Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 117

Friday, September 8 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 2:42 +0300
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
Re: tinok shenishba


The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah Siman Bet s"k 16) indicated that in his day
we no longer *danim din mumarin v'epikorsim* with regard to *moridin
velo ma'alin*. To extrapolate this to everyone being a tinok shenishba
is highly dubious.

Josh


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 2:43 +0300
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
re: sefarim based on the piskei halacha of RSZA


Definitely add the Nishmat Avraham on medical halacha !

Josh


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:46:55 EDT
From: Tobrr111@aol.com
Subject:
Apikorsut


> 3) With regard to epikorsut, there is a tshuva of the Radbaz (4:187)who
> says that someone who errs in one of the ikare hadat because of his
> faulty reasoning (iyuno hanifsad) is not considered a kopher, and brings
> proof from R Hillel who denied mashiach yet was not considered a kopher.
> It would seem (IMHO) that much of the Conservative rabbinate would fall
> under that rubric. The radbaz applies this reasoning to someone who
> held that Moshe rabbenu was a god.

Yes, and this is the Shita of the Raavad as well. However, the Rambam as 
understood by Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Elchanan Wasserman among others, 
disagrees and holds that "nebech an apikores iz oych an apikores." However, I 
must admit that I don't understand how that fits in with the concept of Tinok 
Shenishba.

Aaron Rubinson


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:57:10 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
RE: tinok shenishba, etc


On 6 Sep 00, at 18:46, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> 2) A long time ago (~25-30 yrs) I was told by a rav that today, given the
> pervasive influence of the secular community, everyone (even in Bne Brak)
> has the halachic status of tinok shenishba, and he said that in the name of
> the Hazon Ish. ...

FWIW, a friend who works in kiruv told me a number of years ago 
that RSZA held that all chilonim in Israel have the status of tinokos 
she'nishboo. AIUI the reason is that the chilonim are so hostile to 
fruhmkeit here that they do not and cannot internalize what they 
learn.

-- 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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:25:30 +0200
From: "Barak-Online User" <yherczeg@Barak-online.net>
Subject:
Re: Rashi question


In a message dated 9/5/00 6:29:04pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>> In two places in parashas Shoftim,  Rashi mentions the concept of "ein
>>  lecha elah shofet shebeyamecha".  Why?  Also,  why does Rashi wait until
>>  the second case (of ed zomem;  the first is zaken mamre) to use the
>>  familiar phrase "Yiftach bedoro kiShemuel bedoro"?

>Ulai Yesh Lomar, that there are 2 different issues here in the first
>the Ikar is the obligation to listen and follow the laws of the Shofeit
>here Rashi emphasizes the Nkudoh "Shofet" shebeyamecha, by Aidim Zommim
>the emphasis is on the respect they have to show the Shofet (as Rashi
>brings that they have to testify standing) this is a new point, and the
>emphasis here is that "Yiftach Bdoro Kishmuel Bdoro" and he is to be
>shown the same respect.

You were mechaven to the Imrei Shefer.

kol tuv
Yisrael Herczeg


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:07:29 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
RE: tinok shenishba, etc


RM Shinnar wrote:

> 3) With regard to epikorsut, there is a tshuva of the Radbaz (4:187)who says 
> that someone who errs in one of the ikare hadat because of his faulty 
> reasoning (iyuno hanifsad) is not considered a kopher, and brings proof from R
> Hillel who denied mashiach yet was not considered a kopher.  It would seem 
> (IMHO) that much of the Conservative rabbinate would fall under that rubric. 
> The radbaz applies this reasoning to someone who held that Moshe rabbenu was a
> g-d.

I have not seen this Radbaz but the Sefer HaIkkarim (1:2) says a similar idea 
BUT explicitly excluded those who deny Torah Min HaShamayim which many, although
not all and *perhaps* not even most, Conservative rabbis do.  The Abarbanel 
(Rosh Amanah ch. 12) vehemently disagrees with this idea of the Radbaz and the 
Ikkarim.

The Radbaz in a different teshuvah (2:12) writes that even the children of 
mumrim still have the din of mumrim.  He was dealing with the children of 
anussim who fled Spain but remained Christians.  Despite the fact that they were
raised as Christians, they were not considered tinokos shenishbu because they 
could become frum if they wanted.  The Beis Yosef (YD 159) quotes a Nimukei 
Yosef who says similarly to the Radbaz and a Rambam who disagrees and holds that
these children were tinokos shenishbu.  The Beis Yosef paskens like the Rambam 
ONLY because the Rambam was explicit while the NY was not.  However, the Radbaz,
who was not mentioned by the BY, was explicit as well.

The Minchas Elazar (1:74) says that the Mabit who claimed the din of tinokos 
shenishbu for the children of Karaim were talking about people who lived in 
countries with no Jewish communities.  However, where there are Jewish 
communities and these children have opportunities to learn about Judaism and 
return to it they have a din of mumrim.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:23:39 EDT
From: YFel912928@aol.com
Subject:
"Shaarei Tshuvah" 2


This is our second of six installments based on my new translation of and 
comments to Shaarei Tshuvah, ("The Gates of Repentance", Jason Aronson 
Publishers).


The second instance in which you'd likely be moved to tshuvah: *When
You Grow Old*

We're to reflect upon the reality of death when we grow old, and we'd
naturally be expected to be moved to tshuvah accordingly. Rabbeinu Yonah
points out that in fact you'd be more blameworthy and loathsome if you
wouldn't be moved to tshuvah then.

RY then adds a point that probably stuns us most in modernity -- that
we'd do well to come to terms with our relative fragility at middle
age.. starting at 35, the meforshim point out (after all, if "the days
of our life are 70", middle age indeed begins at 35) (7).

Many of us unjustifiably consider ourselves righteous and pure already.
If we're indeed guilty of that Ry accuses us of either taking our aveiros
too lightly, of overlooking them; or of never having "inquired of Hashem"
(i.e., never having acknowledged the tug toward the Ribbono Shel Olam that
lies deep in every Jewish heart) or of not listening to our rabbeim (8).

RY then addresses the issue of what in fact differentiates us from the
truly righteous. The latter always grieve over their aveiros and bemoan
their shortcomings in the active service of Hashem. While we, rachmana
litzlan, focus upon the physical and the peripheral rather than the sorst
of things that would lead us to a deeper quest for closeness to Hashem,
like yirah, Torah, and cheshbon hanephesh.

What does RY advise us to do now, before we're elderly? Reflect upon our
destiny (i.e., mortality); abandon our petty cravings; put our souls
in order; and to focus less on the worldly and more on yiras Hashem,
self-examination and self-improvement, Torah, and mitzvot. And should
we eventually be zoche to reach age 90 we'd do well to be completely
occupied with t'philla, praise (to Hashem), and with the recounting of
His wonders (9).

    -- Yaakov Feldman

NEW CLASS: "In Search of Spiritual Excellence" with Rabbi Yaakov Feldman.

If you are looking for spiritual growth, please sign up for this, Project 
Genesis' newest on-line course. It is geared to all, from beginners to 
advanced.

This series will focus on a close and slow reading of several classical works 
of Mussar, including "The Gates of Repentance" (Shaarei Tshuvah), "The Duties 
of the Heart" (Chovos Halevovos), "The Path of the Just" (Mesillas Yesharim), 
and "The Eight Chapters" (Shmoneh Perakim). It will be conducted by Rabbi 
Yaakov Feldman, and will be based on his translations of and commentaries to 
these famous works. Participants will begin with the study of "The Gates of 
Repentance".

To join, just send a blank email to excellence-subscribe@torah.org !


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:19:40 +1000
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
"Lo Dibroh Torah Eloh Keneged Yetzer Horah"


Rashi this week (Ki Setzei 21:11) says regarding the Torah giving
permission to marry a Yefas Toar: "Lo Dibroh Torah Eloh Keneged Yetzer
Horah"

A number of Meforshim (including Tosfos Brochah from the Torah Temimah),
with the earliest (AFAIK) being the Chanukas Hatorah (by the Rebbe
Reb Heshel zt'l of Krakow) note, that the words 'LO' and 'ELOH' seem
superfluous.

They explain Rashi with the Gemoro in Yevomos 63, which relates that R'
Chiya had a wife a shrew, but still showered her with gifts.

When his talmid, Rav, asked him his reasoning, he answered: "Dayenu
shem'gadeles es bonenu, umatzilos osonu min hachet ( = hirhur aveiro
 - Rashi)" - ie - the fact that they (our wives) 1) bring up our
children (b'derech haTorah), and 2) they save us from Aveiros - is reason
enough to make them deserving of gifts.

This, the meforshim say, is true enough with a normal and 'regular' wife.
With a Yefas Toar however, the Torah warns us (Rashi ad loc) that her
child will become a 'Ben Sorer uMoreh' - thus we cannot expect from her
to be 'megadeles es bonenu' - but only the single maaloh of 'matzilos
osonu min haChet'.

And that is Rashi's diyuk - that concerning such a 'shidduch' - "Lo Dibroh
Torah" - the Torah promises - "Eloh" - only - "Keneged Yetzer Horah" -
the benefit of 'matzilos osonu min haChet'...


And another short vort I once heard on this Rashi.

It is known that Tzitzis which total 32 threads (4x8) are a segulah
against Hirhurei Aveiro. And whilst having even only 31 Tzitzis threads
are also Kosher, the segulah however, only works when all 32 Tzitzis
are there.

...'Lo' (gematria 31)- 31 threads - is 'Dibroh Torah' - one is yotze
mitzvas tzitzis - min hatorah, but 'Eloh' (gematria 32) 32 threads -
is a segulah - 'Keneged Yetzer Horah'...

SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:sba@blaze.net.au


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:37:37 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Rav Ovadia's idea of Gilgul


Back in v5n101, Daniel A. Schiffman <das54@columbia.edu> asked:
: The Gemara (Brachot 7a, Sanhedrin 27b) explains that children are
: punished for their parents' averot only if they continue along the same
: evil path.  But if they are different from their parents, they are not
: punished for their parents' and ancestors averot.

OTOH, the tinok shenishba is given clemency because he is judged in relation
to his upbringing. In addition, how is it that a child who follows his parents
aveiros is punished more harshly for it, while a ben soreir umoreh who refuses
to follow his parents' upbrining is punished more harshly for that as well?

What I guess I'm asking is: when does Hashem look at the individual, and
matches expectations because of context, and when does Hashem look at
the culture, and needs to judge the person more harshly in order to uproot
the chut hamshulash?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:54:15 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: From "Shaarei Tshuvah"


On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 03:57:35PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> The idea isn't RY's. Berachos 5a ....         If he doesn't find an aveirah
:> (Rashi: of a severity to warrant such severe tzaros) he should assume
:> it's for bitul Torah.

:> The Gra (Olilos Ephraim) connects the mention of bitul Torah to "shigegas
:> talmud olah zadon". Which is why bitul Torah can warrant severe tzaros.
:> The avlah isn't just in the bitul Torah, but in the things one didn't
:> do because of that ignorance.

: Don't these citations imply that the yisurin are not merely reminders but
: actual punishment?  Rashi said "of severity to warrant such severe tzaros."
: Gra also implies that this is a punishment to fit the crime.

What crime? Was he oveir on any lavim? The line of din was not crossed (which
is what aveirah literally means). OTOH, the person could have done more than
he had. Is the wakeup call to do so an oneish for not doing so already? Aren't
growth challenges called nisyonos, not onshin?

I saw the Gra's statement as saying that if the nisayon couldn't be
explained as an oneish because one can find more oneish than aveirah,
than one should look at it as a nisayon, a road to improvement.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:56:48 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Rav Ovadia's idea of Gilgul


In a message dated 9/7/00 4:46:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

> OTOH, the tinok shenishba is given clemency because he is judged in relation
>  to his upbringing. In addition, how is it that a child who follows his 
> parents
>  aveiros is punished more harshly for it, while a ben soreir umoreh who 
> refuses
>  to follow his parents' upbrining is punished more harshly for that as well?
>  
>  What I guess I'm asking is: when does Hashem look at the individual, and
>  matches expectations because of context, and when does Hashem look at
>  the culture, and needs to judge the person more harshly in order to uproot
>  the chut hamshulash?

Godol Talmud that it brings to action IOW w/o proper education, one cannot be 
held as responsible, however Ochazim Bmasei Avoseihem (Bpashtus out of 
knowledge) it then becomes a corrupt family/society, something that becomes a 
great danger.  WRT Ben Soreir that is common sense Hanhaga and as Rashi says 
(from the Gemara) that Nidoin AL Shem Soifoi he begins with stealing and will 
end with murder, these things are basics of humanity (and that is why they 
are included in the 7 Mitzvohs B"N).  . 

Kol Tuv, KVCT,

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:15:33 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Language and Thought (in Action)


On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:18:18PM +0300, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
:                                     I find fault with the examples (unless 
: there is something very deep that I am missing).  Not only odes Hebrew 
: differentiate between green (yaroq) and yellow (tzahov), but Rashi would 
: have us understand that there is a second word for green, tekhelet.

Techeiles is blue wool, an item, not the color. Which is why "p'sil
techeiles" has to be wool. Similarly argaman is purple wool, not purple.

Tzahov appears in only one context in tanach, describing the hair in
a nega (Vayikra 13:30,32,36). Again, I'd like more indication it means
yellow in general.

According to RSRH, there are only three biblical Hebrew words that
refer to the colors themselves; the three primary colors: adom, yarok
(yellow and green), and kachol (blue and violet). Bidarko hakodesh,
he assigns them meanings in the symbolism of osos.

Kachol is the most sky-like color, that least effected by the prism of
geshem (gashmius) when forming a rainbow. It's the color of techeiles,
the walls of the Beis Hamikdash, the saphire first luchos, and the
"floor below the Kisei haKavod" in Sh'mos.

Yarok is the color of plants and growth. Yarok doesn't come up in mitzvos
too often, but the plant motif does.

Adom is gashmius -- dam, adamah, Edom. The parah adumah is the work animal
(parah) which is our gashmius selves.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:57:33 -0000
From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Subject:
re: Yishallal in qaddish


Seth Mandel wrote:
> The current American "yeshiva minhag" is very careful to follow the Gra
> on saying "yisgaddel" (as opposed to minhag of kelal Yisroel up until
> that time of saying "yisgaddal"), but is generally unaware of the issue
> of veyishallal. I know they are two separate issues, and "yisgaddel"
> is based on Rashi in Sota and his followers about it being Hebrew and
> not Aramaic.

I believe Rav Teitz (but perhaps it was someone else) wrote to this list
not too far back that:

1. Yisgaddal cannot possibly be Aramaic since GDL is a Hebrew, not an
Aramaic, shoresh. The Aramaic equivalent is RBH.

2. The Gra never actually wrote that yisgadal should be pronounced
with a tzere - rather that it was Hebrew. It was the Mishnah Brura
that understood the Gra to be indicating that a tzere pronunciation was
called for.

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick


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 >