Volume 56 Number 73
Produced: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:23:36 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A mathematical conundrum (3)
[Ari Trachtenberg Akiva Miller Michael Frankel]
Asher Yatzar after childbirth
[Russell J Hendel]
Changing Kipa
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Frequency of Asher Yotzer Recitation
[Ira Bauman]
Kaddish DeRabbanan
[Steven Oppenheimer]
Necessity of Kippah for Berakhot
[Avraham Walfish]
Wearing a Kipa at Work (3)
[Ari Trachtenberg Emmanuel Ifrah Russell J Hendel]
What "triggers" Kaddish D'Rabbanim (2)
[Michael Mirsky SBA]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 5,2009 at 02:27 PM
Subject: A mathematical conundrum
Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> said:
> "How many days are there in the week? Seven. Hashem made it that six
> plus one will equal seven."
>
> I realize we always talk of Hashem as being "Kol Yachol," i.e.,
> Omnipotent, but am I heretical to say that even Hashem could not make
> 6 + 1 equal to anything but seven in the conventional meanings of six,
> one, and seven?
It actually depends not only what 1 and 6 mean, but also what + means.
If it means concatenation, for example, then you get 61. In a finite
field, 6+1 = 0.
On a more philosophical level (and I generally dislike philosophy),
one could say that Hashem has given us the free will to set up our own
arithmetic system.
Best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 5,2009 at 02:27 PM
Subject: A mathematical conundrum
Shmuel Himelstein asked:
> I realize we always talk of Hashem as being "Kol Yachol,"
> i.e., Omnipotent, but am I heretical to say that even Hashem
> could not make 6 + 1 equal to anything but seven in the
> conventional meanings of six, one, and seven?
I agree with you, since we're talking about the very definitions of the words.
If HaShem had made 6 + 1 equal something other than 7, then that other thing
would be the days of the week. It is a meaningless talking in circles.
On the other hand... Someone once pointed out to me a very interesting
difference between the way the Torah lists the generations from Adam to Noach,
and from Noach to Avraham.
In the first case (Bereshis Chapter 5) the Torah writes, "A lived for x years,
and had a son named B. After B was born, A lived for another y years. So A lived
for z years, and he died." But in the second case (Bereshis Chapter 11) the
Torah writes, "A lived for x years, and had a son named B. After B was born, A
lived for another y years." - without giving the total years of A's life.
Someone tried to explain the difference to me like this: Even arithmetic is from
the Torah. First, the Torah shows you that x+y=z, and gives you ten different
examples to help you learn and study it. And then, ten quiz questions!
I was so very tempted to malign this idea as childish and silly. But on the
other hand, I've never heard a better explanation (or even any other sort of
explanation) for this difference between those two sections. We who have had the
privilege of learning this sort of arithmetic when we were 7 or 8 years old,
don't appreciate how difficult it was for adults for many thousands of years.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 8,2009 at 01:01 AM
Subject: A mathematical conundrum
Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> wrote:
> ..but am I heretical to say that even Hashem could not make
> 6 + 1 equal to anything but seven in the conventional meanings of six,
> one, and seven? Shmuel Himelstein
6 + 1 also equals 3(mod2), gets you to all the other odd numbers
too. in fact. more generally we could write:
6 + 1 = (2N+1)(mod2) where N is any integer at all.
Mechy Frankel
<michaeljfrankel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 8,2009 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Asher Yatzar after childbirth
There are two responses to the question "Why don't we say Asher Yatzar
after Childbirth", a question raised by several postings in recent
issues (E.g. Batya in v59n69)
1) An Authorative approach: We can simply cite relevant sections of
the Code of Jewish law that "We may not change the text or occasions
of blessings from the texts and occasions instituted by the Sages of
the Great Assembly (Anshei Kneset Haggedolah).
2) An underlying-reason approach: We can also ask "Why?" Why did the
sages of the Great Assembly omit certain blessings on certain
occasions. The purpose of this posting is to answer this question as
it applies to childbirth.
First I give a simple analogy. If you make a Motzee (Blessing on bread
at the beginning of a meal) and then eat a cookie in the midst of the
meal, it is well known that you do NOT make the traditional blessing
on Cookies ("Blessed are you God....who creates a variety of cookie
like items").
The reason for this is simple: The initial blessing of the Motzee is
so to speak a super blessing and applies to all items eaten during the
meal. We are not arguing that the cookie does not "require" a
particular blessing; rather we are arguing that an initial super
blessing already made, covers it.
So too with Childbirth. Childbirth is considered (in Jewish law,) a
life threatening emergency. Despite the fact that most people "fully
recover" from childbirth it is still considered an emergency and e.g.
you can desecrate the Sabbath for a women in labor.
Because Childbirth is classified as a "life threatening emergency" one
is required to bless the Gomel (The thanksgiving blessing after being
saved from a life threatening emergency). But the Gomel is sort of a
super blessing covering "all aspects of the emergency." By contrast
the Asher Yatzar is a particular blessing covering the miracle of body
orifices (Other things can go wrong during labor).
It follows that because the woman makes a Gomel, super blessing, this
super blessing, covers all aspects of the life threatening emergency
and no other blessings need be made. This is fully analogous to not
making a blessing on a cookie during a meal.
Respectfully
Russell Jay Hendel;PH.d. A.S.A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 8,2009 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Changing Kipa
Yes, the kipa is a statement. However things do change. Years ago
there was a difference between the 2 kinds of black kippot (velvet &
cloth). Today, the velvet one has replaced the cloth one in many
circles and it has shrunk a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira Bauman <irabauman1@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 7,2009 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Frequency of Asher Yotzer Recitation
Those of us who were brought up with a yeshiva education learned early
on to recite asher yotzar after each instance of leaving the bathroom.
I seem to recall a teshuva, I think it was the Maharil, who differed
on this point. I can't find the reference now. The tshuva states
that the brocho is not one of hana'ah(benefit) but rather one of of
hada'ah, (thanks) and therefore only requires a recitation once at the
morning prayers. We rebuckle our belts at the same time when we leave
the bathroom but do not repeat ozer yisroel b'gvura. You can probably
find many other examples of brachot of thanksgiving for personal
events that do not require a new bracha for each time that event
occurs. If someone can find that t'shuva I would appreciate it.
BTW, to all those who tried to explain the phrase "Shmoy", I have just
one word; Shkoych.
Ira Bauman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 8,2009 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Kaddish DeRabbanan
The question was asked, "what triggers a Kaddish DeRabbanan?"
The Talmud Bavli (Sotah 49a) tells us that the world exists because of
two things, one of which is the recitation of the Kaddish DeRabbanan
that is said after Aggadata.
The Magen Avrohom (54:3) tells us that one must recite an Aggadata
before reciting a Kaddish DeRabbanan.
The Mishnah Berurah (54:9) explains that Minhag Yisroel is to recite
Rabi Chananya ben Akashya Omer or Amar Rabi Chanina after any type of
learning in order to be able to recite the Kaddish DeRabbanan.
This is also reinforced by Shulchan Aruch HaRav who also points out
that in the morning after the recitation of Korbanos and Eizehu
Mekoman, it is the recitation of Yehi Ratzon SheYibaneh that triggers
the Kaddish DeRabbanan.
Therefore, according to above poskim, any Drasha or learning of Torah
She'Be'al Peh should be followed with Rabi Chananya ben Akashya or
Amar Rabi Chanina in order to be able to say a Kaddish DeRabbanan.
The recitation of pesukim from Tanach is followed by a Kaddish Shalem
(w/o tiskabel), i.e. a Kaddish Yasom - and not Kaddish DeRabbanan.
I hope this explanation is helpful.
Steven Oppenheimer, DMD
<steven.oppenheimer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 8,2009 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Necessity of Kippah for Berakhot
Rabbi Elazar Teitz cited the Mishnah Berurah Orah Haim 2:12 as paskening
"that it is absolutely prohibited to make a b'racha or learn Torah
with an uncovered head. " This is indeed his language, but read in
context it's apparent that MB means that when one is making a bracha
or learning it is forbidden to leave one's head uncovered. The
difference between these formulations is what one should do when there
is an overriding reason to leave one's head uncovered - MB does not
mean to say that one who has a strong reason that militates against
covering his head should refrain from reciting berakhot or from
learning Torah. In fact he continues by arguing that if one gets up in
the middle of the night to drink and has no headgear available then he
may simply cover his head with his hand (which is usually unacceptable
to the MB). I believe that careful reading of MB will corroborate that
he agrees that, if and when a person has legitimate reasons
(anti-semitism, fear of hillul hashem, fear of losing job, etc) for
not covering his head, this in no way should prevent him from reciting
berakhot or learning Torah.
Avie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 7,2009 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Wearing a Kipa at Work
Russel Hendel wrote:
> 2)I have heard that Rav Hirsch paskined that you do NOT need a Kippah in
> doors. His logic was that a kippah is not a POSITIVE requirement but a
> NEGATIVE requirement. The requirement is not to have your head bear
> since it is an affrontery to heaven. IT FOLLOWS, argues Rav Hirsch, that
> this affrontery only occurs outdoors and therefore indoors there is not
> even a requirement to wear a kippah. (In other words the building
> ceiling functions as your kippah)
I suspect this might be based on the opinion of the Maharsha"l (Rabbi
Shlomo Luria), who prohibits *walking* outdoors ("under the sky")
bare-headed, but not indoors (see the Baer Heitev's comment on Mishna
B'rura, Orach Chaim 2:12).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Emmanuel Ifrah <emmanuel_ifrah@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 7,2009 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Wearing a Kipa at Work
Regarding saying a bracha with an uncovered head, Rav Teitz quoted Mishna
B'rura, in Orach Chaim 2:12: "He writes that it is absolutely prohibited to make
a b'racha or learn Torah with an uncovered head."
In Iggerot Moshe (OC, IV:2) Rav Moshe Feinstein paskens that it is OK for
someone to work without a head covering based on a number of sources (in a case
where this person's parnassa depends on the job). Among these sources is the
Vilna Gaon on OC 8:2 who considers that even in order to utter God's name,
covering one's head is not required *mi-dina*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 8,2009 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Wearing a Kipa at Work
Rabbi Teitz's disagreement with my statement about making a beracha
when you eat even if you don't have a kippah raises a general question
of whether to, or how to, give legal rulings to people who violate the
law (Perhaps we should ignore them and simply mention the proper way
of behavior OR perhaps we should accept their situation and prevent
further sin (See below for clarification))
Let us look at some details. In v56n67 Mark Goldin writes
>I wonder if many Mail-Jewish readers in the US have struggled with the
>decision to wear a kippah to work. I never did, and would eat at my desk
>without saying a bracha.
Note carefully that Mark describes a situation where a) he does not
wear a kippah and b) eats. Look at my quandry. The Shulchan Aruch says
both: a) you can not eat without saying a bracha and also b) you
cannot say a bracha without wearing a kippah (I agree here with Rabbi
Teitz). But this person is eating without a kippah. Therefore EITHER
he will violate (a) or (b). His issue was not what he should be doing.
His issue (actually my issue) was how to respond to a person not
following the proper way.
Therefore in v56n68 I responded
> 1) You SHOULD ALWAYS say a beracha on food. EVEN if you are not
> wearing a kippah. So if FOR WHATEVER REASON you are not wearing a
> kippah and you are eating then make all customary beracoth (It is not
> necessary to cover your head or any other "silly thing")
Note again: I was not giving a blanket statement but responding to a
particular situation.
I therefore do not fully understand why Rabbi Teitz in v56n71 demurs
to my comment by stating
>The above is explicitly contradicted by the Mishna B'rura, in Orach Chaim
>2:12. He writes that it is absolutely prohibited to make a b'racha or learn
>Torah with an uncovered head.
I don't see any explicit contradiction. Rabbi Teitz is discussing how
to INITIALLY behave (if you do make a beracha be sure to have a kippah
on). I agree with Rabbi Teitz. But I was commenting on a situation of
not eating without a Kippah. My feeling was that the blessings were
instituted by the Sages of the Great Assembly and therefore take
precedence over the requirement / custom of wearing a Kippah. Rabbi
Teitz's source does not address this.
In passing: There is further discussion in Orach Chaim 91:3 (The
Mishnah Berurah refers to the Baar Hetev who refers to the Bach and
Bait Yosef). To make a long story short you are REQUIRED to PREPARE
yourself for a) prayer b) recitation of the shma and b) general
mention of God's name. PREPARATION has numerous forms including proper
attire and head covering. Interestingly there seems to be a
controversy (Rif vs Rabbi Yonah) on whether lack of preparation
requires repetition of prayer (For example if you prayed in a bathing
suit...should you get dressed and pray again). Here again we have the
theme of legal rulings to people who violate proper behavior albeit
accidentally. If we are lenient (a person who prayed in a bathing suit
need not repeat the prayer) then it would follow that a person who
said a blessing without a kippah need not repeat it--that is there is
FULFILLMENT of saying the blessing even though you dont have a kippah.
I also want to address Rabbi Teitz's criticism on my statement that
"You need not put your hand on your head or other SILLY things." I
should clarify. I ***assume*** that a person who is "embarrassed
enough" not to wear a Kippah would also be embarrassed enough not to
cover his head with a sleeve or his hand. Embarrassment is a legal
concept in Jewish law and true embarrassment has the power in certain
circumstances to remove Rabbinical obligations. (So my issue is "Was
my assumption that he wouldn't listen to me to place his sleeve on his
head in public, reasonable?") Again we deal with giving a legal ruling
to someone in violation of norms.
I could elaborate further. At this point I simply wanted to throw open
the issue that my intent was not to deny the proper method of behavior
(wear a kippah) but rather The intent was to address a situation in
which a person declared he was doing something improper (not wearing a
kippah) and then to address a further concern on whether saying a
blessing is preferable when eating without a kippah or not (Rabbi
Teitz's source does not address this). In other words should we be
giving guidance to people who violate certain norms.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Mirsky <mirskym@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 7,2009 at 01:01 PM
Subject: What "triggers" Kaddish D'Rabbanim
I learned that Kaddish D'Rabbanan is triggered by a minyan learning
both halacha and Aggadita. That's why Rabbi Chananiah ben Akashiah
Omer (which is Aggadita) is added at the end of someone giving a dvar
torah in order to create the need to say Kaddish D'Rabbanan for the
aveilim.
Michael Mirsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 7,2009 at 01:01 PM
Subject: What "triggers" Kaddish D'Rabbanim
From: Harry Weiss
> In many Chabad shuls they say half of the last mishnah in Mikvaot
> (Machat....) followed by Rabbi Chananiah ben Akashiah Omer and a Kaddish
> Derabanan.
> I think I heard it is the Rabbi Channaniah ben Akashia that triggers the
> Kaddish DeRabbanan, so whatever is learned should qualify if it is followed
> by Rabbi Chananiah.
IIRC, the halacha is that the KD is actually triggered by learning/saying
Agaddata - with RCBA being the most popular piece said.
This trigger is usually pulled after learning Mishnayos.
But Rabbi Berel Wein's books..!!!!????
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 56 Issue 73
