Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 61

Sun, 26 Jul 2020

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Simon Montagu
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300
Re: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote:

> In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name
> of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do.
> E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar
> could cause carrying in a public domain.

What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which
women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause
hillul shabbat.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote:

> In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos
> that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To
> the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem
> in birkhos Qeri'as Shema!

As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is
to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can,
and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko
bakodesh, insists on following Maran.

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000
[Avodah] God?s existence

Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all.
I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah
We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience.

It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al

In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva
beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at
paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of
halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place

I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts?
She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
Joel Rich

distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200722/a15bf090/attachment-0001.html>

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Ben Bradley
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000
Re: [Avodah] Big 3

A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted,
they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to
the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein
adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that
BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are
mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in
the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find
it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way
after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And
points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an
early origin in halacha.
In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between
them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three
different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection
being that they are all archetypes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200722/7ffbba2a/attachment-0001.html>

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100
[Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night

RAM wrote:
In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation
of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was
added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this
is the one I want to ask about.)

> The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of 
> Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). 
> Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls 
> were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone 
> at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul 
> might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a 
> chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal 
> extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva.

<<I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but
I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in
most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service
significantly?	If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a
certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the
city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the
on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed
for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant
for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers
every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the
latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to
get home?  There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how
those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the
dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story be
 tter? Thank you in advance.>>

And RAF suggested:

<<In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the
Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of
anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were
prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with
Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well.
Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the
settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out
for each other's safety.>>

However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the
point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and
doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other.

Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion).  I have
been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which,
according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha
Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library
includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of
early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish
found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of
all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to
Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says

????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+
???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]?
???? ????? ???? ??? ????.

" And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer
of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the
synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not
pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish."

That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people
might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after
shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit.

Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in
sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least
being ideally, said with the community as a whole).  Maybe the point is
that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say
shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but
simply walk out.  However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together
with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait
for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven
shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say
me'en sheva with it.

>Akiva Miller

Kind regards


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100
Re: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night

I wrote:
<<in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author>>

I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav
Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few	Geonim" and
"other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like
Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon,
despite the name of the compilation.

Kind regards



Avodah mailing list



Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

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 >