Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 032

Tuesday, May 2 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:01:04 -0400
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
Subject:
Vayikra 18 & 20


There are many prohibitions listed in Vayikra 18 which are repeated (with
slightly different wording and emphases to be sure) in Vayikra 20.

What do we learn from this "reptition"?

Thanks,

Eric


+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Eric Simon     | erics@radix.net                         |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua (4/18/93) and Eliana (3/12/95)     |
+----------------------------------------------------------+


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:16:17 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)


On 1 May 00, at 13:38, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> In message <200005010517.IAA15394@lmail.actcom.co.il>, Carl and Adina
> Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
> >I don't know why you think Rav Kook is rejecting the idea of the 
> >heara. In fact, he rejects the notion that if the heara is correct there 
> >would have been no issur of lo s'choneim. He writes (regarding the 
> >Sheva Umos in Mishpat Cohen 68):
> >
> >"[t]ama ani mei'heichan haya lahem, ha'lo keivan she'kovshum 
> >Yisrael kanu es Eretz Yisrael b'kibush, u'pashut hu she'ha'kibush 
> >hu bichlal ha'uma, v'keivan she'nichbesha ha'uma, af al pi 
> >she'nisharu yechidim, ha'karka kvar knuya le'ha'kovshim. V'af 
> >b'osom umos she'lo kovshum klal, v'nisharu b'eretz Yisrael, lo 
> >shayach lomar she'lo yihye bahem issur lo s'choneim, she'harei 
> >adifa meihem ika, she'hem [Bnei Yisrael - C.S.] mechuyavim 
> >le'kovshom u'le'hamisom b'lo techayeh kol neshama - v'aich 
> >yitachen lomar shelo yihye bahem issur lo s'choneim." 
> >
> 
> The difference is that you seem to read this paragraph as somehow
> supporting the notion that the heara is correct.  Where do you get that
> from in this paragraph?  My understanding of the piece is this.  If the
> heara were correct, then you would have to say that there was no further
> obligation on the Bnei Yisroel to take away the land still held by the
> yechidim of the sheva amim after kibush.  As this, according to Rav Kook
> is not correct (ie there is a requirement to take away the land from the
> sheva amim after kibush on the grounds of lo s'choneim) then the heara
> is not correct.  
> 
> I get this as follows:
> 
> The line before the part you quoted [after he sketches out the full
> principle of the heara] says "u'ma shehakashe k't"r di"k b'sheva amos
> shnesharu b'e"y ain issur dlo s'choneim".
> 
> I translate this as saying - the Heara is problematic because it would
> imply that the seven nations who remained in the land would not have on
> them the issur of lo s'choneim.

I think your translation is correct, but that it's the questioner's 
contention and not Rav Kook's. I think Rav Kook is saying, "you 
think that if the heara is correct then there would be no issur of lo 
s'choneim with respect to members of the sheva umos who remain 
in Eretz Yisrael after kibush v'chiluk. But you are wrong about that, 
because the mitzva of 'lo s'chayeh kol neshama' still remains in 
effect with respect to the sheva umos, and therefore it's not 
shayach to say that the mitzva of lo s'choneim goes off of them.

> The logic of this seems to me to be impeccable.  If you say that the
> heara is correct, then it does not matter whether you sell the land to
> one of the sheva amim or to any other goy.  In which case, you could
> have accomplished the heter mechira by way of selling to one of the
> sheva amim, without violating lo s'choneim, so long as they still held
> land (which they did, because the kibush left some yechidim still
> holding land).

No, because with respect to one of the sheva umos who holds 
land, the mitzva of lo s'chaye kol neshama would remain in effect, 
and therefore, by definition, the issur of lo s'choneim must remain 
in effect, even if they do already own land in Eretz Yisrael. This is 
not the case with respect to other non-Jews.

> He then goes on to argue, with the paragraph you bring, that this is not
> the case - ie that l'schoneim applies to those yechidim  - which to me
> is a proof that the heara is not correct (ie that lo s'choneim applies
> even to one who already holds land). 

See above. Amazing how we have a totally different 
understanding....

> Can you explain how you are reading it - ie how you get around the
> problem that if the heara is correct, then there should be no
> applicability of lo s'choneim to those individuals of the sheva amim
> that managed to hold on to their land after the kibush?

See above.

> >He also says that with so narrow a distinction, it
> >> would difficult to say when giving more land would and when it would not
> >> make them more likely to have a permanent dwelling.
> >
> >Please point to the specific language in Mishpat Cohen 68(?) that 
> >you had in mind.
> 
> "The conclusion to this section "Al ken di'acti shelo n'tkabela haera
> tzu ki im l'shoeli yoter tov l'mchor l'mi sh'yesh lo k'var karka b'eretz
> yisroel".
> 
> It is the last bit of the paragraph from which you quoted a middle
> portion above.

And I understood that as meaning that we should not rely on the 
heara to sell land to non-Jews except in the special circumstances 
of the heter mechira, i.e. where it is for the benefit of Klal Yisrael 
and it is a shas ha'dchak.

> >> Further to what Rav Kook said, I find this pshat in the Rambam difficult
> >> for additional reasons.  The gemorra in Baba Kama 80b rules that one may
> >> tell an akum to write a contract to sell land in Eretz Yisroel even on
> >> Shabbas, because amira l'akum is only a shvus, and mishuv yeshivas
> >> yisroel lo gazru bey rabbanan.  This is brought down by the Rambam in
> >> hilchos shabbas, perek 6 halacha 11.  If the halacha of lo s'choneim
> >> only applied before the akum owned land in eretz yisroel, why is there
> >> is permission to tell the akum to write on shabbas, since by that time
> >> he already owns land (and no distinction is made between him selling his
> >> only piece of land, and him selling one of his many pieces of land).
> >
> >Because the reason for that halacha in the Rambam is because of 
> >the aseh of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael and not because of the lav of lo 
> >s'choneim. The aseh of yishuv eretz Yisrael is independent of the 
> >lav of lo s'choneim.
> 
> What you are saying is that you are allowed to violate a takana chazal
> (or, more strictly, the Chachamim specifically waived their gezera of
> amira l'akum) for the mitzva of acquiring land in Eretz Yisroel, but it
> is Ok to sell it to that same akum without problem, so long as he has
> other land.

No. It is okay (at least according to Rav Kook and others who hold 
from the heter) to sell land to an akum under the specific 
circumstances presented by the problem of Shmitta, i.e. b'shas 
ha'dchak and for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.

> The point I am making is that the two halachas do not gell very well if
> you read it the way of the heara.  If you read it that we are dealing
> with two different classes of person then it fits nicely.  When it comes
> to an akum, you cannot sell to him, and you need to act as quickly as
> possible to get the land (any part of the land, whether only a piece of
> his holding or all of it) away from him, even if that means getting him
> to write on shabbas.  When it comes to a ger toshav, you can sell to
> him, but you then presumably would not violate shabbas to buy from him.  
> 
> It is not impossible to hold the way you have, just, as I indicated,
> difficult.

I argue that it is not holding two different classes of persons, but 
rather two different sets of circumstances. The ordinary case 
(where it is assur to sell to a goy), and the shmitta case (where, 
according to Rav Kook, it is permitted to sell to a goy for the 
greater good of Klal Yisrael, if it is a shas ha'dchak, and then 
preferrably to a goy who already owns land in Eretz Yisrael).

> Question: if you hold the way you have set out - lets say you are
> dealing with somebody like my husband who does not currently own any
> land in Eretz Yisroel.  Would you hold that we could get a non Jew to
> write a contract for you to sell land to him (assuming you were not
> selling all your land, ie you you continued to own land within Eretz
> Yisroel, while he then gained the mitzvah?)  If not why not? 

I will have to look up Nosei Keilim when I get home - the only 
Rambam I have in the office is the one on my Palm Pilot. But that 
Rambam has a girsa that implies that the heter of amira l'akum is 
only if you are buying land *from a goy* - but only with respect to 
Suria and not (maybe) with respect to Eretz Yisrael itself. The 
implication being that Robert could not tell a non-Jew to write a 
contract to buy land from me on Shabbos, but he could tell a non-
Jew to write a contract for him to buy land from (the same or 
another) non-Jew. By the way - so could I. There is nothing in the 
Rambam that indicates that the fact that I already own land in 
Eretz Yisrael makes any difference (again, with the caveat that I do 
not have the Nosei Keilim in front of me).

How is this
> different from the goy who continues to own land.  If it is just that
> you get a positive mitzvah from buying land from a goy, but there is no
> problem selling to that same goy if he continues to own other land, then
> we could all get lots of mitzvahs by selling that land and rebuying it
> from him (why not do it constantly, great way to store up mitzvas in
> olam haba).  Bit odd no?

Only permitted b'shas ha'dchak, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael (and 
then according to Rav Kook, but not according to many others).

> >> Also, the language of the Rambam in hilchos avodah zara perek 10 halacha
> >> 6 prohibits us to allow them "l'haniach beinenu" - so it is hard to read
> >> in a distinction between selling land to them and land remaining with
> >> them.
> >
> >I agree that Rav Kook's distinction (or the "chad m'bei dina's" 
> >distinction) in the Rambam is difficult. I'm not sure the Rambam 
> >himself would have accepted it. But in looking at the heter mechira, 
> >one has to keep in mind that Rav Kook regarded the heter mechira 
> >as a necessity brought on by a shas ha'dchak and not as a 
> >lechatchiladik thing. As Rav Kook himself writes in Mishpat Cohen 
> >69 (directed to the same Rav Kahn to whom Mishpat Cohen 68 
> >was directed):
> >
> >"she'mei'olam lo kibalti alai achrayus lomar she'kol ha'poskim 
> >tzrichim le'haskim l'ysodos heter ha'hafkaa she'anachnu nohagim, 
> >ki im she'ha'davar yesh lo yesod *al pi aizeh poskim kamaei 
> >u'basraei*, v'al ydei tzeiruf shel od aizeh snifim yatza ha'heter 
> >b'beirur b'ofan sherauy li'smoch alav *bishas ha'dchak* b'lo shoom 
> >gimgum klal." [Emphasis mine].
> 
> I agree that the Rambam is unlikely to have accepted it.  The problem
> you then have with the heara, is that the objection to the whole matter
> of sale of the land comes from poskening like the Rambam (as mentioned,
> the Ra'avid etc are on side).  If the Rambam cannot genuinely be
> reconciled with the heara, it doesn't seem to me to have that much
> purpose - since the whole point is to reconcile the Rambam to the heter.

I think the idea of the heara is that the Rambam would have been 
more likely to accept the heter with the heara than he would have 
been to accept it without the heara. I am still not convinced the 
Rambam would have accepted the heter even with the heara. I'm 
not sure you're convinced either.

The rest will have to wait until I get home because I do not keep 
either Mishpat Cohen or Shabbat HaAretz in the office....

-- 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, 1 May 2000 10:42:53 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot


RB Waxman wrote:

>>does anyone know of written pskei halacha which mattir shaving on Israel 
independence day?>>

I heard R. Hershel Schachter say a number of times that RYBS was not lenient in 
any way for Yom HaAtzmaut.  Although, he would permit shaving on that day like 
he would during almost all of sefirah.

He also said tachanun and no hallel at all.  RH Schachter says a half hallel 
after davening (with on berachah).

I'm pretty sure this is all in Nefesh HaRav.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 15:46:39 +0300
From: "Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@surfree.net.il>
Subject:
Memorial days


Copyright by Rabbi Y. Henkin

The following is a translation of the first part of my Responsa Bnei Banim,
vol. 2, no. 23 (1), published in 5752/1992. The marginal note is added.

Memorial Day for the Destruction of European Jewry, and Whether its Rabbis
Erred in Leadership

B"h, 26 Nisan 5748

What one gadol z"l wrote, in an article translated into English [R. Y.
Hutner z"l, printed in Jewish Observer], that a separate memorial day for the
victims of the Holocaust should not be established, is a legitimate viewpoint
and deserves to be stated. Not everyone agrees with it, however, and see
Responsa Sridei Eish, part 2, no. 30 (note) who wrote that such a memorial
day should be established. Would that there be more memorial days each year
when the theaters and circuses are closed and the people are kept away from
sin! As Kohelet wrote, "It is better to go to the house of mourning..."

In Resp. Bnei Banim, vol. 1, no. 10, I established that one should stand
during the siren on memorial days [and see vol. 2, no. 30]. You wondered why
I included the 27th day of Nisan [Holocaust Memorial Day] with the 4th day
of Iyar [Memorial Day for fallen soldiers] since there are those who object
to the former, and you sent me copies of what a number of rabbis wrote on
the subject. But even according to them, bedi'eved what was done is done. It
has become one of the customs of the country, and that is what I discussed.
Why should I make nonexistent distinctions  is there anyone who stands only
during the siren on the 27th day of Nisan but not on the 4th day of Iyar,
or vice versa?

Of the articles you sent, the one from Hama'or in 5741 argued at length that
there is no prohibition against establishing a separate Holocaust Memorial
Day, even lechat'chilah. Kovetz Igrot of the Chazon Ish, chapter 97, dealt
with establishing a fast-day and with seven days of mourning and not merely
with a memorial day. Similarly, haGr"m Feinstein z"l in Halachah uRefu'ah,
vol. 5, p. 73, objected to establishing a fast-day. He brought proof from
the lament recited on Tisha b'Av that "an additional date for [mourning]
destruction and conflagration should not be added"; one can argue with this
proof, but in any case it is not germane to our topic. In addition, these
memorial days were established only in the Land of Israel for the residents
of Israel and not for Jews around the world.

Had they asked us, we would not have suggested setting the memorial during
the month of Nisan, but it is not forbidden. The prohibition against reciting
eulogies during the month of Nisan applies only during the initial seven days
of mourning or during the first year; see Yoreh Deah 394 and Orach Chayim
547:5. Eulogies two generations later are nothing more than remembering the
dead, and are permitted.

Also, Bach and Chidushei Halachot to Tur Orach Chayim 580 distinguish between
a fast-day established to commemorate an historical event that occurred on a
particular day, and which therefore should not be postponed, and between one
established to pray that a future disaster not occur. They brought support
for this distinction from Roke'ah in chap. 212, who recorded that in Worms
an annual fast day was established on Rosh Chodesh Iyar to recall a certain
evil decree. It follows that one may establish a memorial day on the 27 day
of Nisan, in commemoration of the revolt in the Warsaw ghetto which took
place at that time.

Bach wrote the above to explain the statement of Halachot Gedolot that one
fasts on the 1st day of Nisan, in apparent contradiction to an explicit
Mishnah in Ta'anit 15a that it is forbidden to fast on Rosh Chodesh. He
did not take the trouble to explain another statement of Halachot Gedolot,
that one fasts on the 25th day of Nisan, in spite of the fact that according
to Masechet Sofrim 21:3-4 it is forbidden to fast or to eulogize during the
entire month of Nisan. The reason is that both Halachot Gedolot and Masechet
Sofrim are Gaonic works, and when disagreeing neither is more authoritative
than the other. According to Halachot Gedolot, then, there is no prohibition
even against fasting during the month of Nisan, and while this is not the
accepted Halacha, in the case of a mere memorial day everyone would agree
that it is permissible.

The article in translation further sought to exonerate the gedolim of Europe
from the blame that they failed to anticipate the Holocaust and did not
encourage their communities to flee. Others have exerted themselves on this
issue, as well: for instance, one scholar wrote that the Holocaust was a
Heavenly decree from which it was impossible to escape. Still other scholars
were distressed by such statements, and wrote that it is better to keep silent.

Who will go up to Heaven and return and tell us who is correct? Regardless,
I do not see what blame there is in not having known the future, and where
do we find that gedolim cannot err in matters affecting klal Yisrael. If
not for errors we would still be living in our land and sacrificing in the
Temple, as R. Yochanan said in Gittin 56a, "R. Zecharia b. Avkulis' modesty
destroyed our home and burnt our sanctuary and exiled us from our land"
because he lacked the foresight to prevent a war with Rome. *) In page 56b
the identical wording is used in regard to the wicked empire (Rome), that
"it destroyed our home and burnt our sanctuary and exiled us from our land,"
and in Berachot 3a the Kadosh baruch hu used similar language in referring
to Israel's sins. The explanation is that there were a number of factors
in the destruction of the Second Temple: (a) the enmity of our enemies,
(b) the mistakes of our leaders, and (c) our sins, because of which G-d did
not intervene to rescue us.

For that reason Shabbat 119b states that "Jerusalem would not have been
destroyed had they not..." demeaned scholars, and stopped children's Torah
study, and ceased reciting the Shema evening and morning, and profaned the
Sabbath, and refrained from admonishing each other, and lacked a sense of
shame, and similarly in Bava Metzi'a 30b. The Gemara does not say "Jerusalem
was destroyed because...," for those sins only enabled the destruction to
take place, but did not cause it. See in Bnei Banim, vol. 1, ma'amar 5, why R.
Yochanan opened his remarks with the verse from Mishlei, chap. 25, "Fortunate
is the man who is always afraid," the meaning of "that refers to divrei Torah,"
and the difference between the destruction of the First and Second Temples.

In Gittin 56b, R. Yochanan b. Zakai requested of Vespasian, "Give me Yavne and
its scholars." R. Yosef, and some say R. Akiva, applied the verse "Who turns
the wise backwards and thwarts their intelligence" to him because he should
have requested the saving of Jerusalem and not merely Yavne. Later generations,
then, considered R. Yochanan b. Zakai as having erred. My grandfather the
gaon, zatzal, was greatly distressed with R. Akiva himself for having been a
cause/a partner in the destruction of Israel in the revolt of Bar Kochba. He
explained the statement in Menachot 29b, "Such came up in thought before Me,"
as meaning that R. Akiva himself raised the possibility of dying as a martyr,
in order to atone for having helped cause Israel's destruction.

For that reason it was necessary for a king to inquire of the Urim veTumim
whether a war would be successful, even though permission to fight had already
been granted by the Sanhedrin; see Rashi in Berachot 3b and Sanhedrin 17a. The
agreement or advice of the Sanhedrin by itself was no guarantee that Israel
would be victorious.

--
*) R. Zecharia b. Avkilus' poor judgement was a mistake and not a sin,
and similarly the inability of gedolim in Europe to anticipate the fate of
their communities was a mistake and not a sin. The statement in Berachot
19a, "If you see a scholar who sinned at night, do not harbor negative
thoughts about him during the day, for perhaps he did teshuvah. 'Perhaps,'
you say? Rather, certainly he did teshuvah!" does not apply. Apparently,
it was not lashon hara to recount the failings of R. Zecharia b. Avkilus,
because of the practical importance of knowing that religious leaders are
not immune to the possibility of grievous error.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:44:41 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Yom Tov Sheini shel Galuyot


RA Frimer wrote:

>>I had always assumed that it was based on "an oral Tradition of Amaratzut", 
but he indicated that local US rabbi intimated from the Bimah that Israelis 
could do Melakha. Is any one aware of any clear referenced pesakim by reliable 
sources to that effect?>>

I once asked an Israeli about this and he said Rav Goren permitted it.  I never 
looked in any of his sefarim to see if he had written anything about it.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 09:44:32 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Book Sale


In Areivim, Gil Student quoted Akiva Atwood and asked:
:> Price wise, the is nothing unusual about these prices. They certainly aren't 
:> selling at a loss. A publisher usually makes 40% of the cover price (less
:> any royalties owed). Any large institutional/store order can usually get 50%
:> off the cover price.>>

: I am not a baki on these halachos but isn't it ona'ah if you charge more than 
: 1/6th above cost?  If the extra charges are for future research does that
: make it permissible?

Is ona'ah defined WRT cost, or market price?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  1-May-00: Levi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 33a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:58:54 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot


On 1 May 00, at 10:42, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:

> He [RYBS - C.S.] also said tachanun and no hallel at all.  RH Schachter says a half hallel 
> after davening (with on berachah).

I thought RYBS did not say Tachnun, and that he said the prakim 
of Tehillim that constitute Hallel after davening as Pirkei Tehillim.

-- 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, 1 May 2000 11:00:07 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Shinui makom beAveilut


FYI - the Artsroll "Mourning in Halachah" is an English translation of the Pnei 
Baruch.  I think there was a little confusion about that here.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:46:01 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re[2]: Sources on each word divine


I believe that Mizrachi et al strongly argue that the Torah was written AS IF 
the phrases were changed.

I've never seen those extra few words in the Rashi.  Are they in the defus 
rishon?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.co<<

IIRC . DR. MS Feldblum maintained that Tikkun Soferim was a literary device  - a
synonym for a euphimism - rather than a textual emendation.

OTOH, I am not familiar with Dr. Lieberman's study...

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:13:36 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)


On a somewhat related note, in the sefer Halichos Shlomo, it discusses RSZ'
Auerbach's approach to a person taking on chumras ((a) l'choirah, a person
should have to follow the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the minhag of
the tzibbur and b) how chumras in one inyan can lead to kulas in other
inyanim (which has been discussed on Avodah in the past).

It's written that it always bothered RSZA to see a ben torah walking in the
street on shabbos with his family (in a city with an eruv that was
acceptable to everyone (i.e., not in BP)) and, since the husband took upon
himself the chumra of not using an eruv, seeing the wife struggling to push
a baby stroller.  He even told one person to be matir neder so that he could
use the eruv b'makom tsorech (i.e., to help his wife).

Similarly, it bothered him to see a father carrying a chair in the street on
shabbos and his son walking next to him, empty handed...the son not wanting
to use the eruv (being machmir WRT eruv, while neglecting the mitzva of
kibud av, a d'oraisa).

KT
Aryeh 


============================================

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 08:15:15 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject: Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)

<snip>
Rav Lichtenstein did not say that "one should not protest" if people 
rely on the heter. What he said was that a bochur who is visiting in 
Eretz Yisrael for the year of Shmitta need not insult relatives who 
rely on the heter by declining their Shabbos invitations because of 
that reliance. Similarly, he said that Israeli bochrim should not use 
their parents' observance of the heter as a point of contention with 
their parents.
<snip>


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:33:08 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Early Xianity in Chazal


In a message dated 5/1/00 11:38:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

> I seem to remember seeing recently on Avodah that R. 
>  Shlomo Riskin was quoted as agreeing with a historical view that Jesus was 
>  essentially frum and his teaching was distorted.  That seems to go 
directly 
>  against the gemara that says that he was a mechashef and oved avodah zarah.
>  
>  So, how do we deal with this?  Do we accept 

As mentioned this is the view of the Yavatz, however see his notation on 
Shabbos 116b. as to Paul there is a Rashi that was taken out by censors in AZ 
that he was placed by the Chazal to move away this religion from Jews.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:46:39 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
RE: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)


True, but the considerations that should be taken into account (when being
machmir on oneself) are the same.  Of course, at the same time, it is
important to also take into account whether a person is being machmir, or if
a person is choosing to not rely on a kula.  There is a big difference
between the two.

KT
Aryeh

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 1:38 PM
To: Stein, Aryeh E.; avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)


On 1 May 00, at 12:13, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> On a somewhat related note, 

I'm not sure how it's related, given that the Heter Mechira is 
considerably more controversial than most non-Boro Park eruvin.

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Mon May 01 14:43:23 2000
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
hallel hagadol on Pesach


It occurred to me that a possible reason for saying 
hallel hagadol only after we break for the meal on
Pesach might be based on the gemara in Ta'anis 26 that
hallel hagadol is said only 'al nefesh seveia v'keres
meleiah' - hallel is only said on a full stomach.

-Chaim B.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 21:02:14 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Administrivia about preserving diversity


One of the key features that keeps Avodah interesting is that its membership
contains people from the full spectrum of Orthodox subcultures. In order to
maintain that variety, I discourage posts to Avodah that create the image of
aiming at only a single community.

So, for example, the Rav (as I personally would call him), is RYBS; I ask
Chassidim to say "my Rebbe", not "the Rebbe".

I therefore ask people to refrain from greetings that assume that Avodah
should only appeal to people who believe that the Medinah is "reishis tzemichas
ge'ulaseinu". Also, after our long conversation about Yom haZikkaron, we should
respect those who already said they commemorate those killed in other ways.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  1-May-00: Levi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 33a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:24:11 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)


The double carats are from Chana Luntz.

On 1 May 00, at 17:16, Carl M. Sherer wrote:

> I argue that it is not holding two different classes of persons, but 
> rather two different sets of circumstances. The ordinary case 
> (where it is assur to sell to a goy), and the shmitta case (where, 
> according to Rav Kook, it is permitted to sell to a goy for the 
> greater good of Klal Yisrael, if it is a shas ha'dchak, and then 
> preferrably to a goy who already owns land in Eretz Yisrael).
> 
> > Question: if you hold the way you have set out - lets say you are
> > dealing with somebody like my husband who does not currently own any
> > land in Eretz Yisroel.  Would you hold that we could get a non Jew to
> > write a contract for you to sell land to him (assuming you were not
> > selling all your land, ie you you continued to own land within Eretz
> > Yisroel, while he then gained the mitzvah?)  If not why not? 
> 
> I will have to look up Nosei Keilim when I get home - the only 
> Rambam I have in the office is the one on my Palm Pilot. 

Now that I am home, I see that Frankel puts the words into the 
Rambam that I thought were missing in my Palm Pilot. The girsa in 
Shabbos 6:11 in Frankel is "Ha'lokeach bayis b'Eretz Yisrael MIN 
HAGOY mutar lo lomar la'goy lichtov lo shtar b'Shabbos."

So I was correct when I wrote:

The 
> implication being that Robert could not tell a non-Jew to write a 
> contract to buy land from me on Shabbos, but he could tell a non-
> Jew to write a contract for him to buy land from (the same or 
> another) non-Jew. By the way - so could I. There is nothing in the 
> Rambam that indicates that the fact that I already own land in 
> Eretz Yisrael makes any difference (again, with the caveat that I do 
> not have the Nosei Keilim in front of me).

I don't see anything in the Nosei Keilim differentiating between a 
Jew who already owns land in Eretz Yisrael and one who does not. 
Where did you get that one from?

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:24:14 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
RE: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)


On 1 May 00, at 12:46, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> True, but the considerations that should be taken into account (when being
> machmir on oneself) are the same.  Of course, at the same time, it is
> important to also take into account whether a person is being machmir, or if
> a person is choosing to not rely on a kula.  There is a big difference
> between the two.

So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I cannot 
take on chumras, but I can choose not to rely on kulas? What 
about all the places in the poskim where it says "baal nefesh 
yachmir al atzmo?? Are you suggesting that it's assur to be a baal 
nefesh? 

Don't get me wrong - I agree that there is something disingenuous 
about not using an eruv but telling your wife to use it (assuming 
that is what the person did, and I do recall the maaseh in the 
book). But suppose the husband had said that he didn't want to 
use the eruv at all - not for himself and not for the wife - and the 
wife refused to stay in the house all Shabbos and therefore decided 
on her own to use the eruv (which I don't believe is what happened 
in that case). Would you still say he could not be machmir?

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il


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 >