Volume 31: Number 69
Tue, 16 Apr 2013
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <r...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:43:20 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rebbi Akiva, Rabbon Gamliel, Who Brings the
R. Meir Rabi wrote:<And I note finally, that this is quite peripheral to
my main analysis, that RG did not have the power nor did he even want RY,
to actually be Mechallel YK. [Which is the main underlying theme of this
discussion - is the individual responsible for his actions even when he
follows the ruling of BD. In other words, Who brings the Chatos? and
consequently can the BD compel compliance with their ruling? It does not
make much sense that the BD can coerce people to follow their Pesak and
then those same people must bring their own Chatos when BD realise that
they have erred in their ruling] Thus RG decree was a request, a request
that he knew would be honoured, just as RG knew that RY would honour him
even without a request or a decree, and had no fear that RY might publicly
display that he held that day to NOT be YK.> I believe the question
of "who brings the chatos" is irrelevant to the dispute between RG and RY.
As is clear from the g'mara in Horayos, if
an individual knows that BD is mistaken, but follows them anyway, he
neither is included in BD's par he'leim davar, should the conditions for
it be fulfilled, nor does he bring an individual chatas: the former,
because he did not accept the p'sak of BD, and the latter, because he is a
meizid, and chatas is only for shogeig. The din that he brings a chatas
yachid applies only when he ended up following BD not because of them, but
because of a shogeig on his part; e.g., BD incorrectly paskened a certain
type of cheilev to be permitted, and an individual who knew them to be
wrong ate such cheilev because he mistook it to be a piece of shuman. In
other words, he brings a chatas yachid only if what he did would require
him to bring one even if BD had not rendered its p'sak. Furthermore,
the only matters which can generate a par he'lem davar are questions of
permissibility, not of obligation. There exists no circumstance b'chol
haTorah in which an act is obligatory, and fa
ilure to do that act leads to a chatas. As for RY, we find that he was
"meitzar." The Talmud, however, does not specify that his anguish was the
necessity of violating YK l'shitaso. Perhaps his tza'ar was at being put
into a position of having to disobey the nasi, since he thought (until RA
convinced him otherwise) that he could not obey without chillul YK. After
all, until his conversation with RA, it was a classic case of divrei haRav
v'divrei hatalmid; could RY possibly have contemplated violating YK just
to obey RG? EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130415/d06b4090/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:12:24 GMT
Subject: [Avodah] Opening Yahadus to ridicule
In the thread titled "Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah", R' Micha Berger asked:
> I'm wondering how it's mutar to open Yahadus to ridicule rather
> than stay at home, though.
What does is mean to "open Yahadus to ridicule"? In what cases is it assur?
Don't misunderstand me: I do understand the idea that we don't want to
create any PR problems. But how do we reconcile that with the Rama in O"C
1:1, that we must do our mitzvos and not worry about those who would laugh
at us?
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Weird spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes?
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/516c5f8688d065f851f84st01vuc
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:52:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Quick question wrt birchas hagomel and Korban
R' Mordechai Cohen asked:
> most rishonim hold that Korban todah is obligatory (and that
> KT is replaced by b'gomel)
> ...
> Also, if flying is so 'dangerous' that it requires a b'gomel -
> why is it mutar for vacation, etc
> (it's true that one may travel for parnassa/mitzvah ie sailors,
> but why is it mutar for vacation, etc)
> I know that many hold we do not say BG for flying, but my
> question is on those (r'moshe etc and the minhag haolam) who
> hold that we do say it.
Let's get away from modern airplanes for a moment. Back in Chazal's day,
when people used boats to cross the sea, and I presume they would bring a
Korban Todah (and later, Birkas Hagomel) after doing so -- were pleasure
trips allowed?
http://w
ww.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0303/q_n_a.html mentions ancient
Romans who went touring in Egypt 2000 years ago. I would easily imagine
that the wealthy of Alexandria went in the other direction too. Mutar or
not?
Remember the famous question of two people in the desert with only a small
amount of water. Are we to presume that they *must* have been on their way
to do a mitzvah?
My guess to all of the above is that these trips are allowed, despite the
obligations of Todah/Gomel. Halacha does forbid us to do things that are
dangerous, but I think that prohibition requires a relatively high level of
danger, while Todah/Gomel kicks in at a relatively low level of danger. But
I have no evidence to support these guesses.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:47:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] kinyan hagbaah
On 15/04/2013 7:20 AM, Akiva Blum wrote:
>> On 14/04/2013 1:26 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 14, 2013, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>> No. You have no baalus on them at all. People can't take them
>>>> from you, not because they're yours, but because they're physically
>>>> in your possession. If someone did take something from your cart do
>>>> you really imagine you'd have recourse to a court or a beis din?!
>>> However, taking them from another person should still be assur
>>> because of v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha, no?
> Oni hamehapech bechararah?
Either one of these. But how is it relevant? Neither one has anything
to do with baalus.
--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:44:05 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] kinyan hagbaah
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:47:58PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 15/04/2013 7:20 AM, Akiva Blum wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2013 1:26 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>>>> However, taking them from another person should still be assur
>>>> because of v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha, no?
>> Oni hamehapech bechararah?
> Either one of these. But how is it relevant? Neither one has anything
> to do with baalus.
This is very far from our first example of thread drift.
So yes, neither speak about when a customer at a grocer actually performs
his qinyan. But who cares? So now we have two topics!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: "Sholom Simon" <sho...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:50:30 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] 50
>Again, I am trying to avoid the discussion whether yovel is the first
year of the next shmitta and concentrate on the significance of 50
"In kabbalistic teachings, the number seven symbolizes perfection ?
perfection that is achievable via natural means ? while eight symbolizes
that which is beyond nature and its (inherently limited) perfection...."
Some very basic discussions of this:
http://www.chabad.org/library/articl
e_cdo/aid/606168/jewish/Whats-the-Significance-of-the-Number-Eight.htm;
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2868/jewish/Th
e-Eighth-Dimension.htm
Then, so too with 50 as opposed to 49.
-- Sholom
-- Sholom
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:44:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Opening Yahadus to ridicule
On 15/04/2013 4:12 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> In the thread titled "Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah", R' Micha Berger asked:
>
>> I'm wondering how it's mutar to open Yahadus to ridicule rather
>> than stay at home, though.
>
> What does is mean to "open Yahadus to ridicule"? In what cases is it
> assur?
>
> Don't misunderstand me: I do understand the idea that we don't want
> to create any PR problems. But how do we reconcile that with the Rama
> in O"C 1:1, that we must do our mitzvos and not worry about those who
> would laugh at us?
Also the idea of kiddush haShem, which is precisely to defy the world's
opinion, to do that which it insists (even with deadly force) we not do.
--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:20:52 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] YHA nidche
R' Eli Turkel asked:
> Similarly if tet be-av falls on shabbat and is nidche to sunday
> it is a debate whether the "real" tisha ba-av is shabbat and
> ndche to sunday or is the "real: tisha ba'av on sunday
> ie does shabbat have any halacha of tisha ba'av
My first inclination is to say that Shabbos is the "real" Tisha B'Av,
because Tashmish is assur on this particular Shabbos, counting as "dvarim
sheb'tzina". But upon checking, I see that this is actually a machlokes in
OC 554:19, where the Mechaber allows it, but the Rama does not. I think it
would be quite reasonable to conclude that according to the Mechaber, the
"real" Tisha B'Av is Sunday, while according to the Rama it is on Shabbos.
> One interesting application is for sfardim whether there is a
> shavua she-chol bo tisha ba'av. Some hold that the entire week
> is shuva since tisha ba-av is on shabbat while others hold
> there is no shavua since tisha ba-av is "celebrated" on sunday
It seems from Mechaber 551:4 and Kaf Hahaim 551:166 that here too, the Mechaber holds that the real Tisha B'Av is not until Sunday.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:46:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah
On 15/04/2013 5:34 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero writes:
>> "Of course it doesn't matter. Ad larakia means ad infinitum."
>
> Is that really so obvious? Let's take my example a little further.
> Imagine you are standing on the moon and if you draw a straight line
> back to Earth you are directly in line with a Jewish grave. Would
> the tuma reach you? What about on Mars?
On what possible grounds could you argue that it does not?
On 15/04/2013 5:35 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> 3. Does it matter at what altitude the plane is flying at? I know we
>> say that tumah bokaas v'oleh ad lashamayim but does that include a
>> plane flying at 35,000 feet? What about someone in orbit?
>
>> Of course it doesn't matter. Ad larakia means ad infinitum. If a line
>> drawn between the kohen and the centre of the earth passes through a
>> Jewish grave, he is tamei. And if he knows it will happen then he is
>> commanded to do whatever he can to avoid it.>>
>
> Not so clear - at these heights one has to take the curvature of the
> earth into account. Zev assumes that "ad le-rakiah" means in a radial
> direction. I severely doubt that chazal thought in these terms.
In what other terms could they possibly have thought? The meaning of
"above" is obvious, and is the same on a round earth or a flat one.
> Secondly "ad la-rakiah" cant really mean until infinity.
Really? Why not?
> Would a person on the moon become tameh because of events on the earth?
Why not? What is difficult about this?
> In a similar situation many poskim say that for Pesach "ma-shehu"
> cant be taken literally. A minuscule amount of chametz is present
> in everything.
How do you know?
> Those who worry about a crumb in the Kinneret reaching there home
> have many other things to worry about. If one keeps an open cask a
> water there might be a molecule of chametz in the air that is
> absorbed in the water.
There *might* be, but you have no grounds for believing it to be so.
Lo nitna torah lemal'achei hasharet; you can only do something about that
which you know, not about that which you don't know.
> Is it not reasonable to extend terms used by Chazal to situations
> that didnt dream about
What did they not dream about here? They said "ad larakia"; did they
not know about high places?! When they said "mashehu" did they not know
about seas?! What is it about an altitude of 30K feet that makes it
special, and something that is not included in Chazal's understanding?
And what is it about a crumb in the kineret that they did not understand?
(Actually in the case of the crumb in the kineret I would say that even
if it were distributed completely evenly, the probability of a given bucket
of water containing a molecule of chametz is much less than 0.5; and since
it's probably not distributed evenly, that probability is even lower. So
while it's *possible* for the water you drew to contain some chametz, and
it's therefore proper to try to avoid that possibility, there is no issue
of vadai chametz and thus no *obligation* to worry about it.
I'd also suggest that perhaps a sufficiently small piece of bread loses the
sheim chametz. It's no longer a mashuhu of chametz, it's just a mashehu
of anonymous carbohydrate.)
On 15/04/2013 6:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm wondering how it's mutar to open Yahadus to ridicule rather than
> stay at home, though.
The first rule in Shulchan Aruch is "al yevosh mipnei hamal'igim". There
is no objective reason for ridicule, any more than wearing tefillin or
burning chametz or refusing to eat pork. This is the Torah, and it's up
to the world to respect it or mock it, thus revealing their worth.
This is the definition of kiddush haShem -- willingness to keep the mitzvos
regardless of difficulty, and in particular regardless of what anybody thinks
of it. It's exactly the same as inviting ridicule and worse by insisting
that there is only one god and refusing to worship the imaginary ones that
the mal'igim (or worse) expect one to worship.
It's also a kidush haShem because other kohanim who never thought of the
problem, or who didn't have the courage to do anything about it, will now
have the knowledge and draw inspiration from him. If he can do it then so
can they.
The criticism reminds me of the people 40 years ago who used to say that
wearing a yarmulke on the street was a "chilul haShem"!
On 15/04/2013 6:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Besides, it's not so farfetched to tell kohanim they can't leave EY. That
> was the practice of the tannaim and amora'ei EY. Chu"l was deemed tamei
Lich'orah, the whole idea that chu"l is tamei because the nations are assumed
to bury their dead anywhere, whereas EY is bechezkas tahor because Jews only
bury in cemeteries, isn't really relevant nowadays, because the same applies
in EY itself. Not only are there constant discoveries of old cemeteries whose
existence had been forgotten, but the land was occupied by the nations for so
long, and they practised their burial customs there, that the same tum'ah
which is presumed to exist in chu"l must exist in EY too.
> and there are only certain situations which permit it. I wonder if that
> includes fundraising rather than trying first to make ends meet working
> in EY.
There is a general issur on leaving EY, not just for kohahim. And AFAIK
the same grounds that justify a Yisrael going to chu"l also justify a Cohen
doing the same, even in Chazal's time.
--
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:29:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] re Proper Attire For Shabbos
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 04:38:43PM +0300, Ezra Chwat wrote:
: RH Vital (Sha'ar haKavanot, the last article before tchum Shabbat;
: Etz Hayim Shaar Shabbat IV, Lvov 1864, fol. [64]a) retells the practice
: of ARI ZL :
:
: 1. to wear 4 white garments, including all outer garments (except,
: possibly shoes). Perhaps an allusion to the 4 white garments of the Cohen
: Gadol on YK. Under-Garments added to protect from cold, can be colored.
My first question was: why the KG on YK, and not kohein doing avodas
BHMQ on Shabbos? Then I caught myself -- RCVital probably required a
white belt as well. (Included to save anyone else my hava amina.)
Michnasayim /are/ undergarments, no? Weren't they entirely covered by the
kutones? If my impression is correct, then allowing colored undergarments
would mean they aren't counted toward any allusion, which would break
the parallel.
..
: 3. Avoid wearing black on Shabbat. A gruesome tale is attached
: in these sources.
: In Tikuney Shabbat Malchita ... due to the dire conditions of the "heavy
: yoke of Galut that that 'our souls are close to dust' ", and allows for
: colored garments except black and red, the colors of the days of the week.
Clearly not society standard where I live! Black is by far the most
common color worn by either gender.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Opening Yahadus to ridicule
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 08:12:24PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: > I'm wondering how it's mutar to open Yahadus to ridicule rather
: > than stay at home, though.
: What does is mean to "open Yahadus to ridicule"? In what cases is it assur?
Well, we know it's the definition of chillul hasheim WRT how talmidei
chakhamim dress and comport themselves in general (YhT 5:11). Unless you
think that any O Jew today does not appear to the masses as an "adam
gadol baTorah umfursam bachasidus". And the mishnah does imply that if
ruach haberiyos is not nochah heimenu, neither is Ruach haMaqom. (Avos
3:10, assuming it's an if-and-only-if.)
We know Zev refuses to accept this, the common definition of chillul
hasheim. So, to forestall reiterating /that/ thread, I'll quote R'
Schwab's essay "Chilul Hashem" (via R/Prof Y Levine,
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chillul_hashem_r_schwab.pdf
>
mentioned at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n234.shtml#12>):
The second sentence of Sh'ma Yisroel begins with the command: "You
shall love Hashem", which is interpreted by our Sages: "Let the
name of Hashem become beloved through you." In other words, we are
supposed to lead the kind of exemplary life which would contribute to
the universal adoration of G-d and which would, in turn, enhance the
glory and lustre of the Torah, adding respect for the dignity of the
Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. The very
opposite of the sanctification is the desecration of the Name as
condemned by the Prophet with the scathing words (Yechezkel 36):
"They came to the nations and desecrated my Holy Name, so that one
said to them, is this the people of G-d who came from His land?"
Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine
Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed
Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah,
then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on
one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the non
observer and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious
insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or
indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, not be surprised reading
the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has
committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering
cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)."
"Better to commit a sin in secrecy than to commit Chillul Hashem in
public (Kiddushin 40).
One man's chumerah could end up being the difference between another
Jew's shemiras Shabbos -- and his children's, his grandchildren's...
and so on ad bias go'el...
: Don't misunderstand me: I do understand the idea that we don't want
: to create any PR problems. But how do we reconcile that with the Rama
: in O"C 1:1, that we must do our mitzvos and not worry about those who
: would laugh at us?
I would think the difference is between being laughed at for doing
what's right, and being laughed at for how one goes about doing it.
There is also the 2nd difference between not caring about my own
image, and not caring about others' -- or HQBH's. The Rama is talking
about having more bushah before HQBH than before people, and therefore
preferring to be mevayeish oneself in front of others over refusing to
do His Will. But here it's HQBH's reputation -- sheim -- at stake.
For "bad PR" I would instead have phrased it in terms of an obstacle
that those in kiruv have to get over, and yet another reason why a
non-Jew wouldn't consider the 7 mitzvos. IOW, a chilul hasheim.
IOW, there is an imperative to draw people to avodas Hashem. And
pesaq needs to take such considerations into account. One can't be
machmir in taharas kohein if it means being meiqil in qiddush
hasheim.
There are even times when we say eis la'asos -- that bringing people to
serve HQBH even overrides iqar hadin. But I'm not making that argument.
I am only talking IFF it's "only" a chumerah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:31:42 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] YUTorah Online - Ten Minute Halacha - Kohanim Flying
http://www.yutorah.
org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_K
ohanim_Flying_in_Plastic_Bags
Interesting background information on the topic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130416/6cd89903/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:14:06 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Rav Soloveitchik?s Position On Hallel On Yom
From http://matzav.com/rav-soloveitchiks-position-on-hallel-on-yom-haatzma
ut
The link below provided by Matzav.com presents to our readers an
accurate and fascinating testimony of what Rav Yosef Dov Halevi
Soloveitchik, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yitzchok Elchonon and
the foremost leader of contemporary Modern Orthodoxy, truly held
about Yom Haatzmaut and the recital of Hallel.
The pages are culled from the now famous and widely received volume,
"The Rav: Thinking Aloud," by Rabbi Dovid Holzer.
Matzav.com received explicit permission from the author's son to
share this with our readers.
The pages in the link record word for word Rav Soloveitchik's true,
uncensored halachic and hashkafic position on the matter.
CLICK HERE
http://www.matziv.com/pictures/ravsolovetichikyomhaatzmaut.pdf to read.
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130416/3b1a30af/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:06:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rav Soloveitchik?s Position On Hallel On Yom
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 04:14:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://matzav.com/rav-soloveitchiks-position-on-hallel-on-yom
> -haatzmaut
...
> The pages in the link record word for word Rav Soloveitchik's true,
> uncensored halachic and hashkafic position on the matter.
>
> CLICK HERE
> http://www.matziv.com/pictures/ravsolovetichikyomhaatzmaut.pdf to read.
There was never a safeiq on the matter, and nothing in the book opens
one.
RYBS was a staunch Zionist. Anyone who read 5 Derashos or Qol Dodi Dofeiq
knows as much.
He was also a staunch halachacist of Brisker heritage, and wouldn't simply
permit Hallel for purely technical reasons.
The sensationalist tenor of Matzav.com's web page leads me to believe
they don't get that dichotomy.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:09:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Quick question wrt birchas hagomel and Korban
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 08:18:28AM -0400, M Cohen wrote:
: Quick question wrt birchas hagomel and Korban Todah
: See http://rabbikaganoff.com/archives/1909
...
: Also, if flying is so 'dangerous' that it requires a b'gomel - why is it
: mutar for vacation, etc
I thought the 4 things listed in the pereq Tehillim are cause for a
qorban todah (and thus benching gomel) because they are a reliving of
one of the yeshuos of yetzias Mitzrayim. So it's not the danger of the
experience itself that includes it as a cause for gomel, but the danger
from which BY were originally saved.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:12:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] YHA nidche
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:20:52PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: My first inclination is to say that Shabbos is the "real" Tisha B'Av,
: because Tashmish is assur on this particular Shabbos, counting as "dvarim
: sheb'tzina". But upon checking, I see that this is actually a machlokes
: in OC 554:19, where the Mechaber allows it, but the Rama does not. I
: think it would be quite reasonable to conclude that according to the
: Mechaber, the "real" Tisha B'Av is Sunday, while according to the Rama it
: is on Shabbos.
I believe this is why ROY holds that when TbA is nidcheh, the Seph practice
of only doing full mourning shavua shechal bo only applies to the 10th
itself. Not the shavua shechal 9th of Av as a calendar date.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony?
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 69
**************************************
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..."
A list of common acronyms is available at at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)