Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 133

Thursday, February 22 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:32:14 -0500
From: Rabbi Yaakov Feldman <feldman@torah.org>
Subject:
Ramchal - "The Way of G-d" -- Introduction


"The Way of G-d" -- Introduction

It is with great awe and trepidation that we begin our presentation of "The
Way of G-d". After all, what this work is, is a laying out cold and clear,
layer by layer, the very fundamental principles of the universe, and the very
things expected of us all as a consequence of them. But let's begin
nonetheless.

The truth is, we really won't be beginning at the very top of the work-- with
Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto's introduction. Because it's a work unto itself,
and it serves as an introduction to the science of logic. With G-d's help
we'll present it at a later time, as a treat. Simply because we'd like to
jump into the waters of "The Ways of G-d" right off.

First a rule or two. We'll be referring to our author as "Ramchal", which is
an acronym for his full name, RAbbi Moshe CHAim Luzzatto. And we'll be
paraphrasing the work rather than translating it, both because my teacher,
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (of blessed memory), already did such a masterful job of
it; and also to save space. The truth be known, I'll be using different terms
than the ones Rabbi Kaplan used, but the astute reader will have no trouble
following along.

"The Way of G-d" is divided into four main sections:
1. The Fundamental Principles of Reality
2. Divine Providence
3. The Soul, Inspiration, Prophecy, and the Supernatural
4. Divine Service.

It's not hard to notice that we're going to be touching upon some very heady,
very deep, very profound ideas in the course of our analyses. But let's go
even further, and break these main sections down into their sub-headings.

"The Fundamental Principles of Reality" encompasses:
a. The Creator
b. The purpose of creation
c. Mankind
d. Human Responsibility
e. The spiritual realm

"Divine Providence" encompasses:
a. Divine Providence in general
b. Mankind in this world
c. Personal providence
d. Israel and the other nations
e. How Divine Providence works
f. The sequel of Divine Providence
g. The influence of the stars
h. The details of Divine Providence

"The Soul, Inspiration, Prophecy, and the Supernatural" encompasses
a. The soul and its influence
b. Theurgy (i.e., the art of affecting change in the universe by means of
Divine names and occultism)
c. Inspiration and prophecy
d. The prophetic experience
e. Moses as a prophet

And "Divine Service" encompasses
a. Serving G-d in general
b. Torah study
c. The love and fear of G-d
d. Sh'ma Yisroel and its blessings
e. Prayer
f. The sequence of the day
g. Intermittent observances
h. Seasonal mitzvot
i. Incidental Observances and blessings

Obviously, then, you and I have our work cut out for us. And we're in for a
good time!

We've thus offered quite a mouthful, and we're ready to end for now. But
first notice our sequence: we go from *G-d's Being* and what that implies
("The Fundamental Principles of Reality"), to *the way G-d interacts with us*
in the world ("Divine Providence"), to the mechanisms within us and the
universe that *allow us to interact with Him* (both "The Soul, Inspiration,
Prophecy, and the Supernatural" and "Divine Service").

May G-d grant us all the wherewithal to grasp what we'll be taking in, and to
serve Him better as a consequence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramchal, Copyright  2001 by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman and Torah.org.
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of
Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason
Aronson Publishers). His works are available in bookstores and in various
locations on the Web.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:20:44 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Luzicide


At 09:21 AM 2/21/01 -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>While I no longer have their response, I asked this question to Rabbi M.
>Kornfeld's Kollel Iyun Hadaf.  Their answer was that a.  these were
>apparently nonJews and hence the prohibition against suicide may not
>apply (NB I think this is wrong) and b) that the metaphysical suicide of
>leaving the city is not osur.  I would bring a rayah from the story of
>ashkavta deRebi,  where tefila for someone to die is not osur.

What about the Amorah who married a Luzzite?

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:22:40 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Hachono for Derech Analysis / Voss Iz Der Chilluk?


At 12:33 AM 2/21/01 -0500, Akiva Miller wrote:
>It seems to me that the gemara's comments would refer to the poskim of
>that day, who still had "real" semicha. It would not refer to today's
>poskim, who have no authority beyond that given to them by their
>constituencies.

The Gemara at the begiining of Snahedrin uses shelichusyhu ka'avdinan to 
explain how non-semuchim can pasken. They are sheluchim of the semuchim.

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:14:22 -0500
From: "Noach" <azure7sun@mindspring.com>
Subject:
R' M. Feinstein on Shitos RT in America


R' Carl Sherer:
> AIUI, RT's shita is based upon the amount of time it takes
> darkness to descend where he lived - Northern France - which
> takes a particularly long time to get dark. I also understood that 72
> minutes was intended for Tishrei and Nissan - that the number of
> minutes is more in the summer and less in the winter.

I recall seeing this or something similar  brought down in either
Mishna Breura or one of the accompaying perushim.

> IIRC there is also a tshuva of R. Moshe Feinstein which says that
> based on RT's criteria, 42 minutes is sufficient in New York, and
> that's why 42 minutes is the commonly accepted shiur there.

The '72' minute shito of RT is that there is a shkiah shniah that is
58 1/2 minutes after the first shkiah and that tsais hacochavivm is 13
1/2 minutes later, that is, 72 minutes after the first shkiah. (and
that it is vadai yom until the 2nd shkiah).

I have not seen it inside but have heard from several reliable people
that R' Moshe held that in the U.S., Rabeinu Tam's calculation was
equivalent to 45 and 58 minutes after the first shkia,  respectively
and that he said that while it is a good thing for b'nei Torah to keep
Shabbos until 72 minutes after shkia, halachically 58 minutes in
America is equivalent.

I believe that most yeshivas in the U.S. (at least 'RW' ones) daven
maariv on motsai Shabbos 60 minutes after the shkia so that by the
time they finish it is after 72 minutes.

It should be noted that there were and are many poskim who held the
full 72 minutes of RT in America, many both l'kula and l'chumra.
Included in this list are such luminaries as the R' Moshe Stern, z'l,
the Debretziner Rov, and the Satmarar Rov, z'l.

In Eretz Yisroel, I believe that very few are meikul like RT (at least
not for the full time)  because it gets dark much sooner after shkia.

- Noach


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:31:21 -0500
From: "Noah S. Rothstein" <noahrothstein@mindspring.com>
Subject:
R' Gettinger's Shito on The Halachic Shkia vs. Sunset


R' Emanuel Gettinger, shlita, the rov of Young Israel of the W. Side
(Manhattan), holds that the halachic shkia is somewhat later than what
is conventionally known as 'sunset' or 'sundown'. Over 10 years ago,
R' Shimon Silver, who then was a yungerman in the W. Side Kollel, told
me that R' Gettinger had been working on a sefer about this. Does
anyone know if it has been published yet or have any additional info.
about this in general?

Thank you in advance for any replies.

- Noach


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:53:01 -0500
From: "Noach" <azure7sun@mindspring.com>
Subject:
'Clear P'sak Against RT'- Inaccurate Statement as Such


From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>> Another point: Considering how severe chilul Shabbos and that the
>> z'man RT is at most only 30 minutes later than the earliest z'man that
>> anyone relies upon, I find it difficult to understand why, in the
>> absence of a tsorech godol,  _everyone_ does not follow RT l'chumra
>> wrt to motsai Shabbos.

> Because the clear psak is against RT.

There were and are many poskim who held like RT, many even the full 72
mins, many even in America and many even l'kula.

A more accurate statement would have been something like, "According
to ________ (the clear psak is against RT"

- Noach


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:04:17 -0500
From: "Noah S. Rothstein" <noahrothstein@mindspring.com>
Subject:
72 min. MS- Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain...


From: Joelirich@aol.com
> True perhaps but there are quite a few "severe" issues in halacha, does
> one always take the most chamur position articulated in the halachik corpus?

Being that we are talking of an additional 30 minutes, at most, of
something that is a great mitzvah, It would seem , _in the absence of
a tsorech godol_, that there is everything to gain and nothing to
lose.

R' Moshe Wolfson, shlita, has said that if people could see the
tremendous brocho they get from tosfos Shabbos, they would add hours
to Shabbos.

Doesn't at the very least waiting until 72 minutes* seem prudent when
considering both the severity of chilul Shabbos and the greatness of
tosfos Shabbos? (Again, in the absence of a tsorech godol)

*- 72 minutes is actually not the most chamur shito for tseis. There
is a shito that it is 90 minutes and I have heard that there is even a
shito that is later, at least in the summer, and that some Briskers
follow it l'chumra for motsai Shabbos.

I have also heard that the Satmarar rov, z'l, was machmir for 90
mins., at least  on motsai Yom Kippur.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:22:09 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
RE: 'Clear P'sak Against RT'- Inaccurate Statement as Such


From: Noach [mailto:azure7sun@mindspring.com]
>> Because the clear psak is against RT.

> There were and are many poskim who held like RT, many even the full 72
> mins, many even in America and many even l'kula.

AFAIK very few poskim require 72 minutes in America.  Certainly, the
overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews in America in Israel have rejected 72
minutes.

> A more accurate statement would have been something like, "According
> to ________ (the clear psak is against RT"

OK.  According to klal yisrael, the clear psak is against RT's 72 minute
shittah.


Clarification [Sent in a 2nd email -mi]:

My point is that the concept of being machmir in a din de'oraisa when there
is a machlokes haposkim is only when the minority shitta is a strong one.
The 72 minute RT shitta in the US (as explained by RCS in the name of R.
Moshe) is very weak and therefore there is a hachra'a in this issue against
the 72 minute shitta (not necessarily against RT per se).  Personally, I am
not machmir on this issue because of the very convincing shiur I heard from
R. Sternberg.  (For those who don't know, RS is a very big talmid chacham
who got a private smicha from RYBS.)



> It should be noted that there were and are many poskim who held the
> full 72 minutes of RT in America, many both l'kula and l'chumra.
> Included in this list are such luminaries as the R' Moshe Stern, z'l,
> the Debretziner Rov, and the Satmarar Rov, z'l.

Are there any non-Hungarian poskim in this group?  For some reason, RT
seemed to have caught on in Hungary.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:08:33 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: 'Clear P'sak Against RT'- Inaccurate Statement as Such


On 21 Feb 01, at 18:53, Noach wrote:
> A more accurate statement would have been something like, "According
> to ________ 

most poskim.

(the clear psak is against RT"

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:28:01 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Rov by Bais Din, Shlichusayhu (Derech Analysis)


At 12:38 AM 2/21/01 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>How do you explain the line, "And also in a situation where if the shelichus
>is not done it will be a michshul to the sender we always rely that he will
>do his shelichus and this is not because of aidus". He is obviously
>referring to the person asking the question as the sender.

You're right! That was so far fetched to me that I had not even thought of 
that possibility!

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


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:30:07 +0200
From: "D. and E-H. Bannett" <dbnet@barak-online.net>
Subject:
Re: Praying to angels


> I'm wondering if anyone can share an insight on how to reconcile
> machnesei rachamim with this Rambam?

Insight? No. But you could do what I do. Skip it.

This subject, including other examples of prayer directed to other than
the One, was discussed in detail sometime ago with all sorts of reasons
and teirutzim. I was surprised that IIRC nobody mentioned Bamarom y'amedu
'aleinu zekhut. Doesn't anybody bentsch anymore?

David


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:39:59 +0100
From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
Subject:
Luzicide


> While I no longer have their response, I asked this question to Rabbi M.
> Kornfeld's Kollel Iyun Hadaf.  Their answer was that a.  these were
> apparently nonJews and hence the prohibition against suicide may not
> apply (NB I think this is wrong) 

It is not clear to me that Luz consisted of nonJews. I also think it is
a big chidush that nonJews are not prohibited against suicide.

>                                      b) that the metaphysical suicide of
> leaving the city is not osur.  I would bring a rayah from the story of
> ashkavta deRebi,  where tefila for someone to die is not osur.

The story of rebbi is no proof since that was indirect. It seems to be
accepted Halacha based on this that one can pray for someone's death
when they are in pain. That is far a far step from taking an active
role of stepping out of the city knowing full well that would cause death.

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:35:00 +0100
From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
Subject:
wedding on lail shivah asar b'Tammuz


>         The basis of the disagreement with the psak of RMF is that while
> he establishes that the din of ta'anis (not just issur achila) does not
> begin until morning, he assumes without proof that the onset of bain
> ham'tzarim is linked to ta'anis.

I recall that RYBS (in the sefer on hilchit avelut and tisha Baav) is
also quoted as stating that ben ham'tzarim starts the night of leil
shiva asar Batammuz.

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:30:12 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: 'Clear P'sak Against RT'- Inaccurate Statement as Such


Feldman, Mark:
> My point is that the concept of being machmir in a din de'oraisa when there
> is a machlokes haposkim is only when the minority shitta is a strong one.

>> It should be noted that there were and are many poskim who held the
>> full 72 minutes of RT in America, many both l'kula and l'chumra.
>> Included in this list are such luminaries as the R' Moshe Stern, z'l,
>> the Debretziner Rov, and the Satmarar Rov, z'l.

> Are there any non-Hungarian poskim in this group?  For some reason, RT
> seemed to have caught on in Hungary.

How about the idea that neither sevara nor metzius nor chumra is at play
here, but rather minhag, mesorah, which community you come from etc.

Don't followers of the Gra and Ba'al Hatanya follow those shitos w/o
examining each individual issue? Don't followers of R. Moshe Feinstein
more-or-less do the same? And if someone stems from a community that holds
RT both lechumra and lekulla - wouldn't that refelct what community they
came from and not so much how they view the metzius of sunset, etc.?

RT is simply not operable in certain communities, while in others RTe
is considered ikkar hadin.

Illustration: I once davened mincha/maariv at the Klausenberger in
Union City, NJ and they said a VERY late mincha by yeshivish standards.
Why were they not machmir like the Gra? or the Ba'al haTanya? The answer
to me seems pashut.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:34:13 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
RE: Z'man Motsai Shabbos


Several posters have mentioned that some of those who are machmir to wait
for RT for melachah on Motzaei Shabbos, feel entitled to rely on RT to
daven Minchah after shkia on Erev Shabbos. This haqs reminded me of a
question I've wondered for a long time about RT zmanim.

Namely: Are Rabenu Tam zmanim the same a Magen Avraham zmanim? Are there
any shitos which follow Rabbenu Tam for when the day ends, but which
follow the Gra for calculating the various shiurei zman which occur
during the day?

The reason I ask is because if Shabbos candles are lit before Plag
Hamincha, one is not yotzay, and it is a bracha l'vatalah. But the Magen
Avraham's Plag Hamincha almost always occurs after the published Hadlakas
Neros times, usually very close to sunset, and sometimes (depending on
how you calculate it) even *after* sunset.

Example A, if we use 72 non-zmanios minutes as twilight: In the NYC
winter, when netz is 7:22 am and shkia is 4:29 pm, the MA day is from
6:10 am to 5:41 pm. That makes each shaah zmanis 57.6 minutes long, and
MA's Plag isn't until 4:29:01 pm. At points further north, the day will
be even shorter, Plag will be even longer after the Gra's shkia.

Example B, if we use 1.2 shaos zmanios as twilight: According to this,
however long the time is from sunrise to sunset, 1/40 of that will be the
time by which Plag is before Shkia. On a regular 12 hour day, this will
be 18 minutes, making the published times the *earliest* one could light
the candles. And on a shorter day, the published time will be *too*
early.

It seems to me like a contradiction to rely on the Gra for neros and on
the MA for Mincha. Or is it?

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:18:05 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
RE: Z'man Motsai Shabbos


R' Moshe Feldman wrote <<< I also understood that 72 minutes was intended
for Tishrei and Nissan - that the number of minutes is more in the summer
and less in the winter. >>>

And that is why some calculate the 72 minutes as 1.2 shaos zmanios,
longer in the summer, and shorter in the winter.

The strange thing is, while it is true that the sun descends faster in
winter than in summer, and one would think that spring and fall are
in-between, the truth is that they are even faster than the winter speed.
I don't understand the geometry involved, but here are the figures from
the zmanim calculator at http://www.kashrut.com/zemanim/

These figures show the number of minutes from sunset until the sun has
descended 16.1 degrees below the horizon, at the equinoxes and solstices.
The first column is for Yerushalayim, and the second for New York City.
As you can see from the chart, the figure of "16.1 degrees" was chosen
(by Rav Y.M. Tukachinsky, IIRC) because that is (within a reasonable
margin of error) the position of the sun at RT Tzeis in Tishrei and
Nissan.

03/21  -  73  -  82
06/21  -  87  -  109
09/21  -  73  -  81
12/21  -  78  -  88

In other words, if you are in New York on Dec 21, you have to wait 88
minutes after shkia for the sky to be as dark (as measured by the sun's
position below the horizon) as it is in Yerushalayim in Tishrei and Nisan
at RT Tzeis.

There are several points where the Chofetz Chaim seems to suggest that he
wishes that this computational power had been available at that time. In
Beur Halachah 261 "Shehu", at the very end, he writes, <<< We are not
expert in calculating the latitudes, for the sun changes in its path
according to place and time, and so we do not know how to calculate the 4
mil, which is only one siman >>> (with the 3 stars being the other siman
to determine tzeis).

And in Beur Halacha 293 "3 small stars", he refers to the above cite, and
adds <<< In our countries which lie to the north, bein hashmashos is
always longer, and we have no siman for night other than the stars. >>>

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:05:02 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: R' Gettinger's Shito on The Halachic Shkia vs. Sunset


In a message dated 2/21/01 9:14:10pm EST, noahrothstein@mindspring.com writes:
> R' Emanuel Gettinger, shlita, the rov of Young Israel of the W. Side
> (Manhattan), holds that the halachic shkia is somewhat later than what
> is conventionally known as 'sunset' or 'sundown'...

This is also the Shita of (many Rabonei ) Chabad,  (Nogeia for Hil. Ishus as 
well).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:05:10 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Luzicide


In a message dated 2/21/01 11:24:08am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> While I no longer have their response, I asked this question to Rabbi M.
> Kornfeld's Kollel Iyun Hadaf.  Their answer was that a.  these were
> apparently nonJews and hence the prohibition against suicide may not
> apply (NB I think this is wrong) 

RYGB asks,
> What about the Amorah who married a Luzzite?

RET comments:
>It is not clear to me that Luz consisted of nonJews. I also think it is
>a big chidush that nonJews are not prohibited against suicide.

WRT the first Issue it seems from Pashtus Haksuvim (and Mforshim) that they 
were non-Jews, and note Loshon Hagimara (Soteh 46b) "Knani Zeh".

WRT suicide while Bpashutus it would seem that even a B"N is prohibited, the 
Minchas Chinuch (Mitzva 34) argues that it is (not Bgeder Rotzeiach rather) 
learned from "Ach Es Dimchem" which is a Davar Shloi Nishne after Matan Torah 
which is Ossur only for Bnei Yisroel.

- what needs Biuyr is (a) that the Gemara (Sanhedrin 59a) says that the only 
Mitzvah that Is Lo Nishneh is Gid Hanosheh (according to the M"C suicide is 
also),
(b) furthermore according to the opinions that those things that were not 
repeated after Matan Torah were Ossur to B"N untill Matan Torah (for summary 
of Shitos see E"T Erech Ben Noach), the prohibition of suicide should have 
been counted as an 8th Mitzvah, (c) in addition the Rambam in Hil. Rotzeiach 
(2:2) combines suicide with other forms and considers it murder, (d) if the 
Din of Ach Es Dimchem is  considered as Loi Nishne, then the tying of a 
person for an animal to kill which is learned from "Miyad Kol Chaya" (Rambam 
ibid 2:3) should also be considered a Loi Nishne and Ossur only for Bnei 
Yisroel, yet the Rambam in Hil. Mlochim (9:4) rules that a B"N is killed for 
it (e) and perhaps the Issur of Chovel Batzmoi of after M"T could constitute 
a Nishne even Lshitoso -

After further research I found an article from Rabbi Y. D. Frimer on the 
topic  of mercy killing (printed in Sefer Halacha Urfuah Vol. 4), where he 
discusses this issue  (page 307), he brings the above M"C, and in the 
footnotes he adds that likewise wrote the Sridei Eish Vol. 2, Simon 104 Ois 
1, but he (the S"E) concludes but it needs Iyun if Bemes the Din is so that a 
B"N is not commanded on Chavolas and Misas Atzmoi, (I did not see the S"E 
inside perhaps he discusses (some of ) the points mentioned earlier), the 
auther (Rabbi Frimer) continures and brings proof that "Loi Sirtzach" 
includes suicide hence it is a Nishne, and continues in Pilpul and concludes 
that a B"N *Is* prohibited to commit suicide.

- to add one could argue that from the Gemara A"Z 18a where the Goy who 
caused a quicker death to R' Chanina Ben Tradyoin jumped into the fire, and 
still a Bas Kol anounced that he was Mzumon for Olom Haboh, (proving that for 
a B"N it is not a problem), however there it is possible that he was afraid 
that he would be tortured by the authorities in which case it is permitted 
see Tos. GItin 57b, that also explains the Eicha Rabba 1:51 that suggested 
that Tzidkiyohu Should have committed suicide, (see Mforshim there), this 
further may also explain the women (Miriam/Chana ?, see Mforshim om Eicha 
Rabba 1:50) who after having her 7 children killed comitted suicide and a Bas 
Kol anounced "Eim Habonim Smeicha" (Gitin ibid) as the constant torture of 
the event may have been considered a form of "Nogduha" , hence answering the 
quesitons of the Mforshim on the (above mentioned) Eicha Rabba, and see 
Lhalacha the Beis Lechem Yehuda on Y"D 345.

> and b) that the metaphysical suicide of
> leaving the city is not osur.  I would bring a rayah from the story of
> ashkavta deRebi,  where tefila for someone to die is not osur.

RET comments:
>The story of rebbi is no proof since that was indirect. It seems to be
>accepted Halacha based on this that one can pray for someone's death
>when they are in pain. That is far a far step from taking an active
>role of stepping out of the city knowing full well that would cause death.

In private e-mail I argued the same pointb that Tfila leaves it in the hands 
of HKB"H while leaving the city is an action taken by the Man.

However perhaps we can combine both answers that for a B"N the removal of a 
Davar Nissi and letting nature take it's course is not Ossur under Mabeid 
Atzmoi, (see Shach Y"D 345 that the reason someone who commits a crime 
punishable by death in a secular court is not considered a Mabeid Es Atzmoi, 
is because he thought he (wouldn't be caught) would escape, otherwise it 
might be considered Mabeid).

HOWEVER this is all according to the Girse in our Gemara that the Zkeinim who 
got sick with their life went out (themselves), but in the Brieshis Rabbah 
(69:8) the Girse is "Motzi'in" (that others took them out) in this case it 
isn't a question of suicide (and the pilpul if it Muttar for a B"N) 
none-the-less the answer that it is the removal of a Nes might stand (also 
the Mashmous of the Breishis Rabboh is that they were sick and in pain etc. 
which may now become a Geder of "Nogduha"

WRT praying for sick person to die, in the "Nishmas Avrohom" on Y"D 335, he 
brings the Ran (Ndorim 40a) that it is permissable to pray and he brings the 
Rayoh of "Amsei Drebi" (as RGD mentioned), (he brings other Poskim who bring 
the RAn), the N"A adds from the Yerushalmi (Shabbos 19:2) where Rav Ada 
prayed for a Ptzua Dakka to die since he can't marry, he also brings from the 
Tiferes Yaakov that just like one is permitted to pray for himself like 
E-liyo-hu and Yona so one may pray for someone else and see B"M 84a, the N"A 
adds where Choni Ham'ageil asked for death (Taanis 23a), he concludes that 
RMF (in Moriya, Elul 5744 pg 52) quotes this Gemara to rule that there are 
times one "is required" to pray i.e. when he is in great pain and medicines 
are not helping and prayers for Refua are not being accepted.

(In private e-mail I quoted RMF but did not have the exact Mokor, so I 
e-mailed to RDE from Yad Moshe, and here is his response:
>Choshen Mishpat II #73.1 page 304 and #74.4 page 313 also see page 311
>this is page 322 in my index category Refuah:Tefilah
Thanks)

However he brings that the Tzitz Eliezer (Vol. 5 Ramas Rochel Simon 5, Vol. 7 
49:13, and Vol. 9 # 47) that it is forbidden and from Ashkavte Drebe is a 
Rayo to the contrary, that the sages knowing the grave situatioin did not 
stop praying for a Refuah, and concludes since there is no Halacha in Tur S"A 
and the Nossei Keilim to permit it it is Ossur.

-just to add another few Mkoros about praying for death (in a different vein) 
Brochos 10a R"M on the Biryonim, Tos. D"H Hashkeim Gitin 7a, Makos 11a in the 
Mishna.

In priavte e-mail RGD comments, WRT the longevity of Luz

>Which makes me wonder,  was the ibur ha'ir and/or the techum included?

Which Hu Mosiv La Vhu Mfareik Lah, by writing:

> Maybe you could bring a rayah from the fact [brought in Sukka 53a] that 
> Shlomo sent his two mesharsim to Luz to escape the malach hamoves and the 
> mh"m found them at the pesach ha'ir.   That would be toch ha'ibur but 
> obviously from the ma'aseh, still under teva rules.

That is based on the Girse in the Ein Yaakov that it was "Abova" and Rashi in 
the Gemara who says by the Shaar, however the Loshon in the Shaas in "Mchuza" 
and see the Meiam Loeiz on the Possuk in Vayeira 18:16 (Breishis Vol. 1 pg. 
357) who says that they died before they reached the "Tchum", I would point 
out that by Yaakov we find the term (Breishis 33:18) "Pnei" Hair (not just 
plain Ir), and by Moshe he said (Shmos 9:29) Kitzeisee Es "Hair" bpashtus 4 
Amos would be enough.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:31:43 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Judging another


[The following conversation from Areivim about a the impact of a particular rav
migrated into Avodah territory. Name of said rav is removed, since I don't
think discussing him is appropriate here. -mi]

At 06:57 PM 2/22/01 +0200, Akiva Atwood [quoted RYGB and] wrote:
>> On the whole, while he had some positive impact, Am Yisroel would have been
>> much better off without the influence of R' [deleted].

>In your opinion, of course.

>Objectively, this sort of cheshbon is only the Rebbono Shel Olam's to make.

I believe I was expressing *my* opinion.

You raise an important theological point. The argument can be made, of 
course that even, say Shabtai Tzvi was essential to Hashem's masterplan. We 
must reformulate, therefore, azoi:

On the whole, while individual X had some positive direct impact, Am 
Yisroel's destiny has been shaped more in terms of nisyonos to overcome 
than examples to emulate by X.

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


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 >