Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 036

Monday, May 7 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:35:35 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Is there a role for AishDas?


At 11:00 PM 5/3/01 +0100, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
>May I remind you, as a matter of history, that Avodah was set up as a
>high level Torah discussion list and, mainly I believe because RYGB did
>not feel able to keep running it, was it then run out of Aishdas.

>I would be slightly concerned if, as an original subscriber (actually,
>that is too active, I was defacto subscribed in the original mailing of
>Avodah pre Aishdas and decided not to unsubscribe) that was deemed to
>mean that I bought into the Aishdas Charter...

As I mentioned at the Yom Iyun, in a society or community, as opposed to a 
collection of individuals, not everyone moves together in lock step - some 
people move much and some people do not move much at all: But, I add now, 
if the movers move sincerely and effectively, then everyone will be "moved" 
(tartei mashma).

I am very much opposed to separating into a third list. One is never 
required to "buy in" - but you might be bought :-) .

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 09:49:33 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: FW: HALAKHA61 -21: Mentioning "Shem & Malkhut" in Blessings


On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 04:40:10PM -0400, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: The explanation of this distinction seems clear. The requirement of Shem
: in a berakha does not constitute a halakhic detail relevant to berakhot,
: but rather itself defines the statement as a "berakha."...
: The requirement of Malkhut, by contrast, extends beyond the basic
: definition of the berakha; it constitutes an additional halakhic detail...

I think this means that "baruch Hashem li'olam amein vi'amein" is
a berachah.

As well as "Barechu", "Yehi sheim hashem mivorach...", "Baruch sheim
kivod malchuso..." As I noted in the past, every matbei'ah made as a
davar shebikedushah is of the form of a berachah extended to the end
of time and/or the ends of space. Now we're saying that they qualify
technically as berachos as well.

For some reason, none have malchus. Ideas?

: In light of this distinction, we can easily explain why the opening
: berakha of Shemoneh Esrei features no mention of Malkhut....

RAL doesn't address the Amidah of minchah, not does he address the
presence of malchus in the opening berachos of Shema.

-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: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:08:35 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #8: MC vol. 2 p. 136


Finally coming around to answering back e-mail!

We asked:

>The Rambam paskens in Nizkei Mamon 10:7 that a Shor (Ox) that itself was a 
>Tereifah or owned by a person that is a Tereifah, that gored a person to 
>death, is not stoned, because it says in Mishpatim "V'gam Ba'alav Yumos" - 
>as is the death of the owner so is the death of the ox. Since, in the case 
>of a murderer that is a Tereifah there is no death penalty, that halacha 
>pertains to the ox and its owner as well.

>The Ohr Somei'ach there asks why is this case any different than the case 
>of an ox owned by minor orphans - there too the owner is exempt from the 
>death penalty, because kettanim that murder are pattur - yet their ox, if 
>it gored a person to death, is itself then executed.

>Voss Iz Der Chilluk?
>What derachim have you employed to reach that chilluk?

The OS himself answers that since a person who is a tereifah is in the 
category of subject to the rule of law, we must therefore judge his ox 
according to the rule of law, and that requires the judgement to be 
rendered before the litigant. Since the owner himself is not, in this case, 
suitable to be the litigant (defendant) in a capitol case, the ox is 
precluded as well. The kattan, however, is not in the category of subject 
to the rule of law, and the ox is therefore regarded, technically, in this 
case, as an ox of hefker, and in order to remove its potential danger, may 
be judged and is judged unilaterally.

The shverrkeit with the OS is that he stipulates that we are obviously not 
taking public menace into account with the ox of the tereifah. He resolves 
that by saying that the flip side of the fact that the tereifah is in the 
category of subject to the rule of law ("tsayis dinna") is that we assume 
he will reliably guard the dangerous ox - which, again, taking the flip 
side of lo tzayis dinna by the kattan into account, is not applicable in 
that scenario.

R' Elchonon (KS 2:39) resolves the paradox by quoting a Tosafos in Gittin 
and saying that a kattan will eventually be b'toras misas beis din, while a 
tereifah will not.

RCPS, in a similar vein, resolves the paradox based on the Gemoro Sanhedrin 
55b that states that a kattan really should be put to death for a capitol 
crime but "Rachmana hu d'chos ilavei" - and then the answers proceeds in a 
similar vein to the R' Elchonon.

So, the latter two resolutions necessitate the negation of R' Micha's 
assertion:

>OTOH, a katan is fully patur from the death penalty.

...In the vein expressed by RGS and RCM. The RE is really classic Brisk. RCM's:

>2) A koton doesn't have real baalus. Therefore, the petur can't carry over 
>to his shor-it's not really his shor.

May well be the OS. RSG's chilluk is a novel twist on the RE and RCPS:

>A treifah is already considered dead.  Therefore, killing him can't happen.
>So since he cannot be killed, his ox may not be killed.
>
>A katan is not punishable.  He could however be killed.  This would be a
>violation of lo tirztach.  Therefore, even though he is not punished for his
>behavior, the verse linkage of owner to ox should not be a reason to exempt
>the katan.

I find the OS R' Shimon'dikke, as it really tries to employ higayon instead 
of a neat, but technical distinction.

RYZKD faxed me a Rogatchover Sanhedrin 78a that seems similar to the RCPS, 
but also with a twist (which makes it Rogatchoverish): A kattan is not 
necessarily a bar missa, but he is a bar kapporo, as the Gemoro in 
Sanhedrin 55 implies - that is sufficient to make him a bona fide defendant 
and consider it a conclusion of the din befnei ba'al din - as opposed to a 
tereifah, who cannot be a ba'al din in a capitol case at all - although, 
interestingly, the Rogatchove there does make a distinction in tereifah: 
the pe'ulah of arba misos BD he is not shayach to, but he is shayach to the 
niph'al of being put to deaht - which is why if a tereifah kills in front 
of BD he is killed.

Taking the Rogatchover into the lashon ha'Rambam, I believe, verifies his 
approach: the Rambam says that since the owner of this ox is considered 
dead, he does not *require* missa; i.e., the judgment here is a function of 
a kapporo: Normally a kattan is not b'toras kapporo, but here, where the 
kapporo is obliquely performed, on his shor, there is no "chas alei", and 
we do the kapporo for him. For the tereifah, of course, the kapporo is 
unnecessary. Note that if you look at the end of halacho 6 the Rambam says 
Chershim and Shottim do not require kappro (in terms of koffer).

The Hungarian answer is that a tereifah is considered dead - that is why 
there is one Posek who says that if one's wife is a tereifah you can 
already marry her sister. But a kattan is fully alive. V'dok.

Next one bl"n od ha'yom!

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:22:44 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
VIDC #9: MC vol. 1 p. 98


The Shitta Mekubetzes BK 11b writes in the name of "Talmidei Rabbinu
Yisroel" that if a bechor is killed within thirty days we would have
followed the Rov that most infants are Bar Kayama and required post-mortem
pidyon, if not for an exclusion based on the wrd "Ach". Thus, despite
the fact that we do not normally follow a Rov by Mammon, since Pidyon
ha'Ben is a mitzva we would follow a Rov thereby.

This would seem to contradict the Tzemach Tzedek 125 who rules that in
a safek if a mother is a Bas Kohen or not we do not follow the Rov that
most women are Bnos Yisroelim, because Ein Holchin b'Mammon Achar ha'Rov.

Voss Iz Der Chilluk?

What derachim have you employed to reach that chilluk?

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:51:09 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
Re: 10 Steps to greatness


On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 01:03:11PM -0400, Torah.Center.Webmaster@mx-a.awc.net
wrote:
: Spend at least 30 seconds each day thinking about the WORLD TO COME -
: Olam Haba - and that we are in this world only as a preperation for the
: world to come.
: This is the purpose of life.

Is this perhaps an overstatement? The *only* reason we're in this world
is as a preparation for OH? What about tikkun olam on this world?

I think that the issue may depend on how one understands "Olam hazeh
prozdor l'olam haba." Does prozdor mean lobby (having no significance
whatsoever) or antechamber (having significance, but still not as
important as OH)? I've seen both translations.

This also connects with the issue of why the Torah talks only of this
world and not OH. Is it just that OH was meant to be emphasized by Torah
She'be'al Peh, or is it possible that Hashem didn't want us walking
around with our focus on OH. Does anyone recall whether Rav Kook wrote
anything about this (i.e., during the time of Tanach, there was less of
an emphasis on OH; the increased emphasis is a product of Golus)?

This connects with Micha's comment--"al ti'h'yu k'talmidim ha'mishamshin
es harav al m'nas l'kabel pras."

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:31:08 -0400
From: gil.student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: 10 Steps to greatness


Micha wrote:
> I am concerned about this. We tend to not to focus on olam haba too much 
> because it can quite easily lead to shimush es haRav al minas likabeil p'ras.

It can, but it doesn't have to.  Olam Haba is the place where we can fulfill the
reason for which we were created, lehisaneg al Hashem velihanos miziv 
shechinaso.  That is not necessarily a sechar, it is a goal.

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> Is this perhaps an overstatement? The *only* reason we're in this world is as 
> a preparation for OH? What about tikkun olam on this world?

According to the Ramchal, yes.  See the first chapter of Mesilas Yesharim.  
Others, however, disagree.  For example, see Kuzari 3:1.
     
Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 14:33:11 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Flood (redux from volume 3)


At 04:41 PM 5/2/01 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>The Maharal's second introduction to Gevuros Hashem writes that to the
>extent that you can raise yourself above (or below) the physical plane
>you experience a reality more determined by "laws of miracle" rather than
>"laws of nature".
...
>Perhaps, and I insist on the perhaps, this is a HUGE stretch, one can
>say that we don't find evidence of miracles because we are measuring
>the reality of the Egyptians at the Red Sea, not the Jews.

Check out the MME vol. 1 on Olam ho'Asiyah vs. Olam ha'yetzirah. Similar idea.

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


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:48:18 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
IDE, IDT & Pesach Sheni


See the first Pri Tzaddik on Pesach Sheni - a difficult piece, but one in 
which I belive the point is made that Pesach Rishon is a bechina of IDE, 
which is why there is Hallel that night, whereas Pesach Sheni is an IDT 
(again, grammatically, that should be IDS, but shabeshta keivan d'ol ol), 
to which one is zocheh davka via teshuvah, which is thus similar to the 
Yomim Noro'im where there is no Hallel.

V'yesh l'hosif: Pesach Sheni is on the 29th day of the Omer, gimatriyah 
Chiy"a. See the famous Gemoro about the dispute of R' Chanina and R' Chiya 
Kesuvos 103b: R' Chanina is the bechina of Torah as a Matnas Chinam: that 
is the IDE of Pesach Rishon. R' Chiya is the bechina of Torah based on our 
Avodah; corresponding to the initiation of Pesach Sheni davka via the 
request of those were temei'im in the Midbar - through IDT.

V'ullai yesh makom l'yashev ba'zeh why the minhag is to eat matzo on 14 
Iyar, not 15 Iyar bo'erev as would properly correspond to the actual event 
of a Pesach Sheni: the minhag is to memorialize not the "k'zeisa pischa 
v'hallel poka igra" - which even by Pesach Sheni is the IDE - but the IDT 
of the hiskarvus implicit in the Hakrovo.

Yishma Chochom v'yosif lekach!

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:46:20 EDT
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject:
the Aish Das and Haolim rationale


I have just reread the article on R Birnbaum and the charter. I question
whether American Torah Jewry is ready for the strong chumros in personal
ethics and restrictions from excesses required by Dr Birnbaum. What
about sports and athletics as they pertain to one's healty , as opposed
to professional sports?One could argue that the Torah community has
flourished in the US davka because of the desire to learn Torah in an
up to date Beit Midrash, as opposed to a shack. Somehow, ascetiscm has
always been for a holy few within Torah , but only for a few. That could
be why a Nazir is kadosh and a choteh. While our contemporary world has
much of a technologically redeeming nature, there is a lot that we could
minimize or do without. hamevin yavin

OTOH, all of us benefit from learning Mussar and Chassidus. Think about
the words of the Ramban - don''t be a "naval brshus haTorah." That phrase
preceded Dr Birnbaum by many centuries.It is still a very cogent social
critique of what is wrong with our olam.

            Steve Brizel
            Zeliglaw@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 02:38:57 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Ten Steps to Greatness


On 4 May 01, at 9:41, Micha Berger wrote:
> But what about berachos? Not even benchin or the longer berachos: I'm
> thinking of Asher Yatzar, 

Asher Yatzar is actually a sgula for cures from all kinds of
sicknesses. Saying it with proper kavana probably takes about thirty
seconds, which is twenty more than most people give it. I think it's an
excellent place to start. When you say it, think of all the cholim you
know who are looking for refuos....

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:16:57 +0300
From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
bein adam


R'mi> people are weak in bein adam lachaveiro

Today, people ask if I only have to love my friend as myself, then
v'ahavta l'reacha kmocha is not such a big mitzva.

This is of course the exact opposite of the Rishonim (Ramban, R' Ibn Ezra)
that find this mitzva an extremely hard demand.

Perhaps what we need to work on is self-esteem. See R' Avrohom J. Twersky
who has written extensively on this topic. It is my impression that this
was the focus of Slabodka mussar.

Perhaps we should have chaburos to increase self-esteem through
appropriately focussed study of parshas hashavua/medrash.

Shlomo Goldstein


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 02:38:56 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?


On 3 May 01, at 18:14, Harry Maryles wrote:
> The fact that there are Refuos mentioned in TSBP does not mean that it
> was intended as an exhaustive list of all cures. I believe that much of
> what is quoted in the Gemmara was just Agav Urcha to the various Sugyos
> that they are attached to. As I said in the past, I don't believe for
> example, that anyone would ever be able to map the Human Genome through
> even the most thorough study of TSBK and TSBP... not even the Vilna Gaon.

Then how would you explain the story in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 
65b) when one of the Amoraim (Rava or Rabba depending on the 
girsa) created a person? Would you argue that's allegorical? 

-- 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: Sun, 6 May 2001 13:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?


On 3 May 01, at 18:14, Harry Maryles wrote:
>>                                              ... I believe that much of
> > what is quoted in the Gemmara was just Agav Urcha to the various Sugyos
> > that they are attached to. As I said in the past, I don't believe for
> > example, that anyone would ever be able to map the Human Genome through
> > even the most thorough study of TSBK and TSBP... not even the Vilna Gaon.

Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> Then how would you explain the story in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 
> 65b) when one of the Amoraim (Rava or Rabba depending on the 
> girsa) created a person? Would you argue that's allegorical? 

Perhaps. I can't explain every Gemmarah. However, in this case it is
entirely possible that Rava/Rabba had the Madda for that particular feat
without knowing about the geneitc code. But that doesn't mean that he
got it from TSBK or TSBP. Even if he did, it doesn't mean that all of
Mada is contained therein.

HM 


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 19:24:18 -0400
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
Subject:
Flood (Maharal's concept of nissim)


My limited experience in studying the Maharal's sefarim suggests that it
requires a concentrated effort to properly understand his language and
ideas. My questions, then, are on Micha's understanding of the Maharal's
view of nissim. The basic idea, I gather, is that reality is dependent
on the level of the observer. Different people will attend ostensibly
the same phenomenon yet may have a totally different experience of that
phenomenon. The examples given were makat dam, the sun at the battle of
Givon, and kri'at yam suf. The reality of these events was experienced
quite differently for the be'nei Yisrael and their enemies. For the
Egyptians the Nile and other surface waters turned to blood; for the
be'nei Yisrael they remained water (source, anyone?). At Givon, Yehoshua
prayed for the sun to illuminate the battlefield until the Canaanite
forces were totally destroyed. As a result, the day was protracted for
the battle opponents, but normal for anyone else. I'm not sure of the
first distinction - although there were others in later makot, and I
can imagine a situation wherein the Israelites and Canaanites doing
battle at Givon felt time moving at a slower pace. For the former,
their vision and metabolic process were accelerated, while the opposite
was true for the latter. For the rest of the world, time passed normally.

However, I can't begin to understand a statement attributed to the
Maharal to the effect that the reality for the Egyptians was that the
yam suf remained as flowing water and never split. Why, then, in this
version of events did the Egyptians ever see fit to drive their chariots
into a flowing sea? The verses clearly indicate otherwise. The Egyptian
chariots were mired in the mud of the seabed and the Egyptians started
running when the watery walls came crashing down upon them. The reality
for the Egyptians was not radically different, then, than for the be'nei
Yisrael - their positions, however, were radically different. The former
were stuck in the seabed, while the latter had already crossed over to
land. The next phase of reality was also the same for both. They both
saw the waters returning to normal - only the effect of that reality
was radically different for the two sets of observers. As an aside,
if physical reality and physics had nothing to do with the nes, then
why was there a need for a strong easterly wind blowing the entire night?

The application to Noah's flood is interesting, but I wonder if the
application is in the Maharal, or is it Micha's extrapolation? If the
watery reality was only for the corrupted humanity, then why is there
a need for the ark and why is the ark floating on the water? If Noah's
reality was the same as his contemporaries - but he was saved by G-D's
grace, then why shouldn't we experience Noah's reality and find evidence
of flood artifacts. Was Noah really at a much lower level than we moderns?

Yitzchok Zlochower


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 19:45:48 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Flood (redux from volume 3)


In a message dated 5/3/01 12:37:48pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> The Maharal...
> The sun stood still for those who fought in the valley, but for the rest
> of the world astronomy and time went on as usual. Etc...

See Rashi Breishis 48:17 D"H Vizaroi.

> Perhaps, and I insist on the perhaps, this is a HUGE stretch, one can
> say that we don't find evidence of miracles because we are measuring
> the reality of the Egyptians at the Red Sea, not the Jews.

> It would also explain the flood. We aren't that far sub-natural either.

WRT the Mabul the Zohar says that Rabi Chiya and Rabi Yosi walking behind the 
mountains of darkness saw signs of the Mabul, the Zohar explains that HKB"H 
leaves these signs for the Tzadikim and for the Rishoim, (this is quoted in 
the Meiam Loeiz by the Mabul), also Diyuk of the Gemara in Shabbos 113b seems 
to indicate that the reason the earth of Bovel causes sickness, has to do 
with the Mabul, and see Radal on Pirkei DR"E Perek 23 Ois 26.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 19:45:52 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Flood (redux from volume 3)


In a message dated 5/3/01 6:08:35pm EST, Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> The Dibra Torah belashon benei adam.
> The Torah used 1500 BCE idiom to describe events that probably require
> year 3000 CE understandings of physics, metaphysics, etc.

The Nekuda of "Dibra Torah belashon benei adam" is that since it is given to 
man it should be understood by him, Val Derech "Loi Ba Hakosuv Listom Eloh 
L'fareish"

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 19:45:50 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Ibn Ezra & Shamor V'Zachor


In a message dated 5/3/01 2:05:08pm EDT, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:

Correction 20:1

>   ...Some say that G-d's speech is miraculous and is beyond

> our comprehension to understand its nature. Thus He was able to say
> simultaneously zachor v'shamor. [Mechilta]. This assertion that G-d
> can say words simultaneously would be conceivable for G-d. But it is
> inconceivable that it did actually happen because of the fact those who
> heard this divine speech were humans. The sense of hearing is not like
> that of sight. While it is possible for the eye to distinguish many shapes
> at one time, this is impossible for the ear. Hearing works by sensing
> changes in air pressure i.e., it is a serial processor. The order that
> the sounds are generated determines the order that they are perceived.

The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 27a says that there is difference between the 2 
sounds coming from one source or 2 sources, and Lhalacha "Trei Koli Mishtami" 
in a Davar Hachoviv, see Tos. D"H Ad Sheyichla Soteh 39b (brought in the 
Gilyon Hashas), also see Rashi and Tos. R"H 34b that one can hear and define 
9 Kolos from 9 people at the same time.

> Even if we attempt to get around this difficulty by saying that G-d
> improved the sense of hearing to enable the Jews to hear these sounds
> simultaneous we run into another problem. There is a rule that whoever
> explains a particular occurrence in the Torah by miraculous events which
> are not stated in the Torah nor are known by tradition - the explanation
> can not be true. Even if you find such such comments in the Talmud -

Lichora Tzarich Iyun, We learn from it Lhalacha that one cannot hear 2 Kolos 
from one source "Mah Shein Ho'ozon Yochol Lishmoa, as to what exactly 
transpired see Ramban Shmos 20:8

> If you look at Rav Chaim Heller's Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvos he

The Pela is that he does not mention the (above mentioned) Ramban who 
explains why here is not the same as other places, (which is brought by the 
Mforshei Rashi, OTOH he brings support to the Rashba from other places in the 
Ramban who was his Rebbe).

In any case I call attention to the changes in Loshon Rashi from Yisroi and 
V'eschanan especially the addition of the word *Ubiteiva* Achas

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 19:45:54 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: sinat chinam


In a message dated 5/4/01 10:59:32am EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> But what if a person kills themselves for a reason, but the reason doesn't
> warrant the reaction? For example, even bizeman hazah, would we be meikil
> on someone who killed themselves to protest some war?

See Pischei Tshuva Ois 2 on Y"D 344.


Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 19:45:55 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: VIDC #9: MC vol. 1 p. 98


In a message dated 5/4/01 11:00:04am EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> The Shitta Mekubetzes BK 11b writes in the name of "Talmidei Rabbinu
> Yisroel" that if a bechor is killed within thirty days we would have
> followed the Rov that most infants are Bar Kayama...
> This would seem to contradict the Tzemach Tzedek 125 who rules that in
> a safek if a mother is a Bas Kohen or not we do not follow the Rov that
> most women are Bnos Yisroelim, because Ein Holchin b'Mammon Achar ha'Rov....

This Tzemach Tzedek is also quoted by the Gilyon Maharsha Y"D 105:13,
as to the question see also Sdei Chemed Kllolim Mareches Hoaleph Ois 268.

Perhaps 1) Tos. obviously disagrees. 2) from "Ach" we learn that we do
apply the rule of EHbMAH by a Mitzvah (Al Kol Ponim Pidyon Haben).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:12:52 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
Subject:
kel erech apaim


According to the various siddurim I have looked at one does not recite
kel erech apayim (right before taking out the Torah) on the same days
one does not say lamnatzeach. This is a smaller number of days that
those when Tachanun is not said.

1. In the shuls that I go to nevertheless one does not say kel erech
   apayim whenever Tachanun is not said. e.g. on Pesach sheni we
   skipped tachanun and kel erech apayim and did say lamnatzeach.
   Is this common practice?

2. What is the reason for different prayers not be said on different
   sets of days. Why is lamnatzeach said more often than tachanun?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:21:01 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
Subject:
alenu


returning to a recent discussion of differences between sefard and
ashkenaz on saying kaddish after alenu.

What is the reason for the differences between sefard and ashkenaz as
to whether alenu or shir shel yom is the last prayer in schacharit.
Interestingly, in the main shul in Berlin which davens ashkenaz they
switch the order at the end and use the sefard order from ashrei on
(no idea if this is post war or an older custom).

Also what is the reason for the difference in Micha and Maariv that
sefard and ashkenaz say alenu and then kaddish while edot hamizrach add
a psalm before alenu, say kaddish and end with alenu.

In northern Europe (Paris, Belgium, Netherlands and north from there)
motzei shabbat is currently after 10pm. Hence, during the week many
shuls have only mincha and not maariv because people dont come out that
late. Thus, shuls add an extra kaddish in Micha to make up for the one
missed in maariv. This is said after an extra psalm recited after alenu
(in contradistiction to edot hamizrach who add it before alenu).

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 09:17:34 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: sun standing still


On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:12:19AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: It terms of evidence for miracles what kind of evidence would one want?
: One wouldn't expect any physical evidence of the splitting of the sea.

What about remains of the Egyptians al sefas hayam?

Or perhaps historical document from one of Egypt's enemies that Egypt
suddenly found itself without a ruler or army.

The apparant seamlessness of history through the period of the mabul and
migdal bavel is a bigger problem.

On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 07:24:18PM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:                                                   I'm not sure of the
: first distinction - although there were others in later makot, and I
: can imagine a situation wherein the Israelites and Canaanites doing
: battle at Givon felt time moving at a slower pace.

But this is not what happened. As the gemara states (and is discussed at
length in the Maharal), the sun went back and repeated part of its trip
across the sky. (There is a machlokes tanna'im as to what part and how.)

: However, I can't begin to understand a statement attributed to the
: Maharal to the effect that the reality for the Egyptians was that the
: yam suf remained as flowing water and never split. Why, then, in this
: version of events did the Egyptians ever see fit to drive their chariots
: into a flowing sea?

That's why they waited until the Jews emerged from the other side before
entering.

Perhaps (meaning, "my extrapolation here") it was enough to convince
them the water wasn't as deep as it looks.

: The application to Noah's flood is interesting, but I wonder if the
: application is in the Maharal, or is it Micha's extrapolation?

I wonder why you wonder. As I posted there:
> This idea is, as I said, a half-baked huge chiddush. Feel free to comment
> and poke holes. (Betei'avon!)

An important motivation of the Maharal's is addressing the question of
why nissim don't represent after-thoughts. After all, if beri'ah was
perfect, would HKBH need to later tweak it?

The Maharal states that he is giving the laws by which neis operates.
IOW, nissim follow rules that go back to ma'aseh bereishis as much as
teva does. That's the basic premise running through this.

Which means the same principle of dependency on the observer HAS to be
assered here as well.

The question is whether those rules only apply to contemporary observers,
or also to those who explore the evidence (or lack thereof) left behind.

:                                                              If Noah's
: reality was the same as his contemporaries - but he was saved by G-D's
: grace, then why shouldn't we experience Noah's reality and find evidence
: of flood artifacts. Was Noah really at a much lower level than we moderns?

I would suggest that if measured not on an absolute scale but as a
gap between potential and reality -- Noach could have been on a lower
madreiga than us.

Besides, even we midgets stand on giant's shoulders. Whose shoulders
did Noach stand on that we don't?

I am very interested in other approaches to applying the Maharal's
definition of neis to the mabul. Keeping archeological questions
aside, what exactly does this say about Noach?

-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.


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


[ 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 >