Volume 57 Number 14
Produced: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:10:24 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aggripas (3)
[Alex Heppenheimer Joel Rich Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Holiest Place (2)
[Yisrael Medad Batya Medad]
Line jumping at the kotel and anywhere else
[Martin Stern]
not saying Tachanun
[Irwin Weiss]
overnight egg issue?
[Art Werschulz]
Taslich when there are no rivers or streams (2)
[Orrin Tilevitz Martin Stern]
Yefat toar (3)
[Alex Heppenheimer Ben Katz Frank Silbermann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Aggripas
In MJ 57:13, Martin Stern <md.stern@...> asked:
>In the Parshat Shoftim (Deut. 17,14-20), we read the mitsvah of appointing a
>king who shall be "mikerev achecha - from your brethren".
>The Gemara (Sota 41b) recounts the famous occasion when King Aggripas who
>was of Edomite descent (at least 4 generations removed from their original
>conversion) read the Torah at the Hak'heil ceremony and burst into tears
>when he reached this point to which the people shouted "Achinu ata, Achinu
>ata - you are our brother, you are our brother". It is recorded that the
>Sages did not approve.
>Yet in Ki Teitsei (Deut. 23,8) we read that we should not abhor an Edomite
>(and this probably applies even to one who had not converted) "ki achicha hu
>- since he is your brother". Surely this is all the people meant when they
>consoled King Aggripas, so why did the Sages disapprove?
Context is important, no? Clearly there are different criteria for being called
our "brother" when it comes to abhorrence and marriage, vs. becoming a king.
(After all, we wouldn't say that we're allowed to appoint as our king an
unconverted Edomite. For that matter, a similar expression is used about
legitimate prophets after Moshe ("mikerev acheihem - from among your brothers"
(Devarim 18:18)), and there too it means Jews and not Edomite gentiles.)
So if on some other occasion Agrippas was disturbed by doubts whether he was a
proper Jew, perhaps indeed it would have been the right thing for the people to
console him. But here he was worried that he didn't fit the criteria of "mikerev
achecha" as it relates to kingship, which was quite true - indeed,that thought
might have impelled him to do something about it, perhaps even to resign the
formal title of"king" -so for them to dissuade him was inappropriate.
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Aggripas
Martin Stern writes:
> Yet in Ki Teitsei (Deut. 23,8) we read that we should not abhor an Edomite
> (and this probably applies even to one who had not converted) "ki achicha hu
> - since he is your brother". Surely this is all the people meant when they
> consoled King Aggripas, so why did the Sages disapprove?
Because to be a king doesn't require simply lack of abhoration but rather "Thou
mayest not put a foreigner over thee". In addition rashi there states his
mother was Jewish but he was a slave, tosfot in yevamot 45a disagrees. Not clear
if it is agrippa I (son of aristoblus who was son of herod and bernice(Herod's
niece)) or II(who was son of I , mother unknown)
In any event chanufa (false flattery) is clearly frowned upon mightily.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Aggripas
> From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> Yet in Ki Teitsei (Deut. 23,8) we read that we should not abhor an Edomite
> (and this probably applies even to one who had not converted) "ki achicha hu
> - since he is your brother". Surely this is all the people meant when they
> consoled King Aggripas, so why did the Sages disapprove?
The point was that even though he was (probably) Jewish, because his
mother was probably Jewish, he was descended from Herod. Herod was an
eved (slave) so even if he had children from a Jewish woman, his
children would be avadim (slaves). That is, the the gemora (Baba Basra
3B) - the daf of Monday 4 Elul) states that the last descendant of the
Chashmonaim killed herself saying that if anyone claims to be a member
of that house, he is an eved (slave). Thus, it appears that all
members of the house of Herod would have been avadim (slaves). I think
that the Rabbis objected at the time because the people actually
prevented him from doing teshuvah.
I looked up some commentaries in Sotah and there appears to be a
machlokes about which Agrippas he was. However, since his male line
was from Herod, he would have had the status of eved and then he could
not have been eligible to be king. In any case, he could not have been
of the tribe of Yehudah and the Chashmonaim were punished for taking
the throne even though they were not of the tribe of Yehudah.
As an example, we can find at
http://shasdaf.blogspot.com/2008/12/daf-70b-kol-deamar-idibeis-chashmonaim.html
a discussion of this concept.
--
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<SabbaHillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7637/544/640/SabbaHillel.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Holiest Place
Harry Weiss wrote: "The Western Wall is not there as a tourist site. It
is the remnant of the
retaining wall of the Temple Mount. It is the holiest place in
Judaism."
Yes, it isn't a tourist site. At the time of the Geonim, 9th-11th
centuries, actually, the Eastern Wall got the then tourist traffic as
did the other Walls, Southern and Northern, at different times as the
inscriptions by Jewish visitors attest.
Yes, it is but a remnant, a portion of the retaining wall.
Yes, it possesses a level of sanctity.
But no, it isn't the "holiest place in Judaism".
That is, of course, Har Habayit which contains the 8 highest levels of
sanctity as per Masechet Kelim.
And I would suggest reading this article of Ari Zivotofsky on the Temple
Mount
<http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/54428>
www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/54428
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Holiest Place
Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
> The Western Wall is not there as a tourist site. It is the remnant of
> the
> retaining wall of the Temple Mount. It is the holiest place in Judaism.
Sorry, but you're way off base. The Kotel isn't the "holiest place in
Judaism." Har HaBayit is, and it's a shanda, a disgrace that we make do
with the wall to an outer area and allow Moslems religious rights which
override ours.
I have so many comparisons in my head, which I'd like to write, but I
think it's best to restrain myself.
Batya
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Line jumping at the kotel and anywhere else
On Wed, Aug 26,2009, Jeanette friedman <FriedmanJ@...> wrote:
> In any event, Is it right for anyone to be a line jumper anywhere? In New
> York and New Jersey, it can get you killed (try it on an unemployment line,
> an ATM, bus line or VIP club line). In Israel, you expect people to behave
> like "menschen." But you know what Mel Brooks says about expectations:
> "Hope for the best, expect the worst," (from The 12 Chairs (1970)).
That is a source of great disappointment. In the land over which HKBH
watches from the beginning of the year to its end (Deut. 11,12), one would
have hoped that people would be extra-careful to behave in a proper manner
since it might be more 'dangerous' to misbehave there than in Chuts
La'arets.
> BTW, I just love the idea of "prayer by proxy" at the Kotel. Can I send
> someone else to shul for me on Yom Kippur? After all, I really don't want to
> stand through a 2-hour amida amid the stink of smelling salts when I am
> fasting and have a headache--maybe I can get a special dispensation so I can
> stay home in bed because someone else is "confessing" and asking mechila for
> me?
I always thought that women were exempt from public prayer so why does
Jeanette feel the need for a special dispensation to stay at home? She does
not need a proxy to pray for her on Yom Kippur - all she needs to do is to
pray at home if she feels better able so to do.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: not saying Tachanun
I got a chuckle from Orrin Tilevitz joke. Made me think of the time that someone
suggested that the most observed day of the Jewish calendar was not Yom
Kippur--where nearly everyone goes to shul and fasts, nor the 1st evening of
Pesach, where nearly every Jew attends a Seder somewhere.
Rather, he said, the most observed day on the calendar is Pesach Sheni. Why?
Because to observe it, all you have to do is to OMIT Tachanun. Every Jew on
that day, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Haredi, Chassidic, totally
secular......Everyone OMITS Tachanun on that day. It is universally observed.
Irwin E. Weiss
Baltimore, MD
<irwin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 01:01 PM
Subject: overnight egg issue?
Hi all.
The insert contained in a Masbia meal said "our unique manufacturing
process eliminates the halachic question of 'overnight' eggs". (The
breakfast meal contained an omelette.)
What's the issue here? Thanks.
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: agw STRUDEL comcast.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Taslich when there are no rivers or streams
<I believe the key factor is standing by any body of running water and a
hose in a pool suits the job.>
<I thought the purpose was to find a body of water that had fish in it.>
My apologies if someone has already pointed this out--I do not have the rest of
this thread before me--but the custom of Tashlich is based on the verse--which
we recite as the center of the Tashlich ceremony--"vetashlich bimtzulot yam kol
chatotam" [may their sins be thrown into the depths of the sea]. There is also
the verse in Kohelet "kol hanechalim holchim el hayam" [all streams go to the
sea]. IMHO, they key ought to be not a body of water or the presence of fish--in
which either case, a stagnant body of water fed by stream but emptying solely
through evaporation, or a fish tank at the local pet store should suffice--but
either the sea or water that will wind up there. My understanding was that the
presence of fish was necessary only to avoid the problem of bal tashchit
[needlessly throwing away food] when you dump crumbs into the water, which you
probably shouldn't be doing anyway and many authorities have decried, first
because AFIK you're
not permitted to feed wild animals on yom tov and second because it's a pagan
custom.
I don't know about Maale Adumim, but New York City's waste water winds up, after
treatment, in a river (or tidal estuary) and makes its way quite quickly to the
Atlantic Ocean. In my Brooklyn neighborhood, some people go to the Prospect Park
lake, whose level can be lowered by draining it into the municipal sewer system,
although I'd wager that not many of those to do so have thought of this. By this
reasoning, of course, I ought to be able to say tashlich before my kitchen sink
with the faucet turned on; but other than that this is decidedly less romantic
than taking a walk to stand before a lake and detracts from a good excuse to
watch migrating warblers on yom tov, I think this reasoning is correct. (Yet
another use for the good old kitchen sink in extremis, in addition to a mikveh
for dishes.)
I am told that most of Borough Park goes to a small pool, supposedly fed by a
natural spring, outside of some yeshiva, but I've always worried about the
accumulation of sins there jumping right out back at me.
Orrin Tilevitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Taslich when there are no rivers or streams
On Fri, Aug 28,2009, S.Wise <Smwise3@...> wrote:
Subject: Taslich when there are no rivers or streams
>
> Tashlich is a minhag, and as such, there appears to be great flexibility
> when to say it. So, in Brooklyn, where I live, there are great crowds that
> recite Tashlich at any legitimate body of water all during aseres y'mai
> teshuva even up to Hoshanah Rabbah.
It might even be preferable to say tashlich at some other time to avoid
these unseemly social gathering that tend to take place. Personally I go on
my way home from shul when everyone is in a hurry to make kiddush and our
local park is deserted. (Needless to say I follow the German minhag and only
say the psukim from Micha and not the extended kabbalistic prayers.)
This has the added benefit that my wife has a few extra minutes to complete
the final preparations for the meal. (Lest any feminist makes some snide
comment, I should point out that I lay the table insofar as is possible
before going to shul.)
> Given how late many shuls finish davening on Rosh Hashanah, there just isn't
> enough time even if there were a body of water in walking distance.
I strongly object to this practice of finishing in the late afternoon. The
only requirement mentioned in the sources is to finish after midday. Quite
apart from leading to the questionable practice of making kiddush before
tekiat shofar, it places an unnecessary strain on one's family especially
where one has small children who cannot be brought to shul for any length of
time.
For those who object that the davenning just takes so long the obvious
answer is to start earlier. In fact there is an old tradition to start on RH
earlier than on a regular weekday!
All this is especially true this year when the first day RH is on Shabbat
and one has to eat shalosh se'udot.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Yefat toar
In MJ 57:13, Martin Stern <md.stern@...> asked:
>A thought struck me regarding the Yefat toar [a non-Jewish woman captured in
>battle to whom her Jewish captor is attracted] at the beginning of Ki
>Teitsei (Deut. 21, 10-14).
>Since she is converted and then marries the captor, does this mean that a
>cohen may be excluded from this halachah.
There's a dispute about this in the Gemara (Kiddushin 21b) between Rav and
Shmuel, which is recorded in two possible variants. In total, there are three
possibilities: (a)he's excluded entirely, (b) he's allowed the first act of
cohabitation but then can't continue with the rest of the process, or (c) he's
allowed to go through the entire process just like a non-Kohen. The Rambam (Hil.
Melachim 8:4) rules that possibility (b) is correct: since "the Torah is only
[permitting this]against the evil inclination" (to prevent it from running
altogether amok), the same logic is true for a Kohen as for anyone else; on the
other hand, there's no such countervailing consideration to offset the Kohen's
prohibition against marrying a convert.
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Yefat toar
Martin Stern wrote:
> Since she is converted and then marries the captor, does this mean that a
> cohen may be excluded from this halachah.
I am not sure Cohanim or Leviim were soldiers, so the issue may be moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 31,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Yefat toar
Martin Stern:
> Since she is converted and then marries the captor, does this mean that a
> cohen may be excluded from this halachah.
>
> Can anyone shed light on this?
When the Torah was given, neither Kohanim nor Levyim in general went out to
fight in the wars.
(By the time of the Maccabees, however, this had changed, so I guess the
question is relevant
after all.)
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 57 Issue 14
