Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 050

Friday, November 24 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:47:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Nishmat


Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> and by Dovid it is said v'yehi Dovid oseh mishpat u'tzedaka, but behold
> in any place in which there is mishpat, there is no tzedaka, and [where
> there is] tzedaka, there is no mishpat rather where is the mishpat which
> has in it tzedaka, compromise.

I saw an interesting view by R. Kagan on last weeks Torah portion's
mention of Tzedek uMishpat as positive character traits within an
individual (Patriarch Abraham).

Apparently they are contradictory. If so, how can one person have both
Midos? Where as Mishpat implies hard. cold, and impartial justice be
applied, Tzedakah implies a spirit of charity" ie a spirit of "giving the
benefit of the doubt". His answer was that when a person judges himself
he should use the attribute of "Mishpat" and deal "harshly" with himself
in order to improve his character. But when dealing with one's friend,
he should use the attribute of Tzedakah, the generosity of judging one's
friend favorably.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 07:58:39 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Yom vs Shanah


When Ya'akov speaks to Par'oh, the rishonim comment about the difference
between yom and shanah -- that yom is progress, how one filled one's days;
shanah is merely aging.

(Before going on, you see a similar issue with ziknah, which implies
growth through age, zihadarta p'nei zakein, and yashein -- merely getting
old because time passed.)

With this in mind, look at the title pasuk of this week's parashah.
"Shanah" is used four times (including "sh'nei"), "yom" not once. For
that matter, the famous Rashi stresses the lack of change leshavech.

It's odd, though -- isn't the point of being a person and not a mal'ach
the fact that we are "holchim"?

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:08:25 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Nishmat


>> And if you find that so called gedolim say
>> differently, rabosay, what should I do-sheker hu!  It is absolute falsehood.
>> There is no possibility of k'lal Yisroel living with schools that teach its
>> daughters Torah shebe'al peh....

>The problem of course with making absolutist statements of this nature
>(sheker hu) is, as I mentioned in the discussions on RYBS, that one
>counter-example and your whole premise is destroyed.  In this case, if
>this were true, then Rashi's daughters would have been destroying Klal
>Yisroel and been over on this issur...

No. Without advocating a position, we must note, that you are not being 
medakdek. RSYW (R' Weinberg) is very clear: Women who want to learn, and 
perhaps (rather, likely) even be taught by their parents may do so. His 
opposition is to formal inclusion in curriculums and educational 
encouragement in the system.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:32:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Women learning


From Voice of Truth (in Hebrew: Kol Chotzev), the biography of Rabbi
Shalom Schwadron, p. 92:

"What can I do to repay you for all kindnesses?" R' Yitzchak asked
his wife [(RSS' mother)].  The Rebbetzin had only one request. 
"Learn Gemara with me!"  "The Gemara forbids me to teach you Gemara,"
he answered.  "But if you get such pleasure from Torah, I'll try from
now on to learn out loud so that you can listen and enjoy."


She developed into a budding "talmid chacham."  Her grandsons attest
to her comprehensive knowledge of the tractate Beitzah...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:24:26 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Tav L'meisiv


Chana's chiddush in intriguing, but I had some comments that don't detract
from it's viability.

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:25:27PM +0000, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
:                       the position of RYBS which seemed to posit from
: the statemen of tav l'meisiv some existential type state of inability to
: cope with loneliness which is inherent in women ...   The second
: suggestion made on this list was that it was a form of chazakah, ie a
: rebuttable presumation. ...

Actually, RYBS said that it was a chazakah which was an existential state.
IOW, the chiluk is over defining "chazakah", not over whether or not "tav
limeisav" was one. RYBS argues that chazakos aren't built on mutable
things like psychology or social context. (Presumably, he would hold that
such a rule would generate a "rov dileisa likaman" instead.) He also pointed
out that denying this existential reality is kefirah, as HKBH explicitly
curses women with this dependency in Bereishis.

: It seems hard to say that this describes some existential desire of
: woman for a husband, predicated on the banishment of loneliness.
: Firstly, because she is actually getting her pleasure from illicit
: relationships (which could be one or many), and secondly because it is
: clear from Abaya's statement that what is key is to be seen among the
: other women...

Both of which are known forms of self-medication for avoiding feelings
of loneliness.

:                                      Tosphos states that this has to be
: talking about a situation where she fell to yibum during the erusin, not
: after the nissuin.  Now this is particularly interesting.  Because
: during erusin she is not living with the husband, but remains where she
: was before the kiddushin (which certainly does not help from a
: loneliness point of view).  Thus the *only* benefit that can be said to
: accrue to her from the erusin is the status of marriage which is now
: conferred ...

And the lack of loneliness. Have you already so successfully ruled out the
notion that we're speaking of loneliness that you don't need to consider
it a possible explanation here?

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:19:22 -0500
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
Subject:
Nishmat


From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
> On the other hand, this
> discussion would seem to suggest that this is the correct way to view
> marriage (and presumably one would be correct to sack one's spouse if
> they failed to perform the tasks allotted to them, and give their "job"
> to somebody who is better able to perform such tasks).

	Based,  of course,  on the mishna which gives burning the food as
a valid ground for divorce.   *IF*  one learns kifshuto,  their
marriage is in serious trouble.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:28:47 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: DY Insight


On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 02:26:58PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Note: K = Klal   P = Prat   R = Ribbui   M =Mi'ut

: RM and MR do not contradict each other, thus the irony that while a PK is a 
: contradiction, so the P falls off, MR is not, so its ramification is 
: actually more limited.

Another difference: Ribbui umi'ut has more to do with actual lashon used,
syntax as opposed to semantics. This is R' Akiva leshitaso, darshening "es"
or "ach", or even tagin. He sees derashah as being about text, whereas
R' Yishma'el sees it as being more about meaning.

If there were a clause that enlarged the subject of the pasuk but used the
word "ach" it would simultaneously be a K for RY but a M for RA.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:01:28 -0500
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
RE: Krias Shma and tzitzis


From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> When you get ready to sit, hold your back tzitzis in your hands.
> Sit down but before you lean back, tuck those tzitzis behind you and
> then lean back on them.

I would guess that the success of this method depends on the type of chair
one is sitting on (and on whether the person "shuckles" while sitting down).

KT
Aryeh


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:13:33 -0500
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
Subject:
Holding and kissing tzitzis


From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
> Perhaps someone can supply the earliest recommendation to kiss on the
> word tzitzit or tzitzit hakanaf. AFAIK, the custom competes with saying
> the Yom after Shaharit in the lateness of its appearance on the scene.

	Where does kissing tzitzis during Baruch She'omar rank?

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:31:02 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: changes in nusach and minhagim


Seth Mandel <sethm37@hotmail.com>:
: Agreed. But you mean adding Brich Shmeh. Frankfort does not say it
: because it was an new addition to davening in the 17th century, and they
: concluded that it best not be added for reasons that perhaps included
: SZ but may not have. See R. B. Hamburger's discussion of how it crept
: into the siddur in the first volume of his Shoroshei Minhagei Ashkenza.

Brich shmei might be a gray area. But ana ve'koach is omitted form
kabbalos hsabbos. It is clear to me that Kabbalistic texts in general
were avoided, though akdamus is ok.

The Roedelheim Machzor does not even translate the Maase merkava on
Shavuso. The udnerstanidg I have been give is that Kabbalah was take
nout of the public arena, or not included as in the case of brich shmei.

I am not clear if Brich shemei never made it or was included and omitted.
I've heard bot hfrom KAJ'ers. R. Schwab might have known best, but alas
he is gone. I will ask around.

KT RW


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:54:42 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Kol yimei chayeicha


On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 05:38:02PM -0500, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
: I don't see that from the text in the Haggadah.  Lo zachiti sheteiamer
: yetziat Mitzrayim ad shedarshahh (mapik-he) ben Zoma... is a funny turn
: of phrase.

Exactly. I took the phraseology to mean, "I did not merit to understand
why YM would be said..." Thus the "she-", aside from the passive mode
of "shetei'amer". Had it means "I didn't merit to say", it would have
simply been "lo zachisi lomar".

: So it would seem that REbA may have had the custom not to say it, until
: ben Zoma gave him a convincing argument to say it.

RRW, this would be an example of a *tanna* leaving his own minhag for
another's for textual reasons.

Even so, both minhagim would say YM at night. One would say it in shema,
and the other had a matbei'ah other than Shema just for that purpose as
per R' Yehudah bisheim Rav. (BTW, RJJB typoed, if you're looking for it,
go to Berachos 1:6, not 1:5.)

: As for sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim on Pesach, I expect that *was* being
: done, no, since the korban Pesach was done at night?

Agreed, as I said at the top of this thread, we're talking about saying
"Ani Hashem E-lokeichem asher hotzeisi eschem mei'eretz Mitzrayim..."

On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 04:27:04PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:             IOW is this halchic drush of ur'issem miSinai while the
: drush of Mazkirin YM balalylos is not?

They both are miSinai. (By which I do NOT mean halachah liMosheh miSinna;
one can be choleik on a derashah, but not on a HlMmS.) That doesn't mean
RAbE knew of or held of both.

IOW, he knew of ur'issem oso and therefore thought one needed a ra'ayah to
exclude ZYM from this derashah. He didn't know of the ra'ayah. Perhaps
he even heard of the derashah, but only the way the chachamim use it --
lihavi liymos hamashiach.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:53:51 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
Tzedek uMishpat


Harry Maryles
> I saw an interesting view by R. Kagan on last weeks Torah portion's
> mention of Tzedek uMishpat as positive character traits within an
> individual (Patriarch Abraham).

Yasher Koach

I heard similar sentiments expressed in the name of R. Schwab. One of
them was to worry about the other guy's gashmiyos - iow do chessed -
and worry about one's own ruchniyus - IOW "din".

The problem is that many people take care of their own olam hazeh (IOW
materialistic needs) and are oh so concerned that the other guy does no
aviros so HE should have olam habo.

Better to worry if the other guy has adeqaute olam hazeh and for ourselves
is our olam habba in order.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

[I also heard it bisheim the Chafeitz Chaim, although unlike RHM, I would
have spelled his name "Kahan" in English. -mi]


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:19:32 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
RE: Nishmat


On 21 Nov 2000, at 16:13, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
> I think R' Y. Weinberg defined it pretty well:
> ...
> > I would have strongly advised them not to have them learn Shemiras Shabbos
> > Kehilchsa-it's Torah shebeal peh.  It includes heicha timtzas... 

Actually, I would think that without the footnotes, SSK would do 
very well in RYW's system. Maybe the problem was that when his 
daughter was in Gateshead, the first edition was in use, and that 
really did include a lot of heicha timtzas which have since been 
moved to the footnotes? Anyone know when this was written?

-- Carl

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: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:33:29 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: faith


Micha Berger
> In R' Kook's hashkafah, the fact that all dichotomies are really illusory,
> perceptions that are products of the human condition and not really there,
> plays a pretty important role. After all, everything comes from the same
> Borei, and He is absolutely One.

R. Kook is not the first to articulate this concept of ultimate unity.

Most Mystical traditions will concur that in the dimension of SPIRIT we
are all one.

From a vantage point outside our solar systeme, the Earth is one organism.
The indivudal diffences are not dsitinct, it appears as one unit.

Similarly the entire universe from an outside (IOW from Hashem's)
vantage point appear as one unit (hence universe).

The microcosm and macrocosms all resemble both units and factions.
The higher the persepective the more unified it all appears and this is
the Divine POV. However: "The Devil is in the details" <smile>

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:24:23 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Finding Nimrod


Lisa Liel (forwarded by MSB):
Since Chazal identify Amraphel of Shinar (Genesis 14) with Nimrod,
I suggest that the name of the king in question was Nimrud-Amar-Apli
INinurta-Amar-Apli in the old transliteration), which means "Nimrud has
seen the heir".

FWIW
Chazal might have been making a literal equation between Nimrod and
Amraphel. It is also possible that this was a spiritual equation
(e.g. a different gilgul).

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:02:46 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: DY Insight


>: Note: K = Klal   P = Prat   R = Ribbui   M =Mi'ut

At 08:28 AM 11/22/00 -0500, MSB wrote:
>Another difference: Ribbui umi'ut has more to do with actual lashon used,
>syntax as opposed to semantics. This is R' Akiva leshitaso, ...   whereas
>R' Yishma'el sees it as being more about meaning.

Medukdak l'shitsam with double words: RA darshens them whil RY holds dibra 
Torah k'lashon Bnei Odom.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:39:44 -0500
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@segalco.com>
Subject:
DY-33b


Anyone hear a good explanation how this ended up the only daf with no
gemora?

KT,
Joel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:29:29 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Ashrei Introduction


In v6n49, RGS <Gil.Student@citicorp.com> writes:
: Most interesting about this perek is that it is very universal.
: When praising Hashem, it uses very inclusive terms that refer to all
: people and all creatures.

: That is why it is so surprising that we say the two Ashrei pesukim as
: an introduction. Those pesukim are very particular to Jews.

We see a similar contrast in comparing the birchos shema: hama'riv
aravim or yotzeir ham'oros is followed by oheiv amo Yisrael. Perhaps
the *contrast* is a significant feature of tefillah, and not just an
attempt to recast Ashrei into particularist terms.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:07:50 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Kol yimei chayeicha


Micha Berger
>: I don't see that from the text in the Haggadah.  Lo zachiti sheteiamer
>: yetziat Mitzrayim ad shedarshahh (mapik-he) ben Zoma... is a funny turn
>: of phrase.

> Exactly. I took the phraseology to mean, "I did not merit to understand
> why YM would be said..." Thus the "she-", aside from the passive mode
> of "shetei'amer". Had it means "I didn't merit to say", it would have
> simply been "lo zachisi lomar".

I heard a peshat (source long forgotten) that lo zahcisi was that REbA
failed to convince anyone else to say Zechirras Mitzrayin at night UNTIL
Ben Zoma came up with a WINNING Rationale. Zochisi means he di not merit
that it would be said (.ie. by others)

> RRW, this would be an example of a *tanna* leaving his own minhag for
> another's for textual reasons.

AISI, therefore REbA always said it but merely couldn't PROVE his case.
I don't know if others said paragraph 3 or not. If they DID, it might
have been for uniformity with KS of shacharis or some other reason.

And AISI the halacha of YM balylos probably preceded this midrash.

And I suspect - but cannot prove - that layla lav zman tzitzis was a
hlacha that preceded it being tied to Ur'eesem oso. It's a hunch I'll
admit, but the imperiatve of ur'isem oso is pretty fuzzy in and of itself
to derive the principel of layla lav zamn tzitzis.

And aisi, both case the halacha preceded the Midrash. (i.e. Halacha
Kadma leMidrash - HKlM)

Why do I say this?

If the Midrash comes first there is usually a problem with the passuk
first. In case of Kal there was a problem first but the problem had
another solution - i.e. Ymos hamashiach. When the halacha comes first,
the search is for a raya or asmachta or possibly a restoration of a
missing drash.

OK, I'm rambling on this.

Bottom line, I haven't seen the rishonim. Who says that paragraph 3
was omitted at night before BZ's drasha? I'm betting that at least SOME
rishonim hold that w/ or w/o BZ's drasha they were saying paragrpah 3
of KS at night, but that mazkirin was not the impetus.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:57:43 +0000
From: sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>
Subject:
re:kol y'mei chayecha


[I held onto this for a while, as I thought it was raised and addressed
already. Looking at the post over again, I noticed last sentence adds
something new. -mi]

The discussion about pointing to the matzo, etc., seems to ignore the fact
that the saying of "Matza *zo*" is not the chiyuv min haTorah. Indeed,
the word does not even appear in our version of the Mishna. It is the
nusach we use in fulfilling the mitzvah of sippur by discussing pesach,
matza and maror. And pesach yochiach: we are obligated to mention it,
even though it's not there to be pointed to.


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 >