Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 082

Thursday, August 2 2001

• RE: Weekly Halacha - Parshas Vaeschanan
• Peeled Eggs etc
• Shelled eggs, and peeled garlic/onion left overnight
• Adoption
• Re: Mitzvas Yishuv EY according to the Vayoel Moshe
• query_old-uid-7599380_form-6_db-m_Dopt.
• Vort from Bnei Yissaschar
• Re: Adoption
• Re: shekia
• Re: shekia
• RE: mitzva kiyumis again
• Re: mitzva kiyumis again
• Good Guys
• Re: Avodah V7 #80
• real ROY and sophistication in halachah
• Stem Cell Research
• Re: Dor Revi'i on va-neishev ba-gai mul beit p'or
• Re: Dor Revi'i on ki hi hokhmatkhem u-vinatkhem l'einei ha-amim

On Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:26 AM, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>> By Rabbi Doniel Neustadt
...
>> SHELLED EGG, PEELED ONION, or PEELED GARLIC CLOVE LEFT OVERNIGHT

> Isn't a more basic question why the S"A chose to codify one and not the
> other? Any ideas on why?

FWIW, Rabbi Bluth instructed my sister in law, then a kitchen manager in a 
summer camp, to discard peeled onions which were left out overnight. No 
idea what he holds about eggs or garlic.

In regards to the whole issue of peeled eggs etc., Rav Moshe has a teshuva
on it where he discusses how a caterer (or anyone for that matter) can use
the liquid egg containers. Since the eggs are shelled and they have been
left overnight, why isn't there ruach ra. He answers that ruach ra would
only apply where the eggs are shelled for the next day. But if they were
shelled for a long period of time, no ruach ra exists. His sevara in this is
that "ain l'cha ella chidusho" and the gemara was only talking about eggs
peeled for immediate use.

I know the OU relies on this as well as another sevara that Rav Belsky has
that anything hermetically sealed does not have ruach ra.

FWIW Rav Shachter does not believe ruach ra in this case applies b'zman
hazeh. (I don't know what he holds about ruach ra in general). Also, Rav
Dovid Feinstein has told me the only ruach ra that exists b'zman hazeh is
washing one's hands in the morning. When I asked him about Rav Moshe's
teshuva he said Rav Moshe was writing for those who want to be machmir in
this issue. 

The sefer Shmiras Haguf V'hanesh brings down the different shittos in poskim
on this issue. Some hold it only applies to cooked eggs and some hold it
only applies to raw eggs and some hold it applies to both. If you mix the
eggs with something else there is no ruach ra.

Some practical applications are 1) deviled eggs left overnight -what does
one do with the egg white? 2) Raw onions on a hamburger left over night. Can
you eat the onions. 

This is based on a gemara in Nidah 17a and l'chatchila one shouldn't
leave sheled eggs, and peeled garlic and onion overnight [Kaf haChayim
115:72; Chelkat Yaakov YD 39; Minchat Yitzchak VI 74) unless part of the
vegetable is left attached. B'diavad, if there is hefsed meruba, it's
permitted [Minchat Yitzchak IV 108; Shevet haLevi VI 111].

IMHO leaving onion/garlic exposed overnight could engender a redox
reaction that could very well cause danger to health. Chazal knew what
we in medicine are only now trying to understand.

Josh

The gemara in Sanhedrin 19b says, "kol ha'megadel yatom b'veito ma'aleh
alav ha'katuv k'ilu yelado". the Chelkat Mechokek Even Ha'Ezer 15:3 equates
adoption to fulfilling the mitzva of pru ur'vu ! Obviously, there are
halachic differences between a child who was born to the parents vs. a child
who was adopted with regard to: drawing blood, cursing them, aveilut,
nachalot, eydut, how one is called up to the Torah, name on shtarot, etc.

Josh

SBA wrote to Areivim:
> Having followed the discussion in the past week or so about Mitzvas
> Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, and not knowing a great deal about it, I had a
> quick look at the Maamar Yishuv EY in the Vayoel Moshe.

> In the sefer it's author the Satmar Rebbe z'l mentions a number of times,
> that he is not being mechadesh any chidushim in his sefer.
> He has simply brought together all the sources on this topic and then
> summed up a sach hakol - halocho lemaaseh.

> (BTW, I made a quick 'wholesale' count - using the excellent references
> and index at the back of the sefer - and found, that besides the approx.
> 2000 references to Torah, Neviim, Kesuvim, (plus their various Targumim),
> Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefto, Mechilta, Sifri, Midroshim, Zohar, etc.
> sifrei Rambam and Ramban, Arba Chelkei SA and the nosei keilim,
> the SR quotes from almost another 200 Sifrei Rishonim and Achronim.

> I would be most surprised to learn that there is another sefer which brings
> together such an array of sources and details on this mitzvah.)

> I feel that all our 'armchair experts' (and, I hastily add, many here are
> of course more than simply 'armchair experts' - but they too) should learn
> the almost 200 pages of this maamar, after which they can give
> us the benefit of their newly-found knowledge.
> They will find that the VM is written in a very 'user-friendly' style
> and one doesn't require to be a great lamdan to understand most of it.

> And for those in a real hurry, on page 344, the SR summarises his 13 main
> conclusions. Let me quote some of them - which will be of special interest
> to those of us who have been following this thread on Areivim:

> *  For one who is mekayem the Torah and doesn't sin, it is a great z'chus to
>     live in Eretz Yisroel - EVEN according to those poskim who say that
>     there is no mitzva of Yishuv EY these days. Additionally, the mitzvos
>     that they perform there are considered to be more choshuv than
>     those done in Chutz Lo'oretz.
>     Conversely, sinning in EY is much more 'chomur' than in CL.
>     (This is strongly emphasised by many of those Poskim who
>     regard highly the mitzvah of YEY bizman hazeh.)

> *   Baalei Aveiro in EY are NOT being m'kayem mitzvas YEY.

> *  If one will not have parnoso in EY - he should NOT be oleh.

> *  If one is 'Oisek bemitzvah chashuva' in CL [Kibbud Av vo'Em...?],
>     which he will not be able to perform in EY, he should not be oleh.

> *  Aliyah should be 'lishmoh' and not for purposes of money or kovod etc.

> *  Those who send money to support 'Aniyei EY halomdim Torah mitoch
>     had'chak...yereim vechareidim lidvar Hashem' are definitely being
>     mekayem Mitzvas YEY 'ketikuno (b'derech 'Yissoschor Zevulun').

> *  Buying a house or land from a non-Jew in EY is EVEN A GREATER
>     mitzva than aliyah - EVEN according to those who hold of mitzvas YEY
>     bizman hazeh.

> These are some of the SR's views (which I have no doubt will surprise
> a few list-members) - and I strongly urge those who have a special interest
> in this mitzva to take the time to study his sefer.

> (BTW the VM even has something to say about those who have selected this
> mitzva as the main issue whilst performing others 'kemitzvas anoshim
> melumodo'. (P. 363).

Micha wrote [in reply to the first bullet item]:
>I was under the impression that such people don't exist.

> I'm no better of an oberver of human character than Koheles.
> "Ki adam, ein tzaddik ba'aretz asher ya'aseh tov velo yechta." (7:20)

I am no expert in Satmar hashkafah, but I would venture to say that as 
Chasidim they probably believe in the concept of a tzadik, like the Tanya 
states in chapter 1.

As an aside, I recently saw a similar yet critically different approach by a 
talmid of R. Chaim Volozhiner in Keren Orah on Sotah 34b.  He says that 
there are some who are born tzadikim and others who make themselves into 
tzadikim and constantly struggle to maintain their status.

Gil Student

[R' Dr Josh Bacon sent there without comment. They argue medical benefits
to not eating old garlic, leak or onion. -mi]

Entrez medline Query
X-URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=7599380&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

Pemphigus and dietary factors. In vitro acantholysis by allyl compounds of the
genus Allium.
Brenner S, Ruocco V, Wolf R, de Angelis E, Lombardi ML
Department of Dermatology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel.
Dermatology 1995;190(3):197-202

BACKGROUND: Today it is generally accepted that every drug that possesses
an active thiol group in its molecule is capable of inducing pemphigus
in vivo and provoking acantholysis in vitro. We therefore suggested that
plants, in particular those belonging to the Allium group, that contain
several active compounds with stable disulfide and thiol groups in their
molecule may cause the same.

OBJECTIVE: To verify this hypothesis by investigating the in vitro
acantholytic effect of three compounds of garlic.

METHODS: Skin samples from donors were cultured in the presence of
three compounds of garlic (i.e. allylmercaptan, allylmethylsulfide
and allylsulfide) for 3 days. The skin samples were then processed for
microscopic control for acantholysis.

RESULTS: Results indicate that, indeed, the three garlic compounds
tested are capable of inducing acantholysis in vitro. Focal and diffuse
acantholysis was observed in the specimens from 4 out of 7 donors
cultured in the presence of 6 and 9 mM of each of the allyl compounds
for 3 days. Interestingly, tissues from a DR4+ donor proved to be more
acantholysis prone than others, showing large blistering due to diffuse
acantholysis, thus indicating that individual susceptibility plays a
crucial role also in vitro.

CONCLUSION: Garlic compounds with stable disulfide and thiol groups
in their molecule are capable of inducing acantholysis in vitro. These
findings lend further support to the theory that 'harmless' nutritional
factors are capable of inducing acantholysis in vitro and possibly also
in vivo. In view of these findings, it is suggested that nutritional
factors should be added to the ever-growing list of exogenous factors
capable of inducing pemphigus.

PMID: 7599380, UI: 95322662

_________________________________________________________________

Entrez medline Query
X-URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=7873815&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

Possible nutritional factors in induced pemphigus.
Brenner S, Wolf R
Department of Dermatology, Ichilov Hospital, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Dermatology 1994;189(4):337-9

Today it is generally accepted that every drug that possesses an
active thiol group in its molecule is capable of inducing pemphigus.
Some plants, in particular those belonging to the Allium group, contain
several active compounds with stable disulfide and thiol groups in their
molecule. The Allium group contains many important vegetables like onion,
leek and garlic. Examples of molecules with an active thiol group are: CH2
= CH-CH2-S-S-CH2-CH = CH2 (diallyl disulfide) or CH2 = CH-CH2-S(O)S-CH2-CH
= CH2 (allicin). It is suggested that some foods, in particular vegetables
of the Allium group that contain active thiol groups in their molecule,
could contribute to the induction of pemphigus. In general, nutritional
factors should be added to the list of exogenous factors that are capable
of inducing pemphigus.

PMID: 7873815, UI: 95178771

From Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler's Midei Shabos beShabato parasha sheet:

A DAY FOR SHIDUCHIM

Chazal declared the fifteenth of Av a Yom-tov. On it, the girls would go
and dance in the vineyards, and that is where the young men would go to
pick themselves a bride. 

The question arises, says the B'nei Yisoschor, why Chazal chose
particularly that day for this sort of celebration? Why did they not pick
another existing Yom-tov for the joyous occasion? 
*
And he replies that this day was designated because it was destined for
shiduchim from early times. It is based on the fact that two of the
sources for Chamishah-Osor be'Av being chosen as a Yom-tov are connected
with shiduchim. On it, the tribes were permitted to intermarry (after
entering Eretz Yisrael), and on it, the ban on marrying women from
Binyamin (following the episode of the Pilegesh be'Giv'ah) was lifted. 
*
That's fine, he continues, but the question remains, why was specifically
the fifteenth of Av designated in Heaven as a day for shiduchim? 
And he answers this with a combination of three factors: 1. that the
world was created on the twenty-fifth of Tishri; 2. that forty days prior
to the birth of a baby, a Heavenly voice announces that 'so and so's
daughter will marry so-and-so!'; 3. that Hashem created the world to rule
over it, and 'there is no King without a people'. Consequently, the true
purpose of the creation was for the sake of Yisrael's marriage to Hashem,
to declare His rulership to the world. 

Now if one works forty days backwards from the Creation on the
twenty-fifth of Tishri, one arrives at Chamishah-Asar be'Av. 
*
That is the day on which Hashem announced that Yisrael would 'marry' Him,
and that is why, since that fifteenth of Av prior to the Creation, Tu
be'Av has been 'mesugal' (particularly apt) for shiduchim.

In a message dated Wed, 1 Aug 2001 1:26:01pm EDT, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes:
> The gemara in Sanhedrin 19b says, "kol ha'megadel yatom b'veito ma'aleh
> alav ha'katuv k'ilu yelado". the Chelkat Mechokek Even Ha'Ezer 15:3 equates
> adoption to fulfilling the mitzva of pru ur'vu ! Obviously, there are
> halachic differences between a child who was born to the parents vs. a child
> who was adopted with regard to: drawing blood, cursing them, aveilut,
> nachalot, eydut, how one is called up to the Torah, name on shtarot, etc.

R' YBS as quoted in "Family Redeemd" discusses the difference between IIRC
the Roman version of adoption and the Jewish one. In the Roman version the
adoptive parents take the place of the birth parents (which really can't
happen). In the Jewish version the adoptive parents do no such thing but
"earn" their role by bringing the child,through their ongoing efforts,
into the covenental community (which, of course, fits in beautifully
with Josh's analysis above)

KT
Joel

R' Eli Linas wrote <<< he says he checked with some astronomers, and
they said that from the scientific pov, nightfall corresponds with shitas
RT >>>

R' Yosef Stern added <<< According to astronomy there are 3 'end of
twilight's': at 6, 12 and 18 degrees respectively. The 6 deg. agrees
fully with Shitas Hageonim. Shitas RT if you calculate it according to
degrees its either 16.1 deg. or 19.8 deg. neither of them concurring with
astronomy. And if you calculate it according to xx minutes after sunset,
it definitely doesn't agree with astronomy. >>>

Folks, sunset is a clearly definable astronomical event, when the upper
edge of the sun passes below the horizon. Of course, that will be affected
by the air temperature and pressure, mountains on the horizon, elevation
of the observer, and other factors, but there is still an observable
event which takes place and can be identified as it occurs.

The same cannot be said of nightfall.

My understanding is that there is no astronomical event called
"nightfall". The most we can say is that after sunset, the sky gets
progressively darker and darker, until it is finally dark enough for
whatever purpose you have in mind. The U.S. Naval Observatory does publish
three levels of twilight so as to provide information about what time a
certain levels of darkness are reached, when the sun reaches positions 6,
12, and 18 degrees below the horizon. But these are merely conventions,
and nothing actually occurs at those times.

I therefore believe that any statement of the sort that "Rav XYZ's
shita about Tzeis Hakochavim concurs (or does not concur) with the
astronomical point of view" is meaningless, because there simply *isn't*
any astronomical "point of view" on these matters.

My opinions as stated above are based on what I read in the Tables
Of Sunrise Sunset And Twilight, published by the United States Naval
Observatory. (I have the 1945 edition. I have not found this book
available on the Government Printing Office website, but definitions
similar to what I quote below is on the Naval Observatory's site at
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.html#top)

The following is taken from the Introduction there:

<<< The durations of the three kinds of twilight - civil, nautical, and
astronomical - given in the main table are, respectively, the intervals
of time between sunset or sunrise and the instants when the center of
the Sun is 6, 12, and 18 degrees below the horizon. >>>

And this is taken fron the "Explanation and Use of the Tables and Graphs":

<<< The duration of civil twilight is the interval in the evening from
sunset until the time when the center of the Sun is 6 degrees below the
horizon; or the corresponding interval in the morning between sunrise and
the time at which the Sun was still 6 degrees below the horizon. Civil
twilight is intended to cover the somewhat indefinite periods after
sunset and before sunrise during which the natural illumination usually
remains sufficient for ordinary outdoor operations to be carried on;
but actually the illumination during the interval when the Sun is less
than 6 degrees below the horizon varies greatly according to weather
conditions, especially cloudiness and haze, and local surroundings. The
durations of nautical and astronomical twilight are, respectively, the
intervals between sunrise or sunset and the times at which the center of
the Sun is 12 and 18 degrees below the horizon. The limits of astronomical
twilight are the times at which complete darkness (aside from moonlight
or starlight) begins in the evening and ends in the morning. Nautical
twilight represents an intermediate stage of illumination. >>>

Now I suppose that the phrase <<< astronomical twilight ... complete
darkness >>> could be interpreted as "The Naval Observatory holds that
Tzeis is at 18 degrees", except for two things: (1) Tzeis is not when
*complete* darkness occurs, but when a certain *level* of darkness
(3 medium stars, etc etc) occurs. (2) The figures of 6, 12, and 18 are
so obviously related to each other (and hence so obviously arbitrary)
that I find this whole discussion to be (with all due respect) ridiculous.

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 11:10:28PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Folks, sunset is a clearly definable astronomical event, when the upper
: edge of the sun passes below the horizon...

Sunset can be defined as an even that occurs in a very narrow window of
time. Such as when the upper edge of the sun crosses the horizon. Or the
lower edge. Or the exact center. Or...

IOW, one could have machlokesin even when all of the options are easily
measurable.

There are three definitions used by astronomers, as noted earlier. I
have no idea what their significance is; and therefore why halachah
would necessarily use any of them and not some forth definition.

: The following is taken from the Introduction [to the Tables Of Sunrise
: Sunset And Twilight, published by the United States Naval Observatory,
: 1945 edition:]
: <<< The durations of the three kinds of twilight - civil, nautical, and
: astronomical - given in the main table are, respectively, the intervals
: of time between sunset or sunrise and the instants when the center of
: the Sun is 6, 12, and 18 degrees below the horizon. >>>

I have no idea what is significant about these definitions. Without
that, we have idea if the halachic zeman is defined in terms remotely
resembling these.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

At 05:25 PM 7/31/01 -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>Presumably, there is sachar when a person is ma'aleh nitzotzos.  But OTOH,
>there are better ways to bring kedusha into the world....
>Why not say that these are mitzvos matirim--there is no particular reason to
>do them--but if you do them you do bring nitzotzos into the world because
>you did them b'heter rather than b'issur...

Quite reasonable. Technical quibble: It is not bringing nitzotzos into the 
world but uplifting the ones already embedded therein.

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

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:36:02AM -0500, R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: I very much like the chilluk, but am unsure as to the "sachar" 
: implications. If the mattir is done l'shem shomayim, and, to use the 
: kabbalistic model, is ma'leh nitzotzos, why no sachar?

Well, if sechar is a product of cleaning the dirt off or curing the ill of
one's own neshamah, then perhaps one can be ma'aleh nitzotzos, adding to
the sheleimus of the world, without doing anything for one's own sechar.

As for RMF's comparison to berachos: are you implying that there is
no sechar for making a berachah?

The truth is, though, that we're probably being caught up in a "Le'ah
senu'ah" issue. It's common in learning to make an absolute statement
when a relative one is intended. Le'ah was only less loved, not hated.
And perhaps "no sechar" means something similar.

If it were a critical component in developing one's neshamah, presumably
HKBH would make it a chiyuv. Since this isn't, there must be some benefit,
but not as much. One is in a position similar to that of an eino metzuveh
vi'oseh, where the sechar is also reduced.

If you believe one can get sechar for following hanhagos tovos that
aren't mitzvos of any flavor -- this is no less.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Eli Turkel:
> I think it is less clear than that. Amoraim argue if Achashverosh was
> a good or bad guy. Even people like Yishmael send mixed messages.
> It seems that different amoraim had differing attitudes toward
> King David and his possible sins. Certainly the same applies to
> King Solomon.

> Even stranger is the gemaras difense of some of the later Judaen kings
> like Menassheh whom one would be hard pressed to call a good guy.

> Certainly among Rishonim and Acharonim we find discussions about possible
> faults in various figures in Tanach that don't appear in the Talmud.

The Chachmas Adam {158:5} makes an entire hierarchy of who can be buried next 
to whom.  E.G. A Ba'al Teshuvah can be burred next to a Tsaddik Gamur but NOT 
next to a "Chassid"...

Last Friday night we were discussing that Avraham is NOT called ben Terach - 
but didn't Terach do Teshuva?

The answer I gave:  Even if Teach did Teshuva, he was not fit to be "buried" 
next to Avraham.  IOW there is a big gap between Terach giving up Avodah Zara 
and gaining the Madreiga of  Avraham.

Even Ya'akov did not want his name mentioned next to Shimon and Levi! {yes 
only in context of Korach and Zimri, but still you get the point!}  
 
So the ambiguities in Chazal might point out the relative madreigos.  Next to 
a Rasha like Haman, maybe Yishmael was a great guy, but next to Yitzchak he 
was a failure considering they shared the same father...

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe  

From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
> I'd like to know more about Rabbeinu Gershom as a student of Rabbeinu
> Chananel.  Where did this take place?  I ask this because I thought it was
> settled that Rabbeinu Chananel taught the Rif (in Morocco?).  If so,
> Rabbeinu Chananel certainly got around!  (And we know that Rabbeinu
> Chananel was a student of Rav Hai Gaon).

Dayan Grunfeld might be considered a Talmid of RSR Hirsch but I do not think 
he ever met him. R. Dr. Joseph Breuer did meet his illustrious Grandfather 
RSR Hirsch, but he was only about 6-8 years old when his grandfather passed 
away...

Also, see my earlier post about face-to-face relationships.

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe  

Several weeks ago a discussion was recorded between two ladies regarding
hair covering. One claimed that a shaitel plus hat was Rav Ovadia
Yosef's opinion of proper hair covering. The second one claimed that
only a tichel/mitpachat is acceptable according to his opinion.

This is a classic issue for discussion since it involves a Torah
requirement to cover hair plus an additional drabbanan/minhag. Many of
these issues were touched by RMF, yet there is room to elaborate.

First, the Torah requirement is satisfied by covering the hair. A shaitel
covers the hair, therefore it satisfies this Torah requirement. This is
the opinion of 99 44/100 % of Poskim. One shita is that a shaitel counts
as no covering at all.

ROY in a famous tshuva against shaitels compiles the opinions of over
100 poskim. Approximately three are in favor of shaitels, one completely
against (ibid) and most ruling that das yehudis requires more than just
a shaitel. Most of these 100 poskim are chassidishe who allow a hat on
a shaitel. ROY rules that there is no acceptable minhag, especially by
Sefardim, to simply wear a shaitel. ROY does not rule that a shaitel is
nothing min haTorah though he notes that such a shita.

Therefore, even though ROY summarizes quite clearly in favor of simply
a tichel/mitpachat, his logic in doing so does not exclude a shaitel
plus hat.

So it seems that both ladies are correct. A minimalist reading of ROY
requires only tichel/mitpachat. Yet a more sophisticated understanding
of the halacha allows for a broader understanding. I think this is an
important klal when studying halacha. See Rabbeinu Yonah Avos 4:5 that
the definition of lomaid al mnas laasos is to carefully study halacha,
not just read it superficially.

Shlomo Goldstein

Interesting analysis. I know of at least one major posek here who does
not allow IVF. I assume it's because of a chashash of hotzoas zera
l'batala. Does anyone know?

-- Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jewish law is in favor of stem-cell research

Rabbi Moshe Kletenik: This article presents the view of Halacha, Jewish
law, concerning this very pressing and hotly debated ethical issue of
stem cell research and using frozen pre-embryos.

* Read the full article at:
  <http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/33543_rabbiop.shtml>

From the Dor Revi'i website <http://www.dorrevii.org>

va-neishev ba-gai mul beit p'or, v'atah yisrael: Rashi comments:
    and you associated yourself with idol-worship, yet, however, "now, O,
    Israel, hearken unto the statutes" (v'atah yisrael sh'ma el ha-huqim
    v'el ha-mishpatim) and everything will be forgiven you. But I - -
    I was not privileged that it was forgiven me.

And this is a shocking wonder. How could he say "and everything will
be forgiven you"? Is it not written in the immediately following verse
(Deuteronomy 4:3): "for every man that went after Baal-peor, the L-rd
thy G-d hath exterminated him from you"?

And it appears to our master that after the incident of Zimri, the
people were roused to complain that for a minor infraction it was not
appropriate to create internal strife and to shed the blood of a prince
of Israel, thereby destroying peace and tranquility. For great is peace.
And in this vein, our master explained the verses above (Numbers 25:1-3):
    And Israel abode in Shittim and the people began to commit harlotry
    with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the
    sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat and bowed down
    to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor;
    and the anger of the L-rd was kindled against Israel.

The Scripture changes from referring to "Israel" to "the people" and
back to "Israel." However, here as with the making of the calf only
the Mixed Multitude actively transgressed, while no one who was called
an Israelite went after the Baal-peor. Their only sin was that they
were silent and did not prevent the Mixed Multitude from transgressing
in order to avoid strife. As a result, the scab spread, and the Mixed
Multitude inferred that since the Israelites did not protest, they must
have approved. The Scripture therefore holds them as culpable as if they
themselves had worshiped the idol. (This is similar to the Talmud which
says that the cow of R. Eliezer went out on the Sabbath with a strap
between its horns even though the cow belonged to R. Eliezer's neighbor.
But since R. Eliezer did not protest it is as if it were his own cow.)

The Scripture should therefore be read as follows: "And Israel abode in
Shittim" (va-yeishev yisrael ba-shittim). They remained quiet and did
not go out to do battle against the evil-doers at the moment when "the
people" (ha-am), i.e., the simplest and lowliest among them, began to
commit the first transgression, "harlotry with the daughters of Moab"
(li-z'not el b'not moav). And when "the people" began to transgress
wantonly and left the paths of uprightness, "Israel" remained idle.
The "people" consequently sunk lower and lower "and they called the people
unto the sacrifices of their gods" (va-tikrenah la'am l'zivhei eloheihen)
and "the people" ate the sacrifices of the dead, after which they "bowed
down to their gods" (va-yishtahavu lei-loheihen). And inasmuch as Israel
did not prevent them from transgressing, the Scripture says "and Israel
joined himself unto the Baal-peor" (va-yitzamed yisrael l'ba'al p'or),
since, by virtue of their silence, they also joined themselves to the
Baal-peor and the collar hangs from their neck. Therefore, "the anger
of the L-rd was kindled against Israel."

However, Pinhas was of a different spirit, and he was jealous for the
sake of the Eternal. And although it is true that he provoked a battle
and a great uproar among the people, but on high he restored peace
between Israel and their Father in heaven Who forgave Israel. That is
why he received the reward of the covenant of peace, measure for measure.

Now let us return to our subject. The lesson that emerges from our
discussion is the children of Israel were quiet because they did not
want to provoke a battle and to disturb the peace. Their intention was
for the good of Israel, but they were mistaken. Now the transgression
committed by Moshe in the incident of Mei Meriva at Qadeish, according
to the opinion of the Sages, was that because of his great love for
Israel he erred and he confused the instructions from Heaven and hit the
rock instead of speaking to it. This is the meaning of "and we abode
in the valley over against Beth-peor" which means against the actions
of the people who worshiped the Baal-peor. Nevertheless, "and now, O
Israel, everything will be forgiven you," because they did not actively
transgress, but sinned only inasmuch as they did not rebuke those who
did actively transgress. But they were rescued because their motivation
was love of Israel. And even though they erred, they were forgiven.
"But I," who also erred out of love for Israel, "I was not privileged
that it was forgiven me." And Moshe's later statement: "for every man
that went after Baal-peor, the L-rd thy G-d hath exterminated him from
you" was referring to those that actually worshiped the idol. For that
offense there can be no forgiveness, and it also has no comparison to
the sin of Moshe.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

From the Dor Revi"i website <http://www.dorrevii.org?

u-sh'martem v'asitem ki hi hokhmatkhem u-vinatkhem l'einei ha-amim
asher yishm'un et ha-huqim ha-eileh v'amru raq am hakham v'navon ha-goi
ha-gadol ha-zeh ki mi goi gadol asher lo Eloqim q'rovim eilav u-mi goi
gadol asher lo huqim u-mishpatim tzadiqim:

Now everyone who reads this verse must be amazed that it says that when
the nations hear the "huqim" (statutes) that the Eternal has commanded
to the people of Israel that they will all respond and say together what
a wise and understanding nation (am hakham v'navon) this is. For is it
not the reverse? Are the huqim not like a closed book, inexplicable?
For example why did the Eternal command us not to wear twisted cords
(shatnez) and not to eat any unclean thing, and all the rest? So when
they learn of these statutes, the gentiles pour scorn and ridicule on
the Children of Israel who uphold these commandments and cover their
faces in shame when the gentiles say of them: "A foolish nation, not a
wise one. What reason is there for these commandment? And what purpose
do they serve?" And there is no one in our midst who knows what to say
that will shift the embarrassment back to them.

And behold our master, in whose light we walk, explained the meaning
of these verses in a marvelous way. For the commandments of the Torah,
both the laws (mishpatim) and the statutes (huqim) can be separated
into two categories: first, the negative commandments concerning
which it is written "hishamer" that we are obligated to keep ourselves
from transgressing; and second, those positive commandments that the
Eternal wants us to perform "la-assot." Now we may observe that people
are distinguished from one another in their deportment and in their
characters. There are some who are quickly roused to do everything
and perform all their actions with enthusiasm, because their hearts
are passionate within them. But they also become unruly, because they
always give in to their desires and their spirit is untamed. And those
who are of a cold temperament; they do not chase after their desires,
because they are lazy and their spirit is held in check.

So, too, one can find an entire people that occupies its own space
and is separate from its neighbors. In one nation, the people may be
impassioned, their blood seething within them, and their souls carry
them away to perform their deeds with intensity. For them it is easy
to perform enthusiastically the tasks that they must carry out, because
their desires burn like fire which inspires them to do everything without
becoming tired or weary. But set against this, it is very difficult for
them to guard themselves against doing all that is sinful, because they
cannot govern their wills when their desires are aflame. How can such
a people be spared from sin?

And just the opposite of this type is a nation whose people are cold in
temperament. Their strength having been drained, they are effeminate,
and their souls seek only to rest. It is not beyond them to refrain from
doing evil, for their spirit is depressed and their desire is consumed.
Nor do they tend toward arrogance. But set against this, whatever they
do, however important, is done without enthusiasm, and they collapse
beneath the weight of burdens too heavy for them to bear.

However, wonders are evident among the people of Israel, who are holy unto
the Eternal, for when they perform a commandment their souls are ablaze
to perform their deeds with ardor. So it seems that they are fervent and
their desire burns like a flame, and the Talmud says that Israel is the
most passionate of nations. But in spite of their passion, they guard
their souls from every angle not to transgress any of G-d's commandments,
and they flee with alacrity from transgressions as far as a bowshot..
This shows how carefully they guard their souls with extra precautions.
It is as if they held a bit and a bridle in their hands to straighten
their path before the Eternal. And this is the soul that G-d made for
them in a double portion to turn the inclination of their heart to all
that they would desire, for the soul given by the Almighty is a portion
from the heavenly G-d to inspire them to understand the way that they
should follow and to lead them in righteousness.

Now all these words are like precious stones glittering in the verse with
which we began, "u-sh'martem v'asitem." If you will be careful not to
transgress the negative commandments or touch their edges and you will
also perform the positive commandments with all your heart, you will
understand that that is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of
the nations. The Gentiles will hear these seemingly incomprehensible
statutes and they will not understand how it is possible that a
people whose souls burn like coals to perform those commandments to
the fullest extent and to the utmost degree could, upon encountering
any of the negative commandments, could be so careful not to transgress
the command of G-d, as if their desire melted like wax exposed to fire.
Will the nations not perforce be compelled to sing their praise and say,
"For truly a wise and understanding people is this great nation," because
their wisdom will illuminate their faces to walk justly and to turn the
inclination of their hearts to the good.

And the explanation of the words "For what great nation is there whose
G-d is so close to it, as the L-rd our G-d is whenever we call upon
Him" is that the love of Israel for G-d is fervent -- to worship Him
wholeheartedly, to fear Him, and to cling to him. And with the fervor of
their love, their souls will be exalted to draw close to Him and to enter
His presence. And even though they are a nation as unstable as water,
and within them there burns a fire, nevertheless, "what great nation is
there that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as this entire Torah?"
For when they are so careful not to transgress the prohibitions that
the Eternal has laid down and they walk in righteousness and justice,
must the nations not admit and proclaim that it is a wise nation?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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         ]