Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 068

Thursday, December 3 1998

• RE: Avodah V2 #67
• chillul hashem
• Re: Avodah V2 #67
• Re: Women and Minyan
• Re: Avodah V2 #67
• WTG, Chillul Hashem
• Re: emulation of avot
• Re: chillul hashem
• Re: thanksgiving
• shevatim, halachos from the avos
• Divrei Sofrim: yet another theory
• D'rash
• Re; Could the Rambam have made mistakes
• Re: Avodah V2 #62
• Re: Avodah V2 #62

R YGB notes

>> In my previous postings I noted that there is a Medrash that seems
>> explicitly to consider Chillul Hashem cheshbonos in Yishuv EY.

I don't see how this is different from the Rashi at the end of Parshat Noach
(is it the source of rashi?)

1. In fact Abraham did go to Canaan despite the fact that his father was
   still alive. So in fact it proves the opposite point that yishuv eretz
   yisrael overrides chillul hashem

2. This is according to your shittah that we emulate actions of the avot.
   According to me this is a one time commandment to Abraham and we do not
   emulate this le-dorot

3. I don't see any connections between what Abraham as an individual can/cannpt
   do and giving back land by the government of Israel. Many poskim state that
   even today one should not (cannot?) go on aliyah if that means leaving
   an aging parent alone. We know that one can leave Israel for learning
   Torah or for parnassah. That all has no relevance to returning land and
   the prohibition of "lo techanem".

4. Most important - I don't understand your definition of what acts cause
   chillul hashem.
   I think it is clear that only actions that are within themselves sins can
   become chillul hashem. For an important person an improper act though not
   technically a sin can also become a chillul hashem.
   Since kibbud av is a mitzva Abraham felt that his neglect of the mitzva
   would cause a chillul hashem.
   In fact the rashi at the end of Noach gives an answer that Terach was a
   rasha and so Abraham was not obligated in his honor. How does that answer
   anything the people will still wonder at Abraham's act in fact they
   themselves are idol worshippers?
   The answer is that if halachically Abraham is not required to honor his
   father then we don't care what the neighbors think - that is not chillul
   hashem!! Chillul hashem arises only if he is required to honor his father
   but still leaves for Canaan because of G-d's command.

   With regard to returning land the rabbis that oppose the return claim that
   their is a prohibition of "lo techanem". One certainly is not required to
   violate a biblical law because many non-religious Jews don't like it.
   Hence, it is exactly the opposite case from Abraham.

>> We should note that in Shmuel II:21 Dovid leaves Shaul's sons hanging
>> overnight - an explicit prohibition in the Torah - because of the Chillul
>> Hashem that might be involved in insufficient appeasement of the Giv'onim,
>> see the Radak there.

   In the same article in the encylopedia they mention that one is not
allowed to be a witness for a case in a secular court that will take money
not in accordance with halacha. However, if the nonJew specifically
requested and specified that the Jew be a witness then he can testify
because of chillul Hashem.
I know of no similar source that one can go to a secular court for a
case between Jews. Hence, I assume that there is a difference between
chillul hashem among nonJews and among nonreligious Jews.
While one can occasionally change some halachot because of chillul hashem
among nonJews that wonder at how a Jew acts one cannot do the same
because some Jews don't recognize halacha.
As I previously quoted Rav Moshe with regard to giving a nonreligious
person food to eat, he says that one can do it once to show that
religious Jews also have manners. After that if he is obstinate then
chillul hashem is no longer relevant

Daniel Eidensohn asks

>> The gemora (shabbos 75a) states that it is a Mitzva to be competent
>> in astronomy.  I have heard claims based on this gemora - that if
>> a Talmid chachom  is not viewed as  knowledgeable about the world and
>> thus is despised by the masses  - that would be a chilul hashem.

Though not a direct answer Rav Moshe has a responsa whether one is
required to become a doctor because it is a mitzva. He answers that
one is not required to become rich to give charity and similarly one
is not required to become a doctor in order to save lives.
He ignores any issues that one should be knowledgable in medicine
in order to be a kiddush hashem.
Certainly most amoraim were not knowledgable in most secular studies.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

>From: "Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer" <frimea@mail.biu.ac.il>
>Subject: Re: Ten Jewish Women
>
>Richard K. Fiedler asks whether ten women constitute. I refer him to my
>articles on Women and Minyan [Aryeh A. Frimer, "Women and Minyan,"
>Tradition 23:4 (Summer 1988), pp. 54-77; Aryeh A. Frimer, "Ma'amad
>haIsha beHalakha - Nashim uMinyan," Or haMizrah 34:1, 2 (Tishrei 5746),
>pp. 69-86.] In which we cite eleven aharonim who indicate that 10 women
>constitute a minyan for Kiddush hashem.
>

Thank you Aryeh

What I was setting up was the question that since the gemorah learns the
required number of Jews for Kiddush hashem from exactly the same way as it
learns the required number of Jews for saying D'varim B'Kadusha why then

A) Women's Tefillah Groups are prohibited from saying D'varim B'Kadusha

B) Accepting "A" that they are so prohibited if only for the reason that it
"wasn't done", which seems to be the reason that it is poskined a woman can
not be used for tenth in a minyon though Rebbenu Tom says she could.  None
the less is it right that we prohibit Women's Tefillah Groups on the
grounds that the participants are doing it for feminist reasons when we
don't prohibit a man from going to a regular minyon if his purpose is
really to get tips in the stock market?
    Dick Fiedler    dfiedler@ibm.net
    Skokie Il   (847) 329-9065 Fax (847) 643-0582       /\
    Efrat Israel  (02) 9932706  Fax (02) 9932707    \--/--\--/
        .. __o    __o    __o    __o    __o    __o    \/    \/
       .. -\<,   -\<,   -\<,   -\<,   -\<,   -\<,    /\    /\
      ..(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)  /--\--/--\
                                                        \/ 

Women are prohibited from saying Dvarim She-Bi-kedushah as is codified
in Shulkhan Arukh OH 55:1. Although the same Pasuk is used for Kiddush
Hashem Berabim and Dvarim She-bi-kedusha, the former is a real Drash and
the latter an Asmachta (Ran Megillah 23b). In the former, women are
obligated and hence count according to many poskim; with regard to
public prayer rituals women are not obligated - hence don't count
according to nearly all poskim.
	The View of Rabbenu Simcha who was willing to count ONE woman as an
adjunct (a snif) to 9 men is discussed at length in the aforementioned
articles [Aryeh A. Frimer, "Women and Minyan,"
Tradition 23:4 (Summer 1988), pp. 54-77; Aryeh A. Frimer, "Ma'amad
haIsha beHalakha - Nashim uMinyan," Or haMizrah 34:1, 2 (Tishrei 5746),
pp. 69-86.] - but it has nothing to do with women's prayer groups. See:
"Women's Prayer Services: Theory and Practice. Part 1 - Theory," Aryeh
A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Spring 1998).

In a message dated 98-12-02 03:23:56 EST, you write:

> There is no source that I know of
>  that applies chillul hashem to doing a mitzva in a situation that 
> nonreligious
>  people don't approve of. Hence, if one believes that giving back land is
>  prohibited (lo techonen) there is no chillul hashem in insisting on this.

How about returning an Aveidah to a Nochri?

Sanhedrin 76b says that returning an Aveidah is under "Lo Yoveh HaShem Seloach
Lo." (See Rashi there for an interesting explanation of the rationale.)
Tosafot Yuma 85 says it is an Issur Chamur to return the Aveidah.

At the same time, Tur Choshen Mishpat 266, based on the Rambam, says that
where there would be Chillul HaShem for not returning the item, one should
return it.

Mordechai
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave

JOFA Journal Volume 1 Issue 1 ... " perhaps the most well known incident of this
type... was the vote taken on January 14, 1997 by the Va'ad Harabonim of Queens,
New York approving a p'sak ... that women's Tefillah groups were against Jewish 
Law...
     "Interestingly many credit the Va'ad with large turn-out at the First 
International conference on Feminism and Orthodoxy which took place one month 
after the p'sak was issued ... "

My conclusion:  This P'sak influenced (though by no means forced) a reaction 
that served to strengthen WTG's.

Avos 1:11 Chachomim Hizaharu b'divreichem...

Many situations have one short term aspect and another long term ramification.  
The short term fallout of the Va'ad's P'sak probably succeeded in limiting WTG's
influence.  In the long run it has probably fueled its growth.

It seems obvious to me that there is a parallel here to giving back land.  
Whilethe short run may cause X, the long run may cause Y.

I can't pasken the issue of Chillul Hashem halachically, but in the realm of 
Machshovo, it seems obvious that Azus Ponim for a dvar mitzvo (havei Az k'nomer)
may cause us suffering in the long run.

Giving back land may make us seem more flexible.  It may also make us appear 
weaker.

The fact that Chillul Hashem centers around Talmidei Chachomim is no 
co-incidence.  It's not simply a factor of their being influential or role 
models, it also has to do with their ability and responsiblity to perceive the 
long-term outcome of their actions. 

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 98-12-02 02:26:41 EST, you write:

<< 
 2. Is there any Gemara that brings an action of the avot as support for a
    halachic discussion
    ^^^^^^^^
 
 kol tuv,
 Eli Turkel
  >>
Do you include zmanei tfila and zrizin makdimim in this category?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Eli Turkel wrote:

> 1. In fact Abraham did go to Canaan despite the fact that his father was
>    still alive. So in fact it proves the opposite point that yishuv eretz
>    yisrael overrides chillul hashem
>

The Medrash says G-d gave him a special promise - perhaps, indeed, the
basis of Rashi at the end of Noach.
 
> 2. This is according to your shittah that we emulate actions of the avot.
>    According to me this is a one time commandment to Abraham and we do not
>    emulate this le-dorot
>

While I am proud to be associated with this shitta, I do not see its
relevance. We see a principle here, which ties in with previous posts as
to the relativity of Chillul Hashem - one might even say this is linked to
the idea of "bittula zu he kiyuma."
 
> 3. I don't see any connections between what Abraham as an individual can/cannpt
>    do and giving back land by the government of Israel. Many poskim state that
>    even today one should not (cannot?) go on aliyah if that means leaving
>    an aging parent alone. We know that one can leave Israel for learning
>    Torah or for parnassah. That all has no relevance to returning land and
>    the prohibition of "lo techanem".
> 

Is there a qualitative distinction between "yishuv ha'aretz" as regards
aliya vss.  "yishuv ha'aretz" as regards returning land? 

>    I think it is clear that only actions that are within themselves sins can
>    become chillul hashem. For an important person an improper act though not
>    technically a sin can also become a chillul hashem.
>    Since kibbud av is a mitzva Abraham felt that his neglect of the mitzva
>    would cause a chillul hashem.

I think you have to prove this point. Once anything vis a vis an Adam
Chashuv can become Chillul Hashem, well, then so can belligerence and
angry protestations, any hafganot that exceed darchei noam, etc. I did not
intend to argue that the yishuv itself was the CH, rather the modus
operandi of the mityashvim (This may also be a good argument
against hafganot against Chitutei Shachvei etc. - perhapss this may serve
as a hetter not to protesst these activities.)

>    The answer is that if halachically Abraham is not required to honor 
>    his father then we don't care what the neighbors think - that is not
>    chillul hashem!! Chillul hashem arises only if he is required to honor his
>    father but still leaves for Canaan because of G-d's command. 
> 

What command of Kibbud Av was there on Avrohom Avinu?
 
>    With regard to returning land the rabbis that oppose the return claim that
>    their is a prohibition of "lo techanem". One certainly is not required to
>    violate a biblical law because many non-religious Jews don't like it.

But these Rabbonim would not be violating that law! Let's say Netanyahu is
- is it part of their chiyuv to prevent him from doing so? Are they
working on Netanyahu's Chillul Shabbos as well?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Saul Guberman wrote:
> 
> R M.J. Broyde has written a very nice halachic article on thanksgiving.
> It is about seven pages long with extensive footnotes. It can be found
> on the Torah from Dixie web page. http://tfdixie.com/special/thanksg.htm
Rabbi Broyde's summation of the opinions on Thanksgiving were a real 
piece of scholarship and very well done.
I only wonder about how R. Feinstein or the Rav would have responded to 
newer historical evidence that the local American Indians celebrated 
such a holiday of thanksiving for more that 200 years before the 
puritans came and destroyed their civilization.
steve katz

>>>I have 2 questions regarding the discussion on emulating the avot.

1. Does it apply to the 12 tribes?  In particular is there anyone who says
that the action of the brothers was  not a sin both of loshan ha-rah and of
the actual sale. The medrash that the ten martyrs were instead of the ten
brothers certainly    implies there was a major sin that waited centuries
until it could be atoned.<<<

The Parashas Derachim (as well as others) has an elaborate mehalech to explain
that the brothers and Yosef disagreed as to whether the shevatim had a din of
a B"N or a din of yisrael, e.g. if they were eating meat taken from an animal
that was still 'mifarcheses' that might be aver min hachai described by yosef
but would have been muttar had they the din of a yisrael gamur.  What lashon
hara of the brothers are you referring to?  I don't think the midrash ascribes
the sin to the shevatim, but rather says the non-Jewish king did and therefore
decreed the deaths of the asarah harugei malchus - please correct me if I'm
wrong on that.  There is no halachic obligation in Shas, Rambam, etc. to
emulate the avos, much less shevatim, so the question you raise is moot - what
we do find is a reflection in Midrash of the unique status afforded Avos as
well as shevatim, though categorically different.

>>>2. Is there any Gemara that brings an action of the avot as support for a
halachic discussion<<<

Aside from the many derashos on specific 'mitzva' parshiyos, e.g. milah, gid
hanashe, etc. Chazal also learn halachos from narrative episodes, e.g. the
battle w/ the malach Ya'akov experiences leads Chazal to formulate the issur
of a talmid chacham going out alone at night (Chulin 91), or the idea of
zerizus learned from Avraham (Pesachim 4).  Can you clarify your question if
this doesn't address it.

-Chaim B.

My usual response to the question of whether Judaism is a race or a religion
is to say "neither". When no pigeonhole fits, why force it into any of them?

Similarly, here. Why insist that divrei sofrim need be d'Oraisa or d'Rabbanan?
Can't we just leave it as some category in the middle?

Looking at the words "divrei sofrim", I'd first ask "Who were the sofrim?"
Two answers come to mind:

1- The authorities who "counted each letter of the Torah". This would lend
credibility to Richard Wolpoe's theory that it refers "to those Halochos that
have an indirect connection to the text without a clear, direct connection".

2- What really stuck in my head was an image of Ezra as the Rabbi-Navi. This
lead me to my own theory, that divrei sofrim was some kind of hybrid -- a
d'Rabbanan, but one produced by nevi'im, and therefor min Shamayim.

Tosfos questions the famous gemara in Eiruvin on "eilu va'eilu", in particular
the authority of a bas kol to say "vihalachah kiBeis Hillel". After all, "lo
bashamayim hi"! They conclude that the bas kol was merely reaffirming the
halachah. The halachah itself was established by the usual "acharei rabim",
the bas kol was only to confirm. (After all, it was "gadol biminyan" over
"gadol bichahmah", and among the first times this k'lal had to be applied
outside the lishkas hagazis.)

IOW, while "lo bashamayim hi" would say that nevu'ah doesn't make something
d'Oraisa, the Ba'alei Tosfos are willing to entertain the idea that is does
add weight to an already existing din.

So why not assume that the Rambam holds something similar, and therefore places
dinim produced by Sofrim in their own category?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5995 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 2-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Some thoughts on the nature of d'rashos...

First, some apparant d'rashos are asmachtos, but some must be true d'rashos
and to believe that even one true g'zeirah shava is a late creation excludes
one from Olam Haba (Sanhedrin 99a).

It makes it hard to believe that the Rambam believed both (a) all d'rashos
are divrei sofrim; as well as (b) divrei sofrim are d'Rabana. (see my previous
email)

Second, there appears to be two general d'rachim in understanding what
d'rashah is. R' Yishma'el's middos analyze the sequence of ideas in the
pasuk. R' Akiva, OTOH, looks at the sequence of words. For example,
compare RY's "k'lal uprat" with RA "ribui umiut".

Then I noticed that RA is also the one who is described as darshoning tagin.
(Although we don't actually have any halachos he actually derived that way,
do we?)

As well as RA and "es". The word is extra, in that some sentence structures
wouldn't require an extra article indicating which noun is the object of
the sentence. OTOH, it's not a superfluous idea, so others didn't darshin
"es"in.

Then we get to "ach v'rak"...

(The one exception is "gezeirah shava", which may be viewed as being about
the interface between textual and conceptual. The GS allows us to say that
some word is jargon, and therefore we can use other usages to see the
implications of the term.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5995 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 2-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I'd slightly ammend Elie Ginsparg's words (v2n64):
: it's not that humans are infaalable, it's just that what they say in
: halacha sometimes becomes true even if it's not.

To "what they say becomes halachah, even if their s'varah is incorrect".

The product of halachah is a system of behavior, not a collection of facts.
I'm not sure it's correct to call a p'sak "true" or "false".

-mi

PS: Possibly, Hashem revealed the p'sak He wanted us to reach by allowing this
mistake to get halachic consensus before being detected.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5995 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 2-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v2n62, Joel Rich writes:
: The Rav certainly felt that in studying the Rambam it was hard to know when it
: was the Rambam the Jewish philosopher and when it was the Rambam the
: aristotelian philosopher.

Rav YB Soloveitchik zt"l ("the Rav") himself fell pray to this problem. While
he creates a philosophy based on halachah, the Rav clearly uses an existential
framework and draws heavily on neo-Kantianism.

Further, I would argue that you can't so bifurcate the Rav; that to him,
Kant's unresolved dialectic and R' Chaim Brisker's chakirah were two
applications of the same idea in different domains. Therefore, when the
Rav writes a halachic philosophy, the concept he uses is very firmly in
both worlds.

I would also have argued the same of the Rambam, had R' Soloveitchik not
indicated such a bifurcation is possible.

-mi

PS: A note on lingo: I personally, don't mind the yeshivish. But, since some
do, please keep it down.

A second note: Please don't assume your "the Rav" or "the Rebbe" is necessarily
the same as the reader's. Such conversation makes people who consider a
different gadol to be "THE" feel excluded. I hope my simple "introduction with
translation" is enough to take the edge off. If not, my apologies to those
who complained in the past.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5995 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 2-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 98-12-02 22:42:02 EST, you write:

<< 
 Further, I would argue that you can't so bifurcate the Rav; that to him,
 Kant's unresolved dialectic and R' Chaim Brisker's chakirah were two
 applications of the same idea in different domains. Therefore, when the
 Rav writes a halachic philosophy, the concept he uses is very firmly in
 both worlds.
 
 I would also have argued the same of the Rambam, had R' Soloveitchik not
 indicated such a bifurcation is possible.
 
 -mi
  >>
Were there any Kantian constructs that did not appear in R' Chaim's(or other
traditional sources) that found their way into R' Soloveitchik's(see-I take
constructive criticism well:-))philosophy?I think he clearly felt he was
building totally on halachik sources but that this was(may not have been?)true
of the Rambam.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]