• 1. THE TALKING DONKEY (Richard Wolberg)
• 2. Re: a math/calendar question (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: soup (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 4. Re: Rakia, maasei bereishis, halacha (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 5. Re: (no subject) (Liron Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: Rakia, maasei bereishis, halacha (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Mi Ban Siach (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Shabbat Mincha ? No Ties (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: (no subject) (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: correct intentions vis a vis yaakov (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: soup (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Shabbat Mincha ? No Ties (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Mi Ban Siach (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: your mail (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 15. Re: correct intentions vis a vis yaakov (T6...@aol.com)
• 16. Re: soup (David Riceman)
• 17. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Meir Shinnar)
• 18. nusach sefard (Eli Turkel)

Rb'n Toby asked:
I haven't looked at the meforshim but does anybody comment on how strange
it was for Bil'am to engage in conversation with his donkey?

A very cogent response is given by Prof. Yitzhak Levine in a lecture
he gave in 1999 on Parashat Balak entitled: Did Balaam's Ass Speak to
Him? Prof. Levine says: The assumption that the story of Balaam and
his ass was experienced in a dream, a prophetic dream of Balaam's, is
consonant with Maimonides' view on this event as set forth in Guide for
the Perplexed, especially Part III, ch. 52. Maimonides' opinion follows
from his consistent assumption that alprophecy and all visions of angels
and the like that are recounted to us by Scripture were experienced in
a dream and were not things that actually took place in the external
waking hours of reality, save for the prophecy of Moses. This argument
is based first and foremost on an analysis of what is said in Numbers,
chapter 12, and on his philosophical analysis of the essence of prophecy
and the definition of the concept of an angel.

There are those who would consider this interpretation as near
heresy. However, I believe we have much documentation to the contrary and
it is said that just because one doesn't subscribe to this interpretation
is reason to attack an opinion contrary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110705/73308c33/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/07/2011 6:01 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> In pitum kattoret we say that the ketrorot cam from 368 manot, 365
> during the (solar) year and 3 on yom kippur.
>
> However, YK is one of the 365 days. So there should be a total of 367 not 368

YK is indeed a day on the calendar, and therefore still needs the normal
ketores twice a day on the golden mizbeach.  The ketores taken into the
kodesh hakodoshim doesn't replace that!


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 02:29:59PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> As far as I know everyone treats soup like a ma'achal and not a
> mashkeh wrt the din "pas poter kol minei ma'achal v'yayin poter kol
> minei mashkeh".  How do we know this?

Bread also patturs every kind of drink except for wine, so I don't see
the nafka mina in the common case (where one eats soup at a meal when
they've already said hamotzi).

--Ken

-- 
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/

 The following dialogue took place between RCManaster and RMBerger;

[CM]  Given that certainly a star whose distance is many (maaaaany) light
years away and even a satellite is certainly not in a chatzer hamishtameres
nor the owner betzidoh.

[MB]   How do you know if my yard is mishtemeres of if I am betzidahh? Are
you arguing these are requirements for the cheftzah, not (as the idiom
seems  to indicate) the chatzeir?

[CM]   What I assumed, is that all the avir above your karka is just more
of your very laaaarge extended chatzer all the way up to the rakia.
Certainly the part of your chatzer that is very distant is not mishtameres
nor are you metzidoh. Nothing to do with the cheftzah.

     Cheftza is most definitely a consideration.  The same chatzeir, with
     the same omeid b'tzida, is considered mishtameres for a tzvi shavur,
     but not for a tzvi ratz k'darko, per the mishna in Bava Metzia 11a.

      However, the extent of the chatzeir is irrelevant to a satellite.  My
      chatzeir does not acquire someone else's property which is within it,
      unless its owner wants to convey ownership to me.

EMT


____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e13401eebfb3210820st05vuc

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> why the difference in loshon ( go to peace) when escorting someone away,
> versus an angel, whom we say in lecha dodi, come "in" peace??
>

The last page of massechet brachot says we say "lech l'shalom" and not "lech
b'shalom" to living people, and "lech b'shalom" to people who have passed
away with pesukim as sources. (David said "lech b'shalom to Avshalom and
look what happened...)

Maybe because angels and people who have passed away don't have free will
and can't make the kind of problems Avshalom made there is no problem of
wishing them "lech b'shalom".

Kol tov,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110705/8ea9b35c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 04:45:34PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: However, the extent of the chatzeir is irrelevant to a satellite.
: My chatzeir does not acquire someone else's property which is within it,
: unless its owner wants to convey ownership to me.

I suggested the case of yi'ush habaal. Comcast gave up on recovering
the satellite, do I get salvage rights? Or is it hefqer and others have
equal claim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The medrash says "Lemah hu domeh beineihem? Keshoshanah bein
> hachochim." I'm repeating that -- the mevareikh is the shoshanah, the
> masses who lack the art of blessing and prayer are the chochim. Unlike
> the other comments on this pasuq which make kelal Yisrael the shoshanah
> bein umos ha'olam.

Yours is a cogent argument, so I'd like to offer the following
sensible adaptation. Siach shoshan 'ho'him is definitely the Torah.
The talmid 'hakham who steps forward is one who knows siach shoshan
'ho'him, and shoshan in that case may refer to the scholarly class,
i.e., he is an instance of the class that includes all talmidei
'hakhamim.

Thus, it remains clear that the whole line is nothing else than a
hazmana for the messader qidushin & nissuin.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Frhling
* Denkmal an den deportierten lrracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy

R' Yitzchok Levine posted
From http://torahmusings.com/2011/07/shabbat-mincha-no-ties/
> ... some  kind of source or limud zechut for the widespread
> subconscious North American "minhag" of not wearing a tie (and
> other dress-down practices) when going to the synagogue for
> mincha on Shabbat afternoons.

I wonder if this might have anything to do with another shita I once saw.
Some acharon, I've forgtten who, had held that an avel should not be the
shatz at mincha on Erev Shabbos, but *could* be on Shabbos afternoon.

The article RYL cited ties it to a "slightly mournful flavor" due to the
fact "that Yosef, Moshe, and David passed away Shabbat afternoon." But I
wonder if we should not discount the reality that moods are often
determined by where we are now, but where we'll so be. We have mentioned
this in the past regarding Baruch Shem aloud on Yom Kippur Eve vs. Motzaei
Yom Kippur. I think it is also relevant to skipping tachanun when our Baal
Bris still has a Chiyuv Karays to be done, but saying it when he is happily
yotzay.

None of the above should be construed to mean that I endorse "dressing down" on Shabbos afternoon. But I must admit that I understand the desire to do so.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

On 5/07/2011 2:11 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com <mailto:harvw...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     why the difference in loshon ( go to peace) when escorting someone away, versus an angel, whom we say in lecha dodi, come "in" peace??
>
>
> The last page of massechet brachot says we say "lech l'shalom" and not
> "lech b'shalom" to living people, and "lech b'shalom" to people who
> have passed away with pesukim as sources. (David said "lech b'shalom
> to Avshalom and look what happened...)
>
> Maybe because angels and people who have passed away don't have free
> will and can't make the kind of problems Avshalom made there is no
> problem of wishing them "lech b'shalom".

I'm confused by the question, and even more confused by this answer.
When do we ever tell anyone, angel or not, "lech besholom", whether in
Lecha Dodi or anywhere else?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 5/07/2011 11:44 AM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> did yaakov have the best of intentions when he 1. bought the bechor rights from his brother eisav (eg, helping to save his life)
> and 2. when he listened to his mother

Huh?  Why would it occur to anyone that he didn't?  What intentions
would have been "correct" or "incorrect"?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

R' David Riceman asked:

> As far as I know everyone treats soup like a ma'achal and not a
> mashkeh wrt the din "pas poter kol minei ma'achal v'yayin poter
> kol minei mashkeh".  How do we know this?

Maybe everyone *you* know acts that way. But I have no idea how anyone
holds on this question. I can't ever recall seeing someone having a meal of
wine and soup. There is either both bread and wine, or bread without wine,
or neither bread nor wine. But wine and soup without bread?

In any case, I'd like to suggest another nafka mina on whether soup is a
maachal or a mashkeh, and that is the shiur for bracha acharona -- is it a
kezayis or a reviis? I recall once reading a discussion of this question
regarding hot breakfast cereals - farina, oatmeal, and the like.

If soup (or oatmeal) is indeed a maachal, one reason for it might be that a
mashkeh is drunk from a glass or other kos. Using a keli to lift it from
the bowl to the mouth might be a way of distinguishing the two. But I can
also easily see defining the two simply by the ability to pour it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e135a2ad704e2155a9st02vuc

On Hirhurim, I suggested a "creative" answer and a balebatishe one I
found more plausible.

1- In the Y-mi, a qesher shel qayama is any knot that can't be taken out
with just one hand and outlasts the end of Shabbos. This makes putting on
shoes okay (assuming you don't tie a "double bow") -- a bow can be pulled
out with one hand. But ending Shabbos with a tie on would be problematic.

2- However, what I really think happened is that enough people overslept
and then had to run to minchah for it to become normal to show up for
shul after cutting corners dressing up for minchah.

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

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:29:04PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: R' Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> The medrash says "Lemah hu domeh beineihem? Keshoshanah bein
:> hachochim." I'm repeating that -- the mevareikh is the shoshanah, the
:> masses who lack the art of blessing and prayer are the chochim. Unlike
:> the other comments on this pasuq which make kelal Yisrael the shoshanah
:> bein umos ha'olam.

: Yours is a cogent argument, so I'd like to offer the following
: sensible adaptation. Siach shoshan 'ho'him is definitely the Torah.
: The talmid 'hakham who steps forward is one who knows siach shoshan
: 'ho'him...

If it weren't such a long while later (in email list time), I wouldn't
have bothered repeating myself. But since it is...

I prefer the translation that makes Mi Bon as a hazmanah of the One
Who understands the talmud chakham's words and will (we beseech) fulfil
that berakhah. For two reasons:

1- R' Chanan miTeveria calls the chakham domeh leshoshanah, not "meivin
siach mi shedomeh leshoshanah". This extra level of indirection appears
too significant to me to gloss over.

2- As RZS noted, it parallels "Mi Adir" that way.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RHBenton wrote:

>why the difference in loshon ( go to peace) when escorting someone away, versus an angel, whom we say in lecha dodi, come "in" peace??<

RMNerger responded:

>See Berakhos 64a, R' Avin haLevi. Yisro wished Moshe "Leikh leShalom",
>and Moshe succeeded. David wished Avshalom "Leikh Beshalom", and he was
>killed. We deduce that the "shalom" of "leikh beshalom" is implicitly
>the peace of the grave.<

     One interpretation is that "shalom" is used in the sense of
     "sh'leimus."  The living can strive to proceed to greater sh'leimus;
     hence, "leich l'shalom."  The departed can no longer improve; hence,
     they can only go "b'shalom," with the sh'leimus already achieved.

     As for the question asked, the phrase in L'cha Dodi is not addressed
     to an angel, but to Shabbos.  For angels, we sing "Bo'achem l'shalom."
      Of course, according to the explanation about sh'leimus, it doesn't
     apply to malachim, who cannot improve; and the distinction only
     applies to going, not to coming.

EMT




____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

From: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>
>> did yaakov  have the best of intentions when he 1. bought the bechor 
rights from 
his  brother eisav (eg, helping to save his life)
and 2. when he listened to his  mother <<
 


>>>>>
 
1. Yakov didn't buy the bechora in order to save his brother's life, why  
would you even imagine that?  In those days the bechor acted as the kohen  in 
each family, are you thinking that an unworthy kohen who brought an 
unworthy  korban would thereby risk his life?  Or in what sense do you think Esav's 
 life might have been in danger and Yakov was trying to save him?
 
He bought the bechora because he knew that Esav was not a suitable kohen,  
that's all.  Esav wanted whatever presents and perks went with being a  
kohen but he had no interest in the avodah, the service of Hashem.  In this  
case you don't even have to go to Rashi, the pasuk itself says of Esav "vayivez 
 es habechorah"  - he held the position in contempt.
 
2.  Yakov knew that his mother knew who and what Esav really was,  while 
Yitzchak was clueless.  Yes, his primary motive was kibud eim, he  listened to 
his mother, but he also knew that his mother was /right./   Rivkah had long 
tried to convince her husband of the reality, but it wasn't  until Yitzchak 
saw with his own eyes how easily he /could/ be fooled (which was  part of 
Rivka's plan) that he realized she was right and that Esav had been  fooling 
him all along -- which is why he immediately confirmed his bracha to  Yakov, 
"Gam baruch yiheyeh" -- rather than revoking it.  He thereby  affirmed that 
Rivka had acted correctly and that Yakov had acted  correctly.
 
 
 


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







_____________________  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110705/15d0b547/attachment-0001.htm>

RCB:
> Bread also patturs every kind of drink except for wine, so I don't see
> the nafka mina in the common case (where one eats soup at a meal when
> they've already said hamotzi).
See SA 174:7 "d'hashivei kba'im mahmas haseudah l'fi she'ain derech 
le'echol b'lo shtiyah", which I construe to mean that the drinking is an 
aid for washing down the solids.  I don't think this applies to the way 
most people eat soup.

David Riceman

REMT
>     When the Rambam criticizes those for whom "na'asu etzlam kol
> hanimna'os mechuyavei >ham'tzius," he does _not_ rule out all
> incidents which go against nature.  He criticizes them > for
> believing "she_kol_ hanimna'os" -- _all_ "impossible" incidents --
>  must be true.  This is > not the same as saying all are not true.
>  Certainly he held neis Chanuka to be literal.  Why > should
> "chometz v'yadlik" be any more unbelievable?  Furthermore, the g'mara
> derives a > > > halacha from the incident of R. Pinchas b.
> Yair's donkey, stating that we must interpret an > > act of R.
> Meir's as proving something muttar for eating, because it certainly
> couldn't have > > been an oversight on his part: if even a
> tzaddik's animal is prevented by Hashem from eating > b'issur, kal
> vachomer for a tzaddik himself.  It's difficult to see how the kal
> vachomer works if > the story is only a m'litza.

While the issue of the Rambam's approach to miracles (and what his
"real" view) is a matter of debate, his approach to these stories are
not.

He is explicit in Ma'amar techiyat hametim (Kustha edition n in Hebrewbooks.org)

va'anachu nishtadel lekabetetz ben hatora vehamuskal al seder tivi
efshar bechol  ze ela ma shehitbaer bo shehu mofet VELO YITACHEN
lefaresh klal az nitztarech lomar shehu derech mofet...
(and we try to join between tora and reason according to natural order
as far as possible inall of this except when it has been made clear
that it is miraculous and it is impossible to explain it - then we
have to say that it is miraculous

and
veamnam yit'e kol me sheyit'e mimi shekadam o yitachar lihyotam bilti
mavidlim ben hainyanim hanohagim minhag hamofet veem asher lo ya'amdu
klal velo yitkayemu veamnam hayu mipne hatzorech o leamet nevua uven
hainyanim hativiyim

- and therefor will err all who will err - from the early to the late
- that they don't separate between matters that act according to the
manner of miracle - and these are things that don't last  or remain -
but are for the sake of need or to make a prophecy true  - and natural
matters.

Furthermore, he says explicitly that he is not relying on a tradition
that these things were a parable - but uses these rational criteria to
determine what is a parable.


Therefore, the fact that something is not a greater miracle than nes
hanukka does NOT mean that it occured - indeed, that criteria is
irrelevant - the issue is not how far the laws of nature were
suspended - but the basis for believing that they were suspended at
all.  if at all possible to interprete it allegorically, we are
obligated to do so.

WRT the story of Rav Pinchas ben Yair,
1)  The rambam does not include the use of a story in a halachic
context as proof of its validity - as the question then is whether
the story isactually being used as an asmachta rather than real proof
(and if there is debate about drashot and asmachta, here too)

2) The melitza understanding actually does work - because the melitza
suggests that we are supposed to assume unless proven otherwise that a
tzaddik didn't err..


Meir Shinnar

I was asked a question today in shul by an edot mizrach man.
According to most old nusach sefard (chassidic) siddurim after U-bah LeTzion
(or returning the sefer Torah) there are prayers
Tefilah LeDovid, Beit Yaakov and Shir HaMaalot on days that Tachanun is said.

Almost every shul I have gone to in EY does not say this., perhaps due some
nusach ashkenaz contamination. It seems that in Nusach Sefardi (edot
Mizrach) it is indeed said.

Does anyone have any experience with this?



-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 126
***************************************
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..."