Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 125

Sun, 14 Jul 2013

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: D&E-H Bannett <db...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:16:22 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Knobbelach

Many years ago, when I was a child, my mother told me that
we do not eat garlic on Pesach because it might have been
dried ina chametzdike oven.

I was also taught to obey my mother so I do not eat garlic
on Pesach unless I am certain that it is fresh and was not
dried. Oh, I don't think I have ever really been certain but
my wife might have been.


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:06:16 +0100
Re: [Avodah] kesiva and tzovea

R' Micha Berger wrote:
:> Ink can crack or peel off parchment. It more rests above the skin than
:> penetrate within it. Would medium be considered tzoveia in any case?

I replied:
: Well if you consider that not to be permanent, then you don't have the
: melacha of kesiva either...

And RMB further replied
>I wasn't talking about impermanence. If ink on parchment were temporary,
>we would have no sta"m!

My comment was something more like a rhetorical question and perhaps should
have read like this:- obviously you are not assuming that the fact that ink
can crack or peel off parchment renders it not permanent, otherwise we would
have no melacha of kesiva, and no stam.  But the Rambam, who is our major
source on the topic, defines permanence and non permanence as the defining
line, not absorption or non absorption - as can be further illustrated by
the cases he brings to demonstrate non permanence, make-up and colouring on
iron and copper.  If absorption versus non absorption were the test, then
these cases would never get to first base.  Nor, arguably, would we even
have a rabbinic ban on make-up, on the basis of k'ain d'orisa tikun, since
make-up is both non permanent and non penetrating.

>AIUI, the most common ways of writing in ancient Israel were:
>1- Writing with ink / dye on pottery -- in which the ink is absorbed into
   the writing surface, and we can therefore entertain our question about
>2- Etching into clay, where there is definitely no question of tzoveia.
>And last
>3- Ink on parchment. But the ink sits ON the parchment, AIUI. We aren't
   dying the parchment, we are sticking a colored (black) layer on top
   of it. Veharaayah, you can take a blade and scrape it off, and years
   of aging and enviromental changes can cause the ink to peel off on
   its own.

>So I asked about case 3 -- the most usual way of writing text by Jewish
>contemporaries of Tanakh. Does the process even allow for the question
>of tzoveia?

>In the mishkan, kesivah was marking letters on gold plate. Either they
>were etched (like my #2) or the ink was stuck onto (but outside) the
>gold (like #3). AFAIK, there is no way to dye gold.

I understood your question, and was attempting to answer it thusly:  while
it might be logical to argue for a distinction between absorption and non
absorption in terms of tzovea (at least d'orisa), that is not the way that
our major source on this, namely the Rambam, goes, but rather he
distinguishes between permanence and impermanence only.  And similarly, the
teshuva of Rav Ovadiah I referred to, brings many poskim who make the
distinction between permanence and non permanence, but not between
absorption and non absorption.  And even when ROY is formulating his
distinction between what occurred in the Mishkan, and what did not, to
exempt the sunglasses, he does not formulate it in terms of absorption
versus non absorption, but application of one thing to another (which
applies to ink on parchment as much as to dye into wool). Ie nobody seems to
go the way of your attempted distinction.

Maybe one possible reason why not (over and above the make-up case, where
many poskim say it is not tzovea d'orisa only because it is not permanent)
is the discussion on Shabbat 75a where Rav suggests that somebody who shects
on shabbas is chayav for tzovea (Shmuel says netilas nishama).  Rav
qualifies on 75b that he means that he is also liable for tzovea, because a
shochet is pleased that the place of shechita is dyed with blood, because
then people will come and buy from him.  But the blood does not need to be
absorbed - the shochet really wants it on top so people will see it.  Hence
(maybe) the Rambam and those who followed him felt that absorption versus
non absorption was, by dint of this gemora, a non starter.




Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:25:43 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Knobbelach

R"n Toby Katz wrote:

> If the very words "it makes sense" can be understood so
> differently by different people, it's a wonder that we can
> communicate at all with  this limited tool we have -- language!
> One wonders how many halachic  and hashkafic disputes have
> arisen because different speakers had different understandings
> of the very words they were using.

My favorite example is more technological/societal, rather than linguistic,
but I think it still bears repeating here: A superficial reading of their
seforim could lead one to think that Rav Shimon Eider and the Shmirat
Shabbat disagree about the halacha of soup nuts on Shabbos: Rav Eider (pg
262) says they may be placed only into a Kli Shlishi, while the SSK (1:61)
allows them even in a Kli Rishon Off The Fire. However, one who reads the
footnotes will see that there is no machlokess at all: In America they are
baked, so the halacha is Yesh Bishul Achar Afiyah, but in Israel they are
deep-fried, and the halacha is Ain Bishul Achar Bishul.

Akiva Miller
New BlackBerry&#174 Z10
Discover the BlackBerry Z10, built to keep you moving. Get it today.

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:31:45 GMT
Re: [Avodah] minhagei EY vs chul

R' David Cohen made several very worthy comments about the timing of mincha
and maariv in Eretz Yisrael. I'd like to add an additional point for the
chevra's consideration, mostly because I don't remember where I heard it,
and I don't even know how true it is.

One thing that I *am* pretty sure of is that in general, the psak of the
Gra tends to carry much more weight in EY than in chu"l. I presume this is
related to the influence of his talmidim who made aliyah so long ago. I
once heard (and this is the part I'm *not* clear on) that the Gra held that
the zmanim for Birchos Krias Shma are the same as the zmanim for Krias Shma
itself. This contrasts with the halacha as I understand it, which is that
Birchos Krias Shma actually follows the zmanim of Tefila.

If I am correct, then in the evening, the Gra would not permit one to say
maariv before Tzeis, even if one would be careful to repeat Shma later.
This would explain why, during my years in EY in the 70s and 80s, I never
saw a maariv minyan before sunset, or even *at* sunset. On the other hand,
they did not begin much afterward, in accordance with the Gra holding an
earlier Tzeis than other poskim.

This theory also has implications for one who wants to say Shma early in
the morning, but then say Shacharis during the fourth hour. I think it is
also very relevant to a discussion we had here a few months(?) ago about
answering "amen" to the chazan just before Krias Shma: If the zmanim for
Birchos Krias Shma are the zmanim of Shmoneh Esreh, then it is very
straightforward that the brachos are simple prayers not much different from
Birchos Hashachar. But if the zmanim of Birchos Krias Shma are the same as
the zmanim for Krias Shma itself, this points to a very intimate
relationship, so much so that calling them a Birkas Hamitzvah sounds quite

Has anyone else heard anything like this?

Akiva Miller
1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual &#34;super spice&#34; control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: saul newman <newman...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:49:29 -0700
[Avodah] artscroll and academia


the footnotes  especially show where  non 'traditional' sources  appear in
various  artscroll works
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: saul newman <newman400@_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:52:06 -0700
[Avodah] bad service

(or <http://j.mp/10PeqEm> -mi)

and response
(or <http://j.mp/12pjIHL> -mi)

when, if ever, does 'bad service' allow one to not pay [some or all].
eg while one may elect not to tip the waiter , one still has to pay for
the dinner....

is there some relation to ona'ah , or if one contracts for a product [in
this case delivery from point A to B] the quality/temperature/rudeness of
the ride are not part of the equation.....

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:15:52 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Ahavat Chinam

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:09:38AM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: In fact, even in instances in which it is permitted to hate another, there
: may be a level of love that must always remain...

Tosafos (Pesachim 113b "sheta'ah bo") ask about the word "sonei".
The Gemara (BM Eilu Metzi'os 32b-33a) says that if someone has to choose
between unloading a friend's donkey, or loading that of someone he hates,
one should choose helping the one he hates, because kefiyas yeitzer is
a mitzvah.

(In other cases, unloading has priority over loading, because of tzaar
baalei chaim.)

But the gemara the Tosafos are commenting on, in Pesachim, we learn that
this rule applies to unloading an enemy's donkey where the enemy is a
sinner of the sort that we're supposed to and even obligated to hate
him. So they ask, why then is there a mitzvah to overcome that hatred?

Tosafos answer that the justified enmity can cause a cycle of hatred.
As is says in Mishlei 27: "Kamayim hapanim lepanim, kein lev hadam
la'adam". And so the measure of hatred one is supposed to have can grow,
"uva'in mitokh kakh lidei sina'h gemurah".

And so, we must control the yeitzer even when hatred is appropriate,
lest it grow to sin'ah gemurah.


Another riff on Cantor Rich's's theme:

People are capable of ambivalence. In fact, in the Alter of Slabodka's
thought, the primary effect of the fruit of the Eitz haDaas Tov vaRa
was to make it so that we are perpetually acting from a mix of motives
and feeling a mix of responses. As Chazal put it, it's not the Tree
of Knowledge, but of Knowledge of Good and Evil, tov vara beirbuvya,
as an inseperable mixture.

Thus RMMS (the last LR) explained that R' Nachman could state "mitzvah
gedolah lihyos besimchah tamid" even in these 9 Days. Because people
can feel mixed emotions, one can be besimchah about being an eved
Hashem even while feeling aveilus for the tragedy of the churbanos
(and everything that ensued from them).

And one can love another or some aspects of them while also feeling hate
for other apects.

: This reminds me of parents who will tell a child: I don't like you right now
: but I always LOVE you.

Off-topic, but better to take the stance, "I don't like what you are doing
right now, but..."


On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 04:07:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: See Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct 
: By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman 
: Shiur #19: Ahavat Chinnam -- A Communal Outlook 
: www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero2/19chavero.htm 
: His son, Rav Tzvi Yehuda [Kook] (Li-ntivot Yisrael 2, 222), explains the
: intention of the term ahavat chinnam. It is not meant to be "baseless
: love" in the negative sense, but love without any ulterior motives -- a love
: emanating from a basic understanding of the Jewish people: 
: This ahava is not dependent on anything. It is like God's love for the
: Jewish people, which is an eternal covenant....

This could be why we say
    ahavta osanu
    veratzisa banu
    veromemantanu mikol halshonos
    veqidashtanu bemitzvosekha
    veqeiravtanu, Malkeinu, la'avodekha...
in that order.

The beris is a consequence of Hashem's Love, not the other way around.
Which is why that Love is not contingent on our compliance to it.


Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:06:11 -0400
[Avodah] Havdalah During the Nine Days

 From http://ohr.edu/5483

Have you given any thought to how you are going to make Havdalah this 
Motzai Shabbos? The proper way to perform Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos 
Chazon, the Shabbos preceding Tisha B'Av, is one annual issue that 
seems to always have disparate approaches. The main problem is that 
the very essence of Havdalah is ending Shabbos, resulting in the fact 
that it is actually recited during 'chol', weekday. That is fine for 
an ordinary week, but Motzai Shabbos Chazon is halachically part and 
parcel not only of the Nine Days, but actually considered 'Shavua 
shechal bah Tisha B'Av'. This means that even the Sefardim, who 
generally are lenient with the Three Weeks' and Nine Days' 
restrictions[1], are still required to keep them this week. And one 
of these restrictions prohibits drinking wine[2], the mainstay of 
Havdalah[3]. So how are we supposed to synthesize making Havdalah 
while not transgressing this restriction?

Please see the above URL for more.  YL.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:12:08 -0400
[Avodah] EICHA?

This coming week's parsha (Devarim) is always read on the Shabbos before Tisha B'Av. 
It is customary to chant verse 12 (2nd Aliya) to the tune of Eicha which is read on Tisha B'Av. 
"How can I alone bear your contentiousness, your burdens and your quarrels?" The connection 
with Lamentations is the first word "eicha."  But the Vilna Gaon finds a deeper connection to the
third word of verse 12, "l'vadi" (Eicha esa l'vadi): "How can I bear ALONE?"  He points out that in 
the beginning of the book of Lamentations a form of "l'vadi" also occurs: "Eicha yashva BADAD ha-ir?" 
("How the city sits solitary...").  (What's also interesting is that the same word is the third word in 
verse 12 in Devarim and also the third word in verse 1 in Lamentations).  
The Vilna Gaon's point is that the consequence of "sinas chinam," is aloneness and solitude.  
That is why one who spoke "lashon hara" contracted a spiritual form of leprosy and was sent 
outside of the camp to be alone and in solitude. This was to demonstrate again the consequence 
of hatred (Kamtza and bar Kamtza).  In the first chapter of Eicha, there occurs four times the variant 
of the phrase "Ein menachem lah," ["There is none to comfort her"].  In other words, Yershalayim is ALONE without any comforter.

Sinas chinam has been on the minds of many. So I propose the following: We ask "EICHA"? How is it 
possible? How do we deal with sinas chinam? Eicha? The gematria of eicha is 36. So if you ask "How"? "Eicha"?
Remember the "lamed-vovniks," the tzaddikim of the world. The only way "HOW" is through righteousness. Not easy!

We must reverse "sinas chinam" if we are to avoid drowning in a sea of apathy. Now is the time to see whose burdens we can share!
Now is the time to reverse the trend of solitude, resulting from the sin of sinas chinam. In that way Tisha b'Av will not be observed in vain. Tzom Kal. 
The enemy, my friend, is hiding inside you?

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

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:21:08 GMT
[Avodah] Seeing the Simcha of Yerushalayim

There's a famous gemara on Taanis 30b which is often translated as,
"Whoever mourns for Yerushalayim will be zocheh to see her simchah." But I
noticed that the last phrase - zocheh v'roeh b'simchasa - is in the present
tense, not the future.

I'd like to suggest that the gemara is NOT making a promise that the one
who properly mourns will be rewarded by witnessing the rebuilding. That
would distort the present-tense grammar of the gemara. Moreover, would we
say that the gemara failed to deliver on its promise to the gedolim of the
centuries, who surely DID mourn properly?

Rather, the gemara is describing the *current* situation. One who mourns
properly is not merely affected by the Churban deeply and personally, as if
he was living through it. More than that, he sees it in its proper
perspective through all of history. If one can grasp the reality of the
Churban to that extent, then he can appreciate the reality of the
Rebuilding just as strongly, and he can share in Yershalayim's joy in the
here and now, just as surely as Rabbi Akiva did, when he laughed upon
seeing the foxes on Har HaBayis.

Akiva Miller
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body&#39;s #1 fat-burning hormone

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Joe Slater <avod...@slatermold.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:47:39 +1000
Re: [Avodah] kesiva and tzovea

R' Micha asked how writing with ink and parchment can be tzovea: doesn't
the ink peel off? In fact traditional ink (which includes the sorts used by
sofrim) has two effects. One is to present a color to the eye; the other is
to chemically burn the parchment, making the mark permanent. If you look at
a sefer where the ink has peeled off you will probably see a stain: this
isn't a mere residue of color, but an actual alteration to the underlying
parchment.  This effect is so powerful that old manuscripts may literally
have holes where the ink has burned through!

Here's is a sofer's page describing ink production:
Here is a page showing what ink can do to manuscripts over time:

All the best,
Joe Slater
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: hankman <hank...@bell.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:38:22 -0400
[Avodah] Kesuvot 112a - Any geologists who are familiar with

On the last line of Kesuvot 112a, R. Hanina is mentioned as metaken
maskelai (Rashi) or metakel maskelai (Tos). Tos. brings a Tanchuma that
when R. Hanina travelled from Bavel to EI he would weigh the stones and
when they became heavy he knew he was in EI. Does anyone know what
geological fact about EI this was based on? Someone speculated this was
because of the pasuk in Ekev 8:9 ?eretz asher avoneho barzel? but so far as
I know EI is not blessed with abundant and ever present (heavier) iron ore.
(In fact the ?Sipurno? explains this pasuk that it is an expression of the
stones in EI being strong (like iron) and therefore good for construction.
Are the stones in EI denser (or of a different composition or type) than
stones elsewhere? Again I have not heard of such a difference that one
could use to determine if one is in EI or not by their weight. Any
geologists who are familiar with the geology of EI?

Kol tuv

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

Go to top.

Message: 13
From: saul newman <saulnewman18@_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:54 PM
[Avodah] sinah

in 2003  r eli turkel wrote here--
> My assumption is that the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza is an example
> of sinat chinam and the individual characters are not important.

why is this called 'chinam' ? when 2 individuals fight and the situation
escalates, i can see that they have sinah for each other , but it is
not chinam--they can each justify the wrong done them, and the emotion
then attaches...


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 125

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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous Next >