Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 009

Monday, April 10 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:13:06 -0400
From: "Daniel A. Schiffman" <das54@columbia.edu>
Subject:
Brisker Chakira Concerning Ma Nishtana


<The other day someone pointed out to me an interesting chakirah in Mah
<Nishtana. There is the famous "brisker" vort that one of the main
<differences between sippur yetzias mitzrayim and zichiras yetzias
mitzrayim
<is that sippur must be done in question and answer form . The shailah
is do
<the questions have to take the form of Mah Nishtana and if not you are
not
<yotzei in haggadah or is the Mah nishtana just a starting point to help

<formulate the questions and really you could ask any type of question
<relating to yetzias mitzrayim. I didn't see the Rambam inside but
supposedly
<there are some who want to be midayik that the Rambam holds like the
<second tzad.

The second tzad is clearly supported by the  story about Abaye and Rabba
(pesachim 115b).  Abaye asked why the table was being removed when they
had not yet eaten, and Rabba replied, "petartanu melomar ma nishtana."
The Rif brings this story.  The Rambam (Chametz Umatza perek 7) says we
should do a shinui to get the children to ask ma nishtana.  If there are
no children, adults should ask each other ma nishtana, even two talmidei
chachamim. But the Rama, in SA 473 :7, quotes Maharil as saying that if
a child or woman asks (I think Rama means that they ask why we are
pouring a second cup right away, as the Mechaber says), the words of Ma
Nishtana do not have to be said and we go right to Avadim Hayinu.
Mishna Berura includes in this din the case where two talmidei chachamim
have a seder together.   This notion, that the specific words of Ma
nishtana are not necessary, contradicts what the Rambam says
explicitly.  If you ask my opinion, the Rambam holds that the words of
ma nishtana are actually essential, not just the general idea.  But the
pshat of the story of Abaye and Rabba favors the second tzad.
Daniel Schiffman


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:22:38 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
RE: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


> Where is the twist?  ROY apparently said that Sarid should be 
> strung up like
> Haman and shoudl be removed from the Earth.  The plain 
> meaning of that seems
> to indicate that ROY would like Sarid dead.  Lawyer or no 
> lawyer, the words speak for themselves

IIRC, he said *HaShem* should do it. A very important point to remember.

Akiva



A reality check a day keeps 
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274  


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:36:47 -0400
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject:
Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


That is not how I saw it reported in the newspapers.  BTW, assuming that ROY
merely prayed G-d for Sarid's demise, how did he plan on G-d "stringing him
up like Haman?  Seems like ROY may have been looking for some corporeal
intervention too.
----- Original Message -----
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


> > Where is the twist?  ROY apparently said that Sarid should be
> > strung up like
> > Haman and shoudl be removed from the Earth.  The plain
> > meaning of that seems
> > to indicate that ROY would like Sarid dead.  Lawyer or no
> > lawyer, the words speak for themselves
>
> IIRC, he said *HaShem* should do it. A very important point to remember.
>
> Akiva
>
>
>
> A reality check a day keeps
> the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)
>
> ===========================
> Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
> Jerusalem, Israel 91274
>
>


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:37:03 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


On 10 Apr 00, at 13:00, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:

> Where is the twist?  ROY apparently said that Sarid should be strung
> up like Haman and shoudl be removed from the Earth.  The plain meaning
> of that seems to indicate that ROY would like Sarid dead.  Lawyer or
> no lawyer, the words speak for themselves

If you are going to insist on attacking a gadol baTorah, you should 
at least quote his words accurately. The following comes from the 
report of the Jerusalem Post from Sunday March 19:

"Yosef last night compared Education Minister Sarid to
               Haman in his weekly address broadcast on Shas radio
               stations. Yosef was quoted by Israel Radio as calling for
               "uprooting the evil man who hates the students of the
               wise," and saying that God will erase his name from the
               world. 

               The rabbi called for comparing Sarid with the wicked
               Haman on Purim. When the Purim Hagadda is read,Jews
               should say: "Curse the wicked Haman, curse the wicked
               Sarid," Yosef said. "

Note that "GOD WILL ERASE HIS NAME FROM THE WORLD." 
Not ROY or any of his followers.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:40:33 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


On 10 Apr 00, at 13:36, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:

> 
> That is not how I saw it reported in the newspapers.  

Then I would suggest you go back and re-read it. The quote from 
the Post is at 
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/03/19/News/News.4205.html

BTW, assuming
> that ROY merely prayed G-d for Sarid's demise, how did he plan on G-d
> "stringing him up like Haman?  Seems like ROY may have been looking
> for some corporeal intervention too. 

He did not call for "stringing him up." Read the original.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:52:39 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Taz on milah


I was told by my good friend R. Daniel Feldman that R. Dovid Cohen has a 
kuntress on this Taz in his Gevul Yavetz.  Considering that I live a block away 
from his shul I should probably not have a problem getting a copy of it.

I think the Ritva in Kesuvos 43a sv Ba'a Mineih implies the same sevara.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:09:22 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Dor Revi'i


See the Tzelach to Chullin 17a, Chiddushe Kesav Sofer ibid., Or Sameyach to 
Rambam Hilchos Shechitah 4:17, Shu"t Oneg Yom Tov 58.

RD Glasner wrote:

>>Just to give you an idea of how fundamental a work it is, every student is 
taught that during the 40 years in the desert, the B'nei Yisrael were prohibited
from eating meat unless it was brought as a sacrifice. Rashi says so explicitly 
in Devarim 12:20, and no important commentator disagrees. However, the 
explanation that Rashi brings is actually discussed in Hulin 16b-17a and is 
based on the opinion of R. Ishmael. What Rashi and all the other commentators 
ignore is the contrary opinion of R. Akiva which is that the B'nei Yisrael were 
allowed to eat meat without bringing it first as a sacrifice, but they were not 
obligated (or allowed) to perform shehita on hulin in the desert. Nehira 
(stabbing) was then a sufficient preparation for the consumtion of hulin. But 
halakha k'R. Akiva mi-haveiro, so the opinion of R. Ishmael that Rashi and all 
the m'forshim rely on to explain the p'sukim in parashat Re'eh is k'neged the 
halakhah as the Rambam actually codifies in Hilkhot Shehita 4:17. Now the reason
that all the m'forshim explain the pasuk according to R. Ishmael is that it is 
possible to make some sense out of the p'shat of the p'sukim according to his 
opinion, but the p'sukim do not seem to make any sense
according to R. Akiva. Just try to explain in any coherent way what the words of
the p'sukim ("ki yarhiv ha-Shem et g'vulkha...") might mean according to R. 
Akiva. With incredible lomdus and insight, the Dor Revi'i does just that.>>


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:11:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject:
All the words


> Where is the twist?  ROY apparently said that Sarid should be strung up like
> Haman and shoudl be removed from the Earth.  The plain meaning of that seems
> to indicate that ROY would like Sarid dead.  Lawyer or no lawyer, the words
> speak for themselves

The reports I have is that R. Ovadia explicitly stated that he was NOT
advocating violence on the part of his audience. This is consistent with
what is quoted above.

It is possible that someone in the audience would inhale the steaming
rhetoric and ignore the qualification. But the fact is that R. Ovadia was
sensitive enough to the threat of violence to counsel against it. Since,
in fact, we do not know of his followers attempting violence against
Sarid, one must assume, for the time being, that his counsel was heeded.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:38:15 -0400
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject:
Re: All the words


Here is the articel upon which I basd myself.  All ma draw their owb
conclusions.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/02/03/News/News.2072.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <avodah-digest@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 2:11 PM
Subject: All the words


> > Where is the twist?  ROY apparently said that Sarid should be strung up
like
> > Haman and shoudl be removed from the Earth.  The plain meaning of that
seems
> > to indicate that ROY would like Sarid dead.  Lawyer or no lawyer, the
words
> > speak for themselves


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:48:39 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: All the words


On 10 Apr 00, at 14:38, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:

> Here is the articel upon which I basd myself.  All ma draw their owb
> conclusions.
> 
> http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/02/03/News/News.2072.html

But that's NOT what is being "investigated". What is being 
"investigated" is ROY's comments in his satellite broadcast on 
March 18 (Motzei Shabbos Zachor) and his clarification the 
following Motzei Shabbos. This is the quote from the Post Article 
the day they opened the "investigation:"

"Rubinstein wrote that Yosef's diatribe against Sarid on
               March 18 aroused suspicions that he had violated the 
1948
               Prevention of Terrorism Law, banning pronouncements
               encouraging violence, and Paragraph 288 of the Penal 
Law
               against insulting public servants. Rubinstein quoted
               extensively from Yosef's remarks, including his 
comparison
               of Sarid to the evil Haman and his call to God to "uproot"
               Sarid as he had uprooted Amalek."

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/03/27/News/News.4637.html

The February 3 "incident," if it ever happened, didn't happen in 
public. 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:06:03 EDT
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita


In a message dated 4/10/00 9:34:41 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< I think we do believe that. Chacham adif me'Navi (A Sage is superior to a
 Prophet) - BB 12. See the Bigdei Shesh there, but, more importantly, the
 Ramban he quotes: They (the Sages) know the truth with the divine spirit
 that is within them. >>

A sage is superior to a prophet because while any generation can, G-d 
willing, have its own sages, we no longer live in a time of Biblical prophecy 
and thus cannot seek out prophets to provide contemporary guidance. Also, 
sages -- if they're really sage -- speak to us individually in our own time, 
while prophets carry a larger message.

The sages may know the truth with the divine spirit that is within them, *if* 
they connect with that truth and that spirit. Maybe sometimes the sages get a 
little carried away with their own agenda. Sages are still human, and still 
suffer from human faults. They suffer temptation, particularly the temptation 
of ego. A sage isn't a sage to the extent he forgets he's a sage and doesn't 
act like one. 

No sage is superior to the truth.

David Finch


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:02:25 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Chiyuv of Mah Nishtana


>>The shailah is do the questions have to take the form of Mah Nishtana and if 
not you are not yotzei in haggadah or is the Mah nishtana just a starting point 
to help formulate the questions and really you could ask any type of question 
relating to yetzias mitzrayim. I didn't see the Rambam inside but supposedly 
there are some who want to be midayik that the Rambam holds like the second 
tzad.>>

There is a machlokes rishonim whether the mitzvah of sippur yetzias mitzrayis is
CHIYUVIS or KIYUMIS i.e. whether we must tell the story of yetzias mitzrayim or 
we only must answer questions about it if someone asks (KI yishal bincha - 
remember the four different possible meanings of "ki").  I once heard a Shabbos 
HaGadol derashah about this from R. Ephraim Kannarfogel.  He brought a number of
rishonim (offhand I only recall the Ritva) who hold that there is only a chiyuv 
if someone asks and the whole haggadah is a setup to force a chiyuv.  If we 
assume like the Ritva ude'imeih then the Mah Nishtanah is certainly not 
me'akeiv.  Most likely, any questions would do.  If not, then there is no chiyuv
to begin with.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:18:06 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Chochmah and Nevu'ah


On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 03:06:03PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: A sage is superior to a prophet because while any generation can, G-d 
: willing, have its own sages, we no longer live in a time of Biblical prophecy 
: and thus cannot seek out prophets to provide contemporary guidance.

The Maharal (intro to Gevuros Hashem) offers a different explanation. Nevu'ah
is done in visions, and therefore is limited to those things for which man has
a parallel in his sensory experience. Chochmah, however, includes the ability
to extrapolate beyond experience. It therefore covers greater territory than
nevu'ah does.

As I mentioned when we discussed creationism, the Maharal considers ma'aseh
Bireishis to be beyond both nevu'ah and chochmah -- therefore the Torah isn't
being literal and science will always fail to properly explain cosmogony.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 22a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 25


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:54:33 +0200
From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita


R' Carl Sherer wrote : 
> Obviously we would all be happier if ROY didn't have to say the
> things he did. But no one here is questioning whether he should
> have said them. Certainly not in the RW camp, and very little (that I
> have seen anyway) in the DL camp

I am not sure I agree with the above.  I think one has to distinguish 
between l'chatchila and b'diavad.  I think that l'chatchila most of the
haredi rabbinical leadership wish that ROY's remarks had been more
tempered.  I.e., they mostly agree with their content but disagree
with their tone and style.  Now, b'diavad, that he said what what he said
and is being attacked by the secular left-wing establishment, they 
have little choice but to close ranks behind him, or, at the very least,
refrain from expressing any reservations. 

I say "mostly agree", because I think they would technically disagree with
the juxtapostion of Sarid with Haman and Amalek (with all of its
halachic implications).   I think that ROY himself knowingly used 
"poetic license" and fully realized that the equation was not halachically 
precise. 

By the way, as far as I can tell, vocal Ashkenazi support has come mostly
from Chassidic and some Yerushalmi quarters (e.g., Family Porush, father 
and son).  But "Lithuanian" rabbinic leaders such as Rav Elyashiv and Rav
Steinman  (who are definitely *not* confrontational types) have been 
conspicuously quiet. 

The most interesting consequence of all in this saga (IMHO) is the 
rapprochement between ROY and Rav Mordechai Eliyahu.  

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

         

 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: aniyei ircha: (ATT vs TTA)


--- Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> On 7 Apr 00, at 3:57, Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> wrote:
> > >.
> > > 
> > > Rav Sheinberg spoke about the lack of shailas in
> > > Hilchos Tzedaka 
> > > or about Hilchos Tzedaka?
> > 
> > Hilchos Tzedaka, specifically prioritizing
> donations,
> > what is and isn't Tzedaka, whether Citywide
> Tzedakos
> > come first and how much one is suppopsed to
> reserve
> > for in town Tzedkos vs out of town Tzedakos, etc. 
> 
> So nu.... What did he say?

I'm sorry to say that I did not attend that lecture. 
What I reported was second hand and I do not remember
anymore the specifics of that lecture, as it was
several years ago. I do remember  that there was some
controversy at the time.  Perhaps someone on the list
can better remember that lecture. I believe it was
given at Cong Adas Jeshurun.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:09:07 +0300
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
Subject:
weight vs. volume


Although kazayit measurements are volume, R' Sam's old gemara with the Reb 
Hayyim Naeh's weight shi'urim does not cause any problem on the weight vs. volume 
front.  The common practice of specifying volume in grams is based on water 
displacement.  Put the kazayit in a full glass (or bucket or barrel as necessary - 
patach b'khad ve-siyem b'chavit). Weigh the water that overflows.  As one cubic 
centimeter of water weighs one gram, the number is the same whether weight or 
volume. ve-Shalom 'al Yisrael.

The weights of volumes other than water depend, obviously, on the specific gravity of 
the substance.

P. K. ve-S.

David


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:23:03 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Subject:
Re: aniyei ircha


In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>> I was, however, assuming that you do not hold with those (like Rav
>> Hertzog, whom I seem to be quoting a lot lately) that the Israeli Arab
>> falls into the category of ger toshav. 
>
>On what basis did he hold that (I don't have access to his tshuvos 
>AFAIK)? Wouldn't being considered a ger toshav require kabbala of 
>the sheva mitzvos bnei Noach?
>

Everybody agrees that to be a ger toshav in the times of yovel the
person needs to accept on themselves the sheva mitzvas bnai noach, and
for formal confirmation of the status, one needs kabbala in beis din.
The question in dispute is, do you, bzman hazeh, if you have somebody
who has accepted on himself the sheva mitzvas bnei noach, but has no
opportunity to have a formal kabala in front of a beis din (which a beis
din will not do today - and presumably is something that a modern beis
din, who do not have smicha in the halachic sense, could not do today
even if it wanted to), what is their status? 

The reference to kabbala in front of a beis din, is, I believe, from a
Yerushalmi (although I am afraid I do not have a source, nor does Rav
Hertzog give one in the portion I am examining) where it states that one
of things the beis din did on yovel ceasing was to no longer accept the
kabbala of gerei toshav.
The question then is, does that mean that there is, without that
kabbala, no longer the status of ger toshav in any regard, is there some
sort of half way house, or is the kabbala something that is only
*necessary* during the time of yovel.

If you do not need formal kabbala in front of a beis din to create gerei
toshav b'zman hazeh, then certainly the Muslims (who are generally
deemed to keep the sheva mitzvos bnei noach) would fall into the
category of ger toshav (Christians are, of course, more difficult,
depending on where you come out on whether their form of shutfus is
permissible for a bnei noach).

Rav Hertzog acknowledges that the Rambam requires kabbala in front of a
beis din as a necessary prerequisite for there to be any gerei toshav,
and that therefore anybody who is not a Jew falls into the category of
akum (with all the halachas that apply vis a vis living in the land etc
- regardless of whether or not he has accepted on himself the sheva
mitzvos bnei noach). However, he quotes the Ra'avid and the Kesef Mishna
as disagreeing, and  arguing that the halachas that pertain to an akum
do not apply to to one who has, b'zman hazeh, accepted on himself the
sheva mitzvas b'nei noach and he therefore feels comfortable to posken
like the Ra'avid and the Kesef Mishna.  

Now, while I can see his point regarding "treated as" (the Rambam,
Ra'avid and Kesef Mishna are specifically discussing the question about
hayeshiva b'eretz yisroel, not the halacha to sustain the ger toshav,
but I can see the logic that if the individual is to be "treated as" a
ger toshav regarding yeshiva, that the other halachas might well also be
deemed to apply) - Rav Hertzog then goes on to say that it has already
been proved before me (and it says  see later) that where a whole people
have accepted on themselves the sheva mitzvot, they they have the din of
gerim toshavim even b'zman hazeh (and I confess, not having read this in
a while, I cannot, in my quick peruse, find where he refers to this -
although there is a reference to Rav Kook - Mishpat Cohen hilchot shmita
v'yovel - which presumably is where Rav Kook justifies selling the land
to a non Jew for shmitta and again a reference to a whole nation taking
on the sheva mitzvos bnei noach) [I wonder if it is a form of anan
tsadi, but I am guessing here]


I confess that, philosophically, Rav Hertzog's position appeals to me,
because otherwise I find what the beis din did somewhat perplexing.
Let's say you have before you a genuine ger toshav wannabe, and suddenly
you pull the rug out from under him and say we are not accepting your
kabbala, because of *our* people's failure to maintain the standards
that would have kept yovel, and therefore you are not entitled to the
rights to which you would otherwise have been entitled. 

On the other hand, the alternative approach says that, when Israel is
doing what she is supposed to do, and is sovereign in her land, in order
to be a ger toshav you need to acknowledge that by formal statement in
beis din, but when Israel falls below the standards set for her, that
statement is no longer appropriate or necessary, and the status is
conferred by some form of acceptance (perhaps public acceptance for
which a whole nation's acceptance is satisfactory, or possibly even the
individuals).

Kind regards

Chana


>- -- Carl
>
>
>Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
>Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
>Telephone 972-2-625-7751
>Fax 972-2-625-0461
>mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
>mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
>
>Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
>Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
>Thank you very much.
>

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 18:03:30 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Chiyuv of Mah Nishtana


Dispite my very limited time these days, I am very happy to see the list 
reclaiming it's position as a high level Torah discussion.

WRT Mah Nishtana see S"A Horav 473:43, also in the L. Rebbe's Hagadah he 
brings the Gra WRT Msubin and leaves it Btzarich IY"G from the Rambam Hil. 
Chomeitz Umatzoh 8:2.

As I don't know if I will have time to post to this list before Pessach I 
take this opportunity to wish each and all a Chag Hapessach Kosher Vsomeiach, 
and we should merit before then the Kiyum of last years prayer Lshana Habo'ah 
Byerusholayim, Vnoichal Sham Min Hazvochim Umin Hapsochim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


--- "Daniel B. Schwartz"
<SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> wrote:

> Where is the twist?  ROY apparently said that Sarid
> should be strung up like
> Haman and shoudl be removed from the Earth.  The
> plain meaning of that seems
> to indicate that ROY would like Sarid dead.  Lawyer
> or no lawyer, the words
> speak for themselves


Daniel:

Don't you think that perhaps ROY was not exactly being
literal?  Haven't you ever said, I'm going to kill "so
and so"? I do not believe anyone on this list believes
that ROY was out to have anyone killed, and his words
later repudiating any violence corroborates this. The
real question here is whether rhetoric of this type is
beneficial or detrimental to the welfare of Klal
Israel. (The jury is still out on this one)

I have pretty much stayed out of this thread but the
blind adherence to any Gadol's statement, especially
when there are other gedolim who disagree lacks a
certain degree of intellectual honesty about one's own
inclinations on any given issue. As long as there are
other Torah perspectives on the issue, one should have
the freedom to take an opposing view.

That being said, I still find it troubling that the
"State" would want to prosecute ANYONE for violating a
law which itself violates the spirit of one of the
primary tenants of a modern democracy, that of free
speech. When that "anyone" is someone of the stature
of a "ROY" it makes it even more troubling and cause
for great concern.  I suspect that the "State" here is
more represented by the Torah haters than by the
"people". It therefore behooves all of us to stand up
for Kavod HaTorah and not allow this injustice to
stand, even if we don't agree with him.  An attack on
ROY is an attack on all of us.

Atty Gen Elykim Rubinstien (ER) is in a real quandry.
True he is a Shomer Torah UMitzvos. But he is THE govt
official required to follow through on prosecuting
lawbrakers, especially prominent ones. What is he to
do in this case?  If he fails to investigate or
prosecute, he will be seen to be favoring one of his
own.  If he investigates and prosecutes, he will be
seen by his own to be a traitor to the ideals of
Torah. What would anyone of us do if the shoes were on
our foot?  

It is easy to say that we would resign our position
rather than to prosecute a Gadol.  But that would be
the easy, and perhaps not the best, way out.  I think
we must be Dan LeKav Zechus. Perhaps he is just going
through the motions inorder to appease the Yossi
Sarids (YS) of the world and has no intention of
prosecuting ROY. He has a difficult role to fulfil. In
order to maintain credibility in the secular camp he
has to at least follow up on a complaint.  If a Torah
observant Jew were to resign everytime a Charedi got
into trouble he would lose all credibility and respect
from the secular world and would further drive a wedge
between those of us who represent Torah, and the
Chilonim.  

This would in the end be counter productive. If ER
palys his cards right he can steer a course between
the two antagonists, ROY and YS, without prosecuting
ROY, thus salvaging respect of at least some chilonim
in their respect for our integrity, thereby creating a
Kidush HaShem in the proccess.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Go to top.


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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >