Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 169

Sun, 21 Aug 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:56:37 -0400

With all the talk about banning kiddush clubs (See 
http://tinyurl.com/44qsphl and other web sites) it is perhaps not a 
bad idea for people to be familiar with the halachos of making kiddush in shul.

Please see http://tinyurl.com/3e8xvmf  YL

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 00:09:38 -0400
Re: [Avodah] See-Through Challah Cover

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 03:50:09PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> It's important to excercise the middah, regardless of the "recipient".

> Fine.  Where do we get the idea that challah feels embarrassment?  Maybe  
> the challah is an anav and wants to defer to the wine.

Tur OC 271, citing the Ymi. The MB cites it as well. I haven't
found the actual Y-mi, though.

There is a R' Yisrael Salanter story about this in Tenuas haMussar
vol I. Rather than translate it myself, here is RSRiskin's version.
You'll see I was just repeating RYS's point

    Rabbi Yisroel was once stranded in Kovno for Shabbat. Everyone
    wanted to host him, but he chose to spend the Shabbat at the home
    of a baker who had no children to feed, so he would not take away
    anyone's portion of food.

    The baker was an observant Jew but hardly a man of intelligence. As
    he ushered his esteemed guest into his house, he shouted at his wife,
    "Why are the challahs not covered? How many times must I remind you
    to cover the challahs?" The poor woman, recognizing her distinguished
    guest, hurried to cover the challahs with tears in her eyes. When
    the baker asked Rabbi Yisroel to do the honors by reciting the
    Kiddush, the Rabbi first asked him, "Can you tell me why we cover
    the challahs?"

    "Of course," replied the baker. "Every child knows the answer. When
    there are many different foods on the table, the first blessing is
    always made over the bread, after which no other blessing need be
    made. On Friday night, however, the first blessing has to be made
    over the wine. In order not to shame the challah, who expects the
    blessing to be made over her, we must cover her over until after
    the sanctification of the wine."

    Rabbi Yisroel looked at the baker incredulously. "Why do your ears
    not hear what your mouth is saying?" he asked. "Do you think that
    our Jewish tradition does not understand that a piece of dough has
    no feelings and would never become embarrassed? Understand that our
    laws are trying to sensitize us to the feelings of human beings,
    our friends, our neighbors, and especially our wives!"

And another relevent story, told by R' Frand, that I found while looking
for that one:

    The custom is to cover the challos when making kiddush. As the
    blessing over bread normally precedes that of wine it is a somewhat
    an metaphorical embarrassment to the bread thus it is covered during
    the kiddush.

    The student, who was embarrassed at the state of affairs, called out
    to his wife in a somewhat demeaning manner. "Please let us prepare
    the table in its entirety." Turning to his mentor, he exclaimed,
    "I'm sure that leaving the bread uncovered was an oversight! Everyone
    knows," he exclaimed shifting his self-inflicted embarrassment upon
    his wife, "that we must cover the challah before the kiddush.

    Reb Mendelovitz was annoyed at the man's self-righteous behavior
    and turned to him. "Over the years, I have heard many problems
    that people faced. Students, couples, and adults from all walks of
    life have entered my office to discuss their personal situations
    with me. Not once did a challah ever enter my office, suffering an
    inferiority complex because it was left uncovered during kiddush!
    Do you know why?

    "Because we are not concerned with the challah! We are concerned
    with making ourselves cognizant of feelings. We worry about challahs
    because the goal is to worry about people. How than can you embarrass
    your wife over not covering the challah when the act of covering is
    supposed to train you in sensitivity?"

Gut Voch!

Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:32 GMT
Re: [Avodah] See-Through Challah Cover

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Did MRAH really have to worry about hakaras hatov to the Nile and
> the Egyptian sand? Of course not. Yet Rashi on Shemos 7:19 quotes
> Chazal that this is why Aharon was the one to do the acts that
> initiated the first makkos.

R"n Lisa Liel responded:
> Oh, come on.  That's midrash.  We don't pasken from that.

Good point.

But if you're going to distinguish between midrash and paskening, then I
will say this: We're not paskening a halacha. I'm not aware of any
*halacha* that *requires* us to cover the challah. This is "merely" a
minhag, and midrash is quite capable of being the source for defining the
parameters of a minhag.

Akiva Miller

Free Quiznos Coupons
Celebrate our 30th with Savings. Print Four Great Offers Now!

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:18:17 GMT
Re: [Avodah] See-Through Challah Cover

R' Dov Weinstock wrote:

> It occurs to me that the level of detail dealt with by the poskim
> here seems absurd. The topic is perhaps appropriate for the
> intellectual exercise of a talmudic chakira as to the nature of a
> covering (although it seems to me that the answer is obvious, given
> the objective).

Ahah! So you yourself agree that different people might come to different obvious answers, if they are presuming different given objectives!

Baruch HaShem that we have this wonderful forum, where we have already
explored several different possibilities of what the objective might be, of
exactly why it is that we cover the challah. And depending on how that
discussion goes, the conclusion might vary in one direction or the other.
But the conclusion will never be reached if the discussion doesn't begin,
and so I thank R' Levine for raising the topic!

Akiva Miller

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

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:25:49 EDT
Re: [Avodah] See-Through Challah Cover

From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
>Since the Challah is  covered it is not an
> embarrassment to the challah that you are making  Borei Pri HaGofen
> first. [--RYL]

Is that even a real thing?   I thought that was a bubbe mayse that people 
made up to explain covering the  challah.  I thought it was a matter of 
avoiding a safek and hiding the  challah so that you can say borei pri 
hagafen before hamotzi.  Do we  honestly worry about the feelings of a 
loaf of  bread?


It is called projection.  We, as human being, project onto  inanimate  
objects the emotions we would feel if we were  them.  In the case of hagafen and 
hamotzi, it is not a  safek, there is a definite priority:  bread before 
wine.  If you, as  an older person, or as a teacher, were not treated with 
proper respect, and  someone gave priority to a younger person, or to a 
student, over you, you would  feel bad.  Ascribing emotions to the challa makes us 
more careful about the  halachos of giving honor to those who should be 
You might also ask why, since it had sheltered him, Moshe couldn't hit the  
Nile,   Would the Nile really be upset about his lack of hakaras  hatov?  
IIRC he also could not hit the ground, since it had hidden the  Egyptian he 
killed.  Would the ground really be upset etc?
In addition to the foregoing rational analysis, one might also  speculate 
that inanimate objects do possess some kind of spirit.  I  remember many 
years ago at the House of Love and Prayer somewhere in Israel,  Shlomo Carlebach 
once talking to a group in a singsong, with a guitar, saying  that an apple 
prays, "Please Hashem make me a good apple, make me a tasty apple,  make me 
a beautiful apple that will give pleasure to a person who eats  me."  I am 
paraphrasing.  At that time, I was the only person present  with my eyes 
open -- literally -- he had told a circle of youngsters to all  close their 
eyes, and all but one obeyed.  So I, with my eyes open, was  somewhat skeptical 
that the apple really prays.
And yet...and yet....I have remembered that apple's prayer all my life, and 
 sometimes wonder:  do the objects that human beings use -- especially the  
objects we make brachos over -- at some level really have some kind of 
spirit,  some kind of feeling, some kind of desire -- a desire to serve Hashem 
by being  of use to His creatures?

--Toby Katz


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

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:10:15 -0400
[Avodah] See No Evil

R' Aryeh Herzig (on Areivim):


So he said - in a little twist of puctuation: Every affliction (

misbehavior) that is seen by a man seemingly outside of him (or his
immediate circle ) is really his own.  It is being shown to him because he
needs improvement in this area himself.


An aside: About 10 years ago, my son Yehuda asked the Boyaner Rebbe Shlita
what to do when he passes by the demonstraters saying   'Shabbos, Shabbos'
at the cars on Bar-Ilan.

  Should he also do it?


The Rebbe replied first quoting this idea of the Baal Shem Tov.  The he told
my son that if you are seeing Chillul Shabbos, it is a message that there is
something about YOUR Shabbos that needs impovement. So do say 'Shabbos
Shabbos' if you see a car - but say it quietly and say it at yourself.




I'm quoting two old posts of mine from Areivim, from '06 and '07,
respectively, which are germane:



chevra. It's from Ma'amar Mordechai (R' Mordechai Schwab) 3:81.


"I heard from the Gaon R' Yechezkel Abramsky that when he was the Rav of
Slutsk all the townspeople were Shomrei Shabbos. Once, he saw Chillul
Shabbos. He immediately summoned all the people to gather in Shul, and he
lectured about Shmiras Shabbos. In the distance he saw someone crying - it
was that person who had been Mechallel shabbos.

[R' Schwab continues - MYG] Think about this - he saw only one Chillul
Shabbos, and this was impetus enough to gather the whole city to lecture
about Chillul Shabbos! All this was to uproot this from the environment..."





different point of view. When he was visiting EY, he saw a car driving on
Shabbos, and said, it must be an Arab. Next car, it must be a Yoledes. Next,
it must be a sick person. When it reached the point of absurdity, his son
asked him, you know these aren't all Yoldos and Arabs. He explained, that
seeing Chillul Shabbos is bad for a person. He would rather not see it. (I
may have the quotes wrong - which is why there are no quotation marks - but
that's the gist of it.)






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

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Esther and Aryeh Frimer <frim...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:02:03 +0300
[Avodah] shelo asani isha

    R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer writes (Aug 18th 2011): "In theory, I have
    no problem with the elimination of Shelo asani ishah. It is a birchas
    hodo'oh, if you don't feel thankful, don't say it."  

    However, how do you resolve the Talmud's statement in Menahot 43b:
    "Haya Rabbi Meir omer (Rabbi Meir was wont to say): Hayav adam levarekh
    shalosh berakhot bekhol yom (One is obligated to recite three
    benedictions daily) ... shelo asani isha." 

Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il or Fri...@biu.ac.il

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

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: rebshr...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 01:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
[Avodah] Covering the Challah

Here's a possible explanation for covering the Challah as well as 
answering the question of the use of a plastic bag.

The term "mevazeh" by Challah does not mean to embarrass, but rather to 
belittle, in the same way as 'Bizuy Mitzvah" means belittling a 
Mitzvah.  In the case of the Challah on Erev Shabbat we are faced with 
the following problem.  Even though both bread and wine are the two 
foods over which I can be Koveah Seudah, establish a meal, giving them 
equal status, the Pasuk in Devarim 8:8 lists the foods of Israel as 
follows: Eretz Chitah Us'orah V' gefen ..., giving precedent to grain 
products ie. bread over grape products ie. wine.   One should therefore 
make the blessing over bread before over wine.  If one blesses the wine 
first, than one is being M'vazeh, belittling, the importance of the 
bread which the Torah has given to it.  Therefore, one needs to remove 
the bread before one blesses the wine.   However, one is suppose to 
make Kiddush B'makom Seudah which is represented by the Lechem Mishneh, 
namely the bread.   The solution is to cover the bread, removing it 
 from sight, but leaving it on the table, thus allowing me to prefer 
what I can see, namely the wine. Since personal preference also plays a 
role in deciding over which somewhat equal foods I first make a 
blessing, I can bless the wine while still saying the Kiddush B'makom 

It would seem to me that from this analysis it would be important not 
just to remove the bread by covering it, but also to keep it out of 
sight so that sight preference can be given to the wine.   A see 
through bag would therefore be insufficient.

Shavuah Tov,

Stu Grant

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Doron Beckerman <beck...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 09:47:46 +0300
Re: [Avodah] See-Through Challah Cover

As to the Sheilah itself,  it depends on whether the Challah must be
*covered* or *out of sight*, which is exactly the difference between Kerias
Shema in front of Tzoah BaAshashis which is Muttar because it must be
covered, versus Ervah BaAshashis which is Assur (Berachos 25b) because it
may not be seen. ISTM that demanding that the Challos be out of sight "Shelo
Yireh Hapas Boshto" is being a bit over-literal. The idea is that when the
Challah is covered it is not "on the immediate agenda" so we aren't messing
up  the appropriate Seder Haberachos.

But RYBS held that the main reason for covering the Challah was not Shelo
Yireh Hapas Boshto, but "Ki Heichi D'Teisi Seudasah Beyikra DeShabasa".
Meaning, one cannot start the Seudah before Kiddush, so the foods, if placed
on the table, must be covered so as to begin the Seudah by uncovering the
foods.  The other two -reasons  Shelo Yireh and Zecher LaMan - he thought
were Aggadic. According to that, it should be sufficient to have a
see-through cover. But he held that one should cover ALL the food on the
table, not just the Challah. [Nefesh Harav page 158].
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:55:55 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with

> The Piskei Tshuvos (95:5) brings that Arizal was makpid that you should
> never hold your hands in that manner and it is bad Mazal. Rav Chaim Palagi
> writes that one should stop his wife or children from doing this, ever, and
> especially in times of sickness or the Aseres Yimei Tshuva.
> Anyone who wants to prohibit should view this video of Rav Eliashiv
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dKkwC2YiOw

The only time I ever saw Rav Shach zt"l was in Jerusalem at the Shiva
of my wife's grandfather R. Dr. Aaron Greenbaum zt"l - the week of
Chukas, Tammuz 5747.

He sat talking to the Avielim for 10 - 15 minutes, with his fingers
interlocked most of the time.

- Danny

Danny Schoemann
Goldknopf 41/6, Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem
Tel: (02) 571-0181 - doni...@gmail.com
LinkedIn profile: http://linkedin.com/in/doniels
The End Game: http://expertpjm.blogspot.com/

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:17:18 +0100
Re: [Avodah] shabbas//mishum eiva, etc???

RMB writes:

> I still don't think shemittah is even applicable, since there are no
> lavin or chiyuvin deOraisa that the deRabbanan tells you to violate. 

You don't, but Abaye does.  Abaye uses the language of shev v'al ta'aseh.
All I am pointing out is that according to you (and perhaps according to RYS
if you have reported him accurately), you have to tell Abaye that his
statement is not applicable and/or wrong (as so presumably is the whole hava
mina of the gemora).

> And besides, within dinei mamunus and dinei ishus, beis din has powers
> other than the general ones -- hefqer BD hefqer and kol demeqadeish al
> daas derabbanan meqadeish, respectively.
> Again, I was just trying to be more specific about what you wrote
> about when chazal can order a shev ve'al ta'aseh. Not in a din built
> on trying to implement an idea from the Torah (eg turning pirsumei nisa
> into neir Chanukah or Megillah), but only when making a gezeirah (which
> is legislation that prevents accidental violation of another deOraisa).
> Obviously, if one is calling for the violation of one deOraisa as part
> of a new law to protect another, it would only make sense if the one
> being protected is more chamur.

But nobody is talking about a "violation" of a d'orisa - by which I would
understand a violation of a lo ta'aseh.  We are taking about shev v'al
ta'aseh, which is a deliberate failure to perform.  In that case I don't see
that there is any necessity to ensure that the one being protected is more
chamur is the sense that it is a Torah priority rather than a rabbinically
determined priority.  Note by the way, that this RYS idea clearly falls away
if he holds that the obligation to study Torah day and night is from the
Torah,  because then any positive rabbinic obligation (including megila and
ner channukah) is taking away from the time a man has to study Torah. Not
sure what the case of shehiya versus chazara from which RYS is apparently
deriving all this - but how about (not) bringing a knife through a carmelis
for a bris if one forgot to bring the knife before shabbas?  That is
effectively a shev v'al ta'aseh situation, the bris cannot be performed
(assuming no non Jews around) - although again I suppose you would say that
this is a protection lest you bring the knife through reshus harabbim. But
note we are now two steps removed, not one.

And I cannot agree with you that "it would only make sense if the one being
protected is more chamur" meaning that it is an explicit d'orisa.  I can
definitely see a case for allowing the rabbis to decide that certain
rabbinic priorities, based on Torah values, at certain times should take
priority over performing a Torah obligation (even if it was not in fact
true, it would be a reasonable position to take).  And since surely the
assumption has to be that the rabbis only ever enacted anything based on
Torah values, whether technically protecting a more chamur issur d'orisa or
not, then all rabbinic enactments would fall into this category.

> : > Which would seem to indicate that either
> : > 1- Kavod haBerios is deOraisa, but not as high of a priority as to
> : >    justify a qum va'asei. Or,
> : > 2- Laws protecting Kavod haBerios are gezeiros. (Which by RYS's
> rules, as
> : >    I understood them, would require that there is a deOraisa which
> the
> : >    kavod haberios legislation is protecting from violation. Ie back
> to
> : >    #1.)
> : Or of course RYS's rule is not true, ie there are principles such a
> : kavod haberios which don't have the status of full fledged d'orisas but
> : shev v'al ta'aseh is allowed to be used anyway.
> I doubt that, since he built his kelal using far more examples than I
> recall. But yes, it is possible RYS erred. (It's more probable we did,
> though. WADR to your formidable knowledge, a RY at YU with photographic
> memory is less likely to err than we are. And I mean that comment about
> his memory literally; I have seen RYS "read" pages without the book in
> front of him.)

But you see, the nature of the statement you have brought in his name is one
of induction.  That means that no matter how many examples he brings, any
*one* example to the contrary will falsify it.  That is, nobody is going to
disagree that in many of the cases where the rabbis required people to shev
v'al ta'aseh, they will be protecting another issur d'orisa, so he can bring
as many examples as he likes to show this without proving the principle.
The only way to prove the principle is to go through every single case of a
shev v'al ta'aseh of a d'orisa and show that (according to everybody we
posken like at least) the reason for the gezera is protecting something
d'orisa and more chamur.  That is a huge burden of proof and while it is
much easier for somebody, even without a photographic memory, to falsify it
than for anybody to propose it.

And, as you have identified, it seems to mean that RYS has to see Kavod
Habriyos as d'orisa - so where is he getting that from?  And, at the very
least, nobody can say that it is a particularly "chamur" d'orisa, given that
it is not powerful enough to overrule anything except listening to the
rabbis and shev v'al ta'saeh.  Unless you say something more chamur includes
important principles of the Torah, like kovod habriyos, but once you start
saying that, then surely anything the rabbis institute is done for to
further the underlying principles of the Torah as I have said above, and the
whole distinction falls away.

> : Kovod Habriyos I am mesupik about, it runs very close to allowing
> violating
> : d'orisas.  Mishum eiva is, as far as I know, treated throughout as a
> : construct of the rabbis, and I had never thought about it as a
> d'orisa.  You
> : see, if you abandon RYS's principle, then the rabbis have the power
> to use
> : shev v'al ta'aseh and hefker beis din to forward aims that we cannot
> : necessarily pin directly on a pasuk (although they are much in
> evidence in
> : Nach, and seem fit as part of the moral underpinning of the Torah).
> Lo sisna would make eivah between two shomerei Torah uMitvos
> ("achikha")
> to be a deOraisa. Ben Zoma says "Eileh toledos Adam" is the greatest
> kelal gadol. Isn't he using a pasuq to prove an obligation that eivah
> toward any human being would violate?

Note by the way that the same Encyclopedia Talmudit article that I pointed
you to originally also states explicitly that while there are achronim that
dispute whether or not mishum eiva can push aside a d'rabbanan, all appear
to agree it cannot push aside a d'orisa - so you are taking a position
beyond that of the achronim.  

That said, exploring your ideas further, because I do think they are
interesting, lo sisna would not seem to be wide enough to include akum.  I
was thinking more about the flip side of being rodef shalom (ie minimising
aiva is surely the first step towards creating shalom, the link between
meshum aiva and darchei shalom being pretty close), and then you get into
ideas of shalom bayis (and the permissibility to obliterate HaShem's name
for that as per sotah), shalom within a family (Yosef and his brothers),
shalom within a society etc. I don't know that anybody has ever gone where
you appear to be going (would love to know differently), but there seems a
lot of logic to it.

> :-)BBii!
> -Micha



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:01:10 +0100
[Avodah] : shelo asani isha

RMB writes:

> Who is the earliest source for positing another reason for these three
> berakhos *to the exclusion of* the number of mitzvos? (Rashi gives two
> sevaros, including this one.)

But isn't the classic reason why Rashi gives two sevoros because the first
one is problematic, even if it seems the most straightforward one.

> I mean birkhos shevach that are part of the siddur in particular, not
> in response to an event. Liturgy is by nature repetitious. So perhaps
> once we moved birkhos hashachar into Shacharis, we have more reason to
> preserve saying berakhos that are redundant.
> Within birkhos hashachar itself, the Ari (as quoted by the Ben Ish
> Chai)
> has us omit "she'asa li kol tzorki" on 9 beAv and Yom Kippur, since we
> don't wear shoes. ROY (Otzeros Yoseif III #11) says one does. And what
> about saying "oteir Yisrael besif'arah" without a hat, or "ozer Yisrael
> begevrah" when you're not putting on a belt?

I believe that  those who hold that one should not say sheasa li ko tzorki
allow the other two because there are others in the world who could well be
doing such things (kol yisroel areivim ze l'zeh).  But I agree, ROY's
position that these are minhag haOlam and even she'asa li kol tzorki should
be said even on 9th Av and Yom Kippur would seem to allow other parts of the
liturgy to be said even if they are not true, due to minhag (note however
that he believes, as is even stated in the body of the Yalkut Yosef, that
this position of allowing brochos al minhag ha'olam is explicitly against
the psak of the Shulchan Aruch).  

But that leaves you with an understanding that the reason today men say
shelo asani isha is due to minhag and possibly nothing more.  So those who
say it due to minhag would clearly have on whom to rely.  But there are
enough achronim around who take the opposite view and hold that if a
statement is not true anymore, or you don't believe it is true (or even it
is not true generally on that particular day, like 9 B'Av and Yom Kippur)
then you cannot say it for that to be a highly legitimate view.  It also
rather points to what might be considered a well accepted custom of dropping
various birchat hashachar at various times.

>The Perushim say "shelo asani nakhri/ah",
> which is an old Ashkenaz variant, thereby avoiding members of the "goy
> qadosh" saying "shelo asani goy".

Yes, the Sde Chemed does not like shelo asani hakhri either (he also doesn't
think it gets you there).

As I said, I think the reality of the world is that they understand "goy" as
in colloquial speech and refuse to get hung up on grammatical niceties.
Point being, that if it doesn't bother you as untrue, then there doesn't
seem to be anything stopping you saying it, for you it is true.  If it does
though, then there is enough support to allow dropping it.

> ...
> : The alternative to the GRA's position on the question of emes that
> you seem
> : to be taking is that if the rabbis introduced a matbeiah, then it
> does not
> : actually matter if it is true or false...
> True or false? Redundant/superfluous or not!
> Im saying that being part of our siddur is enough reason to say it, and
> therefore even if you had said other berakhos to already cover whatever
> you're thanking/praising HQBH for, is is not levatalah.

That seems to be ROY's position - although only up to a point, because of
course he won't allow sheasani k'rotzono with shem and malchus given that it
is not a bracha in the gemora, regardless of the siddur.  So to fully fall
within ROY's position, you need to say that it is a minhag stretching back
to the gemora (maybe a bit like a rabbinic takana, whose reason we perhaps
know doesn't apply anymore, but which we are still obligated to keep - bit
like mayim achronim and covering water and dancing and clapping on shabbas
and the like).  

> :-)BBii!
> -Micha



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <r...@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 01:56:01 -0400
Re: [Avodah] shelo asani isha

On 8/21/2011 12:02 AM, Esther and Aryeh Frimer wrote:
>R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer writes (Aug 18th 2011): "In theory, I
>have no problem with the elimination of Shelo asani ishah. It is a
>birchas hodo'oh, if you don't feel thankful, don't say it."
>However, how do you resolve the Talmud's statement in Menahot 43b:
>"Haya Rabbi Meir omer (Rabbi Meir was wont to say): Hayav adam levarekh
>shalosh berakhot bekhol yom (One is obligated to recite three
>benedictions daily) ... shelo asani isha."

The adam gives it away: A woman is included in adam, yet cannot recite
one of these berachos. A slave is included in adam, yet cannot recite
one of these berachos. A ger tzedek is included in adam, yet cannot
recite one of these berachos. R' Meir means that a person to whom these
berachos are relevant must recite the relevant ones. Relevance for this
kind of brachah includes feeling the sense of hoda'ah it implies.



Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 169

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 >