Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 035

Wednesday, June 9 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 22:17:14 -0400
From: "" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Subject:
Disputing Previous Generations


On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, "Glasner, David" wrote: 
> Mishnah is obviously most authoritative ... The Tosefta incorporates
> other usually more discursive and detailed Tanaitic discussions
> that did not make it into Rebi's edition,
> but were later compiled into an authoritative edition by R. Hiya and
> R. Oshaya. Beraitot are halakhic statements from Tanaim that were
> preserved orally but were never incorporated into an official compendium,
> but were quoted ad hoc from memory by Amoraim when they seemed relevant.

Just a technicality: Some Braissos were in written form as well,
consisting of personal notes the tannaim took for themselves (as per
Rambam in the Hakdama to his Payrush HaMIshnayos, and reference in the
Gemora to a tanna's "mechilta," which Iggerress Rav Sherira Gaon takes
to mean a tanna's notebook). I don't know how much this impacts on the
thesis of the Dor R'vi'i.

David Glasner later continues:
> The Gemara has no qualms about trying to refute Rav with possible
> contradictions even though in the end Rav can always invoke his Tanaitic
> status to avoid definitive refutation.

Another (pedantic?) technicality: Rav does not invoke his Tannaitic
status to avoid refutation. The six times that the Gemora states "Rav
Tanna Hu U'Palig!" (Eruvin 50b, Kesubos 8a, Gittin 38b, Hulin 122b, Baba
Basra 42b and Sanhedrin 83b--in reaction to a challenge from a braissa or
mishnah), it's the Gemora's narrative's reponse. Rav was not personally
reacting. And rather than it being a matter of "no qualms," I think that
when the Gemora poses the challenge in terms of "laeima tihavi t'yuvta
d'Rav" ("Shall we then say we have vanquished Rav?"), it's just a setup
for the observation that Rav was qualified to pose independent opinions;
and when the Gemora poses it in terms of "maysivay" ("They [the scholars
of the study hall] posed a strong contradiction") against Rav, it is
reporting a happening in which the scholars were indeed unaware of his
tannaitic status, and the Gemora narrative immediately points it out.

Now for a more substantive issue:
> As to R. Yohanan's acceptance of the authoritativeness of the Mishnah,
> I am less impressed by the Yerushalmi in Pe'ah, which is obviously
> homiletic and hortatory in tone,

Zvi Lampel (in his own defense): How does a (perceived) tone of
"exhorting, giving advice" (Webster on horatory) do anything but
strengthen the seriousness of the principle he was advancing? How
else would he teach it? Would it only be by personally refraining from
contradicting mishnayos and braissos, and challenging others by tannaitic
sources, without explanation? We are looking for a Talmudic source
for this principle, and we have an Amora stating it as a principle,
with his explanaiton for it. What more can one ask for? (Am I getting
too passionate?)

>...than by the fact that he surely must
> have been challenging Reish Lakish with Tanaitic sources, just as he was
> being challenged by Reish Lakish.

R' Yochonon is not challenging Reish Lakish or anyone else in the
Yerushalmi passage cited. There is a mishnah that states a halachah,
someone in the mishnah then testifies that that halachah is a Halachah
L'Moshe MiSinai. Then the Gemora cites R' Zeira as quoting R' Yochonon who
said (homiletically, hortatorily, or otherwise) that one should not reject
any mishna, because it may well be a halachah told to Moshe at Sinai. (The
reasoning applies to any non-rabbinic halachah, as well as to a technical
halachah miSinai, and to any reliable tannitic source.) Then R' Abin
remarks, How true! For would we have known [this about the halachah in
question] had [the testifier that it was a Halachah L'Moshe Mi Sinai]
not come and explained it to us?!"

David continues:
> ...you can't make sense of the sugyot unless [you accept] they realized that  > it was not safe to disagree with a Tanna without the cover of another Tanna.

Well said! But this may also be simply put in terms of poskening like
one Tanna over another, a constant occurence in the Gemora.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:06:16 -0400
From: <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Subject:
Re: Amoraic hybrids


I have previously posted a query on identifying the Gemora passage in
"Ra'ahu Bes Din" to which the Yad Malachi refers, under the heading
"Amora," that he states shows an Amora creating a hybrid shita of two
Tannaim, which shita neither Tanna would himself hold.

I have since found what I believe is his reference: Mesechta Rosh Hashanna
26b, where Levi (who is in the transition generation, and considered an
Amora), discussing the shape a shofar should have, agrees with R' Yehuda
of a braissa, who prescribes for Rosh HaShanna a bent-shaped shofar,
yet (as per Rashi) applies the principal of gezeyra shavva--used by R'
Yehuda's bar plugsa, who prescribes a straight-shaped shofar for Yom
Kippur of Yovel as well as for Rosh HaShanna--to say that the shofar
for Yom Kippur of Yovel, too, should be bent in shape.

I haven't found any other sources yet (the Yad Malachi says there are
many), and would really prefer to find one concerning a full-fledged
Amora. One can always claim that perhaps in some respects, Levy, like Rav,
may have been a Tanna Hu U'palig.

Zvi Lampel 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:53:08 +0300
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
Brisk


>> As I understand it and it may not be how others may, there are
>> some cases  when the issur is not botel as such and remains but we 
>> have a  heter to  disregard it. Sort of a gavra heter, not cheftsa 
>> heter.

> Even more problems (gotta love dem Briskers!) - how is this
> anything more  than sheer divrei nevi'us? From whence does such 
> "papal  dispensation" emanate?

In standard Brisk they were very careful to find sources and not sheer
divrei nevius.
I remember hearing from RYBS that he disagreed with the Dvar Avaraham
that one can't make a beracha of sefirat haomer when one doesn't know
which day it is. The claim of RYBS was that the sevara was fine but that
there was no source for it.

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 6/7/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:09:38 -0400
From: acl100@juno.com
Subject:
Filtering Water


Concerning the Water issue. See Ketzos Hashulchan Siman 125 Sif Katan 37
about filtering the water on Shabbos.

Aryeh


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:53:59 +0200
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
Subject:
The importance of secular studies (was Re: [Areivim] Check out Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition)


Here is Rav Aviner's Torah thought for last week:
(I copied it b/c the site was hacked and I'm not sure everyone can get in)

Shoshana L. Boublil


Go study math.
Rabbi Shomo Aviner

Go study math and the other theoretical sciences such as physics and
chemistry. You might ask: What will we gain from this? Is it not better to
engage in practical matters that will bring a blessing to the nation? Yet
if you ask this, then you are forgetting the profound saying that there
is nothing more practical than theory.

It is based on the foundation of the theoretical sciences that the applied
sciences are developed. From this emerges technology, and the result is
economic and military might, which brings a great national blessing.

Thank G-d, many scientists have come from abroad, and others have been
educated here, but we still need many more.

What about Torah learning? Certainly Torah learning "weighs equally
against all else" (Peah 1:1). Yet I have seen that not everyone devotes
his entire life to Torah learning. Rather, many turn to other fields,
and obviously, they also set aside time for Torah learning. There is
nothing forbidden about this. It isn't written anywhere that the entire
Jewish People all have to learn Torah day and night. The Master of the
Universe apportioned talents amongst men. Consider what our master Rabbi
Avraham Yitzchak Kook wrote:
    "Regarding the distribution of academic talents in accordance with the
    various psychological strengths, some have a strong proclivity for
    secular studies. In this, they have to follow their inner leanings,
    and they should fix set times for Torah learning. Then, they will be
    successful in both, for Torah learning coupled with a profession is
    a fine thing. Tosafot Yeshanim at the end of Yoma (85b) dealt with
    the question of which should come first. As a rule, it depends on
    the nature and personality of each individual" (Orot HaTorah 9:6).
Torah learning "weighs against all else," but it is not against everyone,
but for them.

Therefore, if one has a proclivity for science and not for Torah,
and he is convinced that Torah is not his calling, then he should not
just look for a lucrative profession. Rather, he should devote himself
to the study of mathematics. He will work hard without earning a lot,
but he will bring great blessing to his people.

We sadly recall the Second World War and the terrible fire that claimed
so many of our people. Where did the Germans derive such great military
might? One answer is that Germany was the global king of science. It
was thus difficult to compete with their technology. For example,
there is no comparison between a German Messerschmitt and a British
Spitfire. The American president observed this and he decided to devote
a large percentage of his human and financial resources to research and
development. Now the United States is THE scientific superpower, and
this has made it the top economic, technological and military superpower
as well.

And where are we? The story is told that Rabbah bar bar Channah was
walking in the desert. He saw some geese and he asked them, "Can I attain
a Heavenly portion through you?" One of the geese raised its wing and
another raised its foot.
When he came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to him, "In the future Israel
are going to be held accountable" (Bava Batra 73b).

Obviously this is a parable. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook explains
that geese are an allusion to science. The Talmud (Berachot 57a) teaches,
"If someone sees a goose in a dream, he should anticipate receiving
wisdom." The wisdom being referred to is natural science. This branch of
science is greatly admired and also brings great benefit to the world. The
question Rabbah bar bar Channah is asking is this: Does its study bring
one heavenly reward? The answer is yes. There are two aspects to the way
that one serves G-d through involvement in the natural sciences. There is
the more lofty aspect, alluded to by the raising of a wing. This refers to
man's spiritually elevating such wisdom and attaching it to the holiness
of the Torah, thereby increasing the knowelege of G-d. I shall not address
this aspect here. (See Igarot HaRe'iyah Part I, page 23, quoting Rambam).

There is also a practical aspect, alluded to by the raising of the
foot. Rabbi Kook writes, "When a Jew performs mundane acts that afford
greatness to life on this earth, he serves G-d, sanctifying His name
by increasing Israel's glory." The non-Jews utilize science "towards
trivial ends, such as for making tools and machines and increasing man's
lusts." By contrast, "by dint of the practical endeavors that will be
available to Israel when they repent, they will be able to magnify the
glory of Israel as well the glory of G-d and Torah." (Agadot Rabbah
bar bar Channah, Ma'amarei HaRe'iyah 438-439). Those same sciences
can be used to the detriment of the human race, or towards their moral
exaltation. And this is Israel's role. If they do not fulfill that role,
and they leave the sciences in the hands of the nations, they will in
the future be called to task for that.

We too shall be called to task because we do not sufficiently buttress
our country scientifically. Visit the universities abroad and you will see
the enormous throngs of Arabs studying theoretical math and science. They
are prodded to do so by their spiritual leaders, who know that this is
the great key to their countries' technological development. It is true
that many are unfit for such study, but some people are indeed capable
of making a significant contribution.

Thus, our mission is to become a scientific superpower, and we are
worthy of the task. Moreover, blessing will result from this for us
and for human race. Obviously Torah study precedes all else, but if
you are not headed for a lifelong career in Torah, then you should go
and study theoretical math or science. Then you will be for a blessing,
and others will be able to recite a blessing over you as well: Blessed
is He who gave of His wisdom to flesh-and-blood.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:43:11 -0700
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
Subject:
filtering on shabbos


rabbi bess comments--training to Keep Shabbos 

Recently there have been reports of 'worms' being found in the New York
water supply. It appears that occasionally people are finding unwelcome
squiggly guests in their glasses of tap water and in food that has been
rinsed in tap water. The 'worms' in question are actually copepods - tiny
crustaceans that can be found in fresh water. [Salt water copepods are an
important component of the plankton that is the basis of the food chain
in the oceans.] Rav Elyashiv Shlit"a rules that a tiny organism that is
visible to the naked eye is forbidden, even if one cannot discern that
it actually is a small animal. Even though these visible copepods are
not found in most glasses of water, many Poskim have required that tap
water be filtered before use. The question arises as to whether it is
permitted to filter water on Shabbos to eliminate the copepods. Normally,
any action that removes an undesirable item from a mixture is prohibited
on Shabbos, based on the Melachah of Borer. Filtering crustaceans out
of drinking water would at first glance appear to be an example of Borer
and should be prohibited on Shabbos.

The Gemara states an exception to the prohibition of filtering liquid
on Shabbos. If wine contains tiny flecks of impurity, it is permitted
to filter the wine on Shabbos by pouring it through a clean cloth. It
is permitted to filter the wine because the wine is actually drinkable
without filtering and effectively no separation has taken place. This rule
applies to most people. The Pri Megadim is of the opinion that an Istenis
- a person of finicky manner - who would not drink unfiltered wine and is
repulsed by it, is not allowed to filter wine on Shabbos since for him,
removing the objectionable specks constitutes a real situation of Borer.

Since NY tap water actually is drinkable without being filtered,
it may be permitted to filter NY water on Shabbos, [as in fact Harav
Yechezkel Roth Shlit"a has ruled]. Even though Poskim have recommended
filtering the water for Kashrus reasons, unfiltered water may still
be Halachically drinkable since the incidence of visible copepods in
tap water may constitute a Miut She'eino Matsui - a very infrequent
event - for which checking and filtering is not strictly required.
Furthermore, the fact that something is only Halachically undrinkable
may not categorize it as a liquid that is subject to Borer.

Another question of straining on Shabbos arises with respect to the
strainer that most people have in the drain of their kitchen sinks.
When pouring out the remnants of a bowl of chicken soup in the sink,
it would be convenient to be able to catch the solid matter in the
strainer and let the liquid continue down the drain. Does separating out
the leftover carrots from the leftover soup constitute Borer on Shabbos?
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l ruled that pouring leftover soup through
the kitchen sink strainer does not constitute Borer since both the
solid and liquid components of the soup are destined to be thrown out.
It is ordinarily not permitted to separate two kinds of fruits, say
apples and oranges into two piles of apples and oranges. Nevertheless,
it is permitted to sort a pile of apples by size since large and small
apples are both apples. So too in our case says Harav Auerbach zt"l,
trash is trash, whether it is solid or liquid, and is considered merely
separating "big" from "small" trash.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:24:52 +0300
From: Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com>
Subject:
Animal Proof (Was: ArtScroll and Tiferes Yisrael)


Joel Rich asked:
> Could you summarize bkitzur why the proof doesn't work?

The proof has two parts:
1) How could the Torah have been so bold as to say that there are only
four animals with one kosher sign?
2) How is it that this claim has never been disproven and no others have
ever been found?

The proof doesn't work for two reasons:
1) The Torah does not say that there are only four animals with one
kosher sign.
2) More have indeed been found!

But if you want more details, you'll have to buy the book...
<http://www.zootorah.com/hyrax>.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:16:57 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Animal Proof (Was: ArtScroll and Tiferes Yisrael)


n Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 06:24:52AM +0300, Zoo Torah wrote:
:> Could you summarize bkitzur why the proof doesn't work?
...
: The proof doesn't work for two reasons:
: 1) The Torah does not say that there are only four animals with one
: kosher sign.
: 2) More have indeed been found!

However, we still have to deal with the Sifri (Re'eih 49) and Chullin
60b, which do say that this parashah demonstrates zoological knowledge
Moshe couldn't have.

LAD, the "prrof" doesn't work because we don't know what a min is. We
can answer RNS's #2 by assuming a single Hebrew word refers to something
that from a zoological taxonomy perspective would be multiple species.
Similarly, for all we know the Hebrew term only refers to a subset of
the breeds of a single species, and multiple words in the pasuq only
refer to that one species.

E.g.: Are bactrian and dromidary camels both "gamal"? OTOH, are both
camels and llamas kinds of "gamal"? Either grouping of animals to
Hebrew terms is possible.

So, even if no more were indeed found, we no longer have any way of
reproduce the original list to compare current knowledge against it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:54:35 +0200
From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
orla


RYGB:
>Since Orlas EY is forbidden b'hana'ah even b'makom safek, the owner has
> no din mammon in it and therefore dinei mammonos are irrelevant. Its
> status is purely a Yoreh Deah issue. A case of safek in Orlas Chu"l,
> however, is muttar b'hana'ah and therefore the owner does have a din
> mammon in the orlah. Me'meilah, since the halachah is that ein holchin
> b'mammon achar ha'rov and that ha'motzi mei'chaveiro alav ha'ra'ayah
> and that therefore a litigant can say say kim li like the meikel -
> even if the meikel is a da'as yachid - the concept of rov poskim is not
> relevant here. Were karov superior to rov, however - as Tosafos suggest -
> then it would be like a "kol" (as in "all") - otherwise, how would it be
> superior to rov? The owner therefore would not be able to say kim li...

1. To what case are you referring to when you say, "A case of safek in
Orlas Chu"l, however, is muttar b'hana'ah". We have learned that the
classic safek orla in chu"l is also muttar b'achila. If it is a case of
taaroves that is assur min haTorah, then it certainly is assur b'hanaah.
Where do we find that safek orla in chu"l is mfurash as being asasur
b'achila and muttar b'hanaah?

2. the Kuntres haSfeikos holds one may not say "kim li" in issurim.

Shlomo Goldstein


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:31:30 -0400
From: "Brown, Charles F" <charles.f.brown@gs.com>
Subject:
RE: VIDC


>>>In BK 56b we learn the law of "Perutah d'Rav Yosef" - viz. that a
shomeir aveidah is exempt from giving food to a pauper because he is
osek b'mitzvah (hashavas aveidah) and therefore pattur min ha'mitzvah
(of gemilus chesed or tzedakah). This would seem difficult, as osek
b'mitzvah pattur min ha'mitzvah (OBMPMHM) applies only when two mitzvos
aseh conflict - not when a mitzvas lo ta'aseh is involved. If so, how can
the shomeir aveidah be exempt from the mitzvah of tzedakah - by not giving
tzedakah does he not transgress the lav of "Lo te'ametz es levavecha?"<<<

Rambam (matnos aniyim 7) says that the aseh of tzedakah applies all
the time, but the lav is violated only when an ani approaches and you
avoid him/her. Maybe ain hachi nami, perutah d'r yosef paters only
in such a context that the lav is not violated. But you probably want
some lomdus...

Ramban Kid 34 explains that at times a lav is merely a shmira for the
aseh and does not function independently - this is why although ma'akeh,
aveidah, shiluach hakan all have l"t associated with them which should
obligate women, these mitzvos are categorized as m"a she'hazman gerama
and women are exempt completely (Tos there who answers differently).
2 deyos in Tos BB 8 whether the lav is sufficient reason to enpower
kefiyas B"D by tzedaka - the diyun could be this very point, whether
we treat the lav as an independent entity or just a shmira of the aseh.
Achronim say this on other mitzvos as well (e.g. sha'agas arye by re'iyas
panim b'azarah).

Acc to Tos in kiddushin I imagine you can argue that although an aseh
(hashavas aveidah) cannot override an aseh (tzedakah) + l"t (lo te'ametz),
here the aseh of hashavas aveidah is coupled with its own lav. So really
you have aseh + l"t against aseh + l"t = shev v'al ta'aseh, m'meila you
do not have to give tzedaka.

-Chaim


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:23:41 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: VIDC #12, MC vol. 1 p. 99


On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:58:37PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: In BK 56b we learn the law of "Perutah d'Rav Yosef" - viz. that a
: shomeir aveidah is exempt from giving food to a pauper because he is
: osek b'mitzvah (hashavas aveidah) and therefore pattur min ha'mitzvah
...
:                                                            If so, how can
: the shomeir aveidah be exempt from the mitzvah of tzedakah - by not giving
: tzedakah does he not transgress the lav of "Lo te'ametz es levavecha?"

My first reaction is to wonder if not giving because he is oseiq bemitzvah
qualifies as amitzas haleiv. There is a far gap between being too busy
helping the person who lost an object and being too callous hearted
to give.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:42:14 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: sheitels and AZ


At 02:00 PM 6/3/2004, [R Akiva B.] wrote:
>> I'm sorry, which Rambam are we referring to again? In Lulav 8:1 he says
>> that shel AZ lo yittol l'chatchila v'im nottal yatza. Is that the one?

>Yes. You're right. I got a little carried away, he doesn't use the word
>bedieved. But that doesn't matter. I don't see how on earth you could
>possibly take a Rambam that says 'don't do it' and make it say 'only
>if it doesn't cost you too much'. Had the Rambam wished to say that,
>he would have. I know of no place where the Rambam says 'don't do it
>unless it cost you too much'.

Don't do it commonly implies preference. The Rambam would prefer you
not take it. This is a far weaker admonition than b'di'eved.

YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:37:22 +0200
From: "Akiva Blum" <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>
Subject:
sheitels and AZ


>> I don't see how on earth you could
>> possibly take a Rambam that says 'don't do it' and make it say 'only
>> if it doesn't cost you too much'. Had the Rambam wished to say that,
>> he would have. I know of no place where the Rambam says 'don't do it
>> unless it cost you too much'.

> There are places where Rambam says "don't do it", and then, sometimes
> in a different section altogether says, "you can do it if...."

> I do not know if any of those places include "cost too much" -- but my
> point is that "don't do it unless x" might be of the form "don't do it"
> in section y and "when x happens do this" over in section z.

O.K. Fine. Where is section z?

Akiva


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:20:34 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Disputing Previous Generations


While "vehatanya" and "vehatenan" assume that one does not argue with
a tanna, tanna, one could simply say that one *does* not, not that one
lacks the authority to.

I find "tana'i hi" even more persuasive. Assuming that it would be
redundant to repeat the maskanah of tannaim states even more strongly
that it's impossible for halakhah to have changed since.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:27:36 -0400
From: gershon.dubin@juno.com
Subject:
Yizkor


Dr. Schuss asked for the source of yizkor on Yom Tov. I asked Rav Nosson
Scherman this question this morning and he responded that he had once
seen something on it but couldn't recall. In the interim, I remind
all that the source of yizkor on Yom Kippur is that meisim need kapara
as well as chayim.

Rav Dovid Cohen points out that yomim tovim are also yemei hadin
(bepesach al hatevuah, be'atzeres al peiros ha'ilan, uvechag al hamayim)
which is why we say shelosh esrei midos when we take out the Torah. So,
I suggest that this was the reason for expanding the yom hadin concept
from Yom Kippur only, to all chagim.

Other suggestions/comments welcome.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:22:46 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Miriam and Lashon HaRah?


In Avodah V13 #34 dated 6/7/04  Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> 
writes:
> I would appreciate a clarification of why Miriam was punished for speaking
> about Moshe.
...

Her sin was speaking loshon hara. The cause of the sin was that she did
not fully realize how much greater than herself Moshe was.

Had she been talking about a lesser person, she would have been correct
that he should not separate from his wife, and she would have been
correct to consult with a chacham (Aharon) about how best to rectify
the situation. She didn't realize HOW great Moshe was (though obviously
she knew he was great) and that therefore, discussing his supposed
failings--which really WOULD be failings in need of correction in a
lesser man--constituted loshon hara.

There are many lessons one can derive from this, regarding what
constitutes loshon hara, what constitutes to'eles, and where and when
to improve oneself in the areas of anava and respect for gedolim.

To give a very obvious, even childish example--the best I can come up
with at the moment--if you see someone taking medicine on Shabbos and he
is not a very knowledgeable person, you might mention to a third person,
say, to his rebbe, "Ploni did such and such, maybe he doesn't know you're
not supposed to take medicine on Shabbos, see if you can work it into
a shiur so he'll know for next time."

If you see your rav taking medicine on Shabbos, it does not behoove you
to say to someone else, "Maybe someone should mention to him that it's
assur." Rather you should assume that the rav knows what he's doing.

 -Toby Katz


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:43:24 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Disputing Previous Generations


In a message dated 6/8/2004 3:39:28 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> While "vehatanya" and "vehatenan" assume that one does not argue with
> a tanna, tanna, one could simply say that one *does* not, not that one
> lacks the authority to.

minyan linyan-Monday's daf had a # of these "bnichuta". Does anyone have
a theory as to why the gemora would use the same terminology, albeit a
very small percentage of the time, to introduce a supporting statement?

KT
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:42:23 GMT
From: <saulguberman@juno.com>
Subject:
re: Miriam and Lashon HaRah?


From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>I would appreciate a clarification of why Miriam was punished for
>speaking about Moshe.
[snip]
>In sum - what is the lesson one is supposed to derive from these verses
>in the Torah and how is it actually derived from the classic sources?
>The Chofetz Chaim clearly states that it is a mitzva to remember what
>happened to Miriam. My problem is I don't understand what actually
>happened and why.

Our Rabbi gave his Shabbat drasha on the incident of the "Cushite
women". I hope I do not mangle his thoughts.

He felt that the sifrie, Rashi & Rashbam did not explain this well
enough. He found the wording and lay out of the story very puzzling and
wanted to know what we are supposed to learn from it.

He started with the Ibn Ezra's explanation and expounded from
there. Miriam wanted to critize Moshe's leadership style. She felt
that she could not do this directly as Moshe was too holy & humble to
be directly criticized. She therefore directed her criticism through
Tzipporah.

Tzipporah was a foreigner. She did not relate the same way to the common
folk. As documented through the Chumash, Moshe was also a foreigner to
the people. Even when he became their leader, and during his leadership,
he spent a lot of time away from the people. Miriam & Aharon were more
leaders for the masses. They grew up with & were amongst the people more
than Moshe. Moshe should mingle more with the people.

God lets Miriam know that she is wrong by giving her Tzorat. Part of
the "healing" process is to go outside the camp for a week. She will
now have more empathy for her brother being away from the people.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:53:20 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: orla


[R Shlomo Goldstein:]
>But doesn't this prove my point? The case of safek orla in chu"l which is
>mutar has a 50% or greater chance of being orla, according to all pshatim.
...
>          To merely say taaroves is vadai and not safek is semantics.
>They are both the same type of question as to kashrus of fruit, yet the
>Torah provides two alternative methods of deciding the din.

So the conglomerate of poskim is a ta'aroves?

YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:57:55 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #12, MC vol. 1 p. 99


>In BK 56b we learn the law of "Perutah d'Rav Yosef" - viz. that a shomeir 
>aveidah is exempt from giving food to a pauper because he is osek 
>b'mitzvah (hashavas aveidah) and therefore pattur min ha'mitzvah (of 
>gemilus chesed or tzedakah). This would seem difficult, as osek
>b'mitzvah pattur min ha'mitzvah (OBMPMHM) applies only when two mitzvos 
>aseh conflict - not when a mitzvas lo ta'aseh is involved. If so, how can 
>the shomeir aveidah be exempt from the mitzvah of tzedakah - by not giving 
>tzedakah does he not transgress the lav of "Lo te'ametz es levavecha?"
>VIDC?

I was asked:

> It seems to me so obvious and you won't ask an obvious simple question,
> so I am probably wrong:
> Don't we have 'Ase ve-lo ta'ase - 'ase kodem Therefore, if a person is 
> 'asuk bi-dvar mitzva, he should be patur from that lo ta'ase!

I would answer:

It's a good question and a solution may lie in that direction. However, 
superficially it is not a good solution because an aseh is only doche a lav 
by itself, but not an aseh and a lav, as would seem to be the case here.

[Email #2. -mi]

I was sent off list the following suggestions:

>1. The lav is a lav ha'nitak l'asei and he can always fulfill the
>asei (once he is no longer engaged in the other asei) and thereby
>remove the lav.

>2. Why is the fact that he is not giving tzedaka because he is being
>osek b'mitzva any different from not giving tzedaka because he
>doesn't have the money. Surely in the latter case he would not be
>oiver on lo t'ameitz!

>3. We say asei docheh lo ta'asei any time where the kiyum of the asei
>will itself bring about the lo ta'asei. Isn't that the case here?
>Because he is being shomer aveida, the lo ta'asei comes about.

Replies:

1. Isn't there a separate mitzvah with each and every ani? Lichora giving 
tzedaka to another ani later is not menatek the lav for the earlier ani.

2. Perhaps. But there is an obvious chilluk: In one case there is no 
yecholes and in the other there is.

3. I responded to this point elsewhere, I think.

[Email #3. -mi]

I received this solutions off line:

>Osek Bemitzvah:

>1) Lo se-amaitz applies only if the mitzvah opportunity is present.  Since 
>OBMetc.  obviates the asaih of pasoach tiftach, the lav which is a 
>function of pasoach tiftach never comes into play.  That's why OBMetc. is 
>betetr than 'asaih docheh lo sa'asaih:  'asaih docheh etc. won't work 
>against a pos and neg commandmant; here despite the presence of p[os and 
>neg, we ignore it.  This is a function of the temporal precedence of  the 
>mitzvas shmirah.

Interesting - osek b'mitzva is superior to aseh doche lo ta'aseh - but I do 
not understand yet the rationale.

>2) The purported violations are either passive or in the heart.  Don't 
>have proof off-hand why this is so, but it is a chiluk!  Taken literally, 
>this works for lo se-amaitz but not for "lo sikpotz es yadcha:"

I like this one - a real Telzer sevara! A little development and it can go 
very far!

[Email #4. -mi]

At 11:31 AM 6/8/2004, Brown, Charles F wrote:
>Ramban Kid 34 explains that at times a lav is merely a shmira for the aseh
>and does not function independently - this is why although ma'akeh, aveidah,
>shiluach hakan all have l"t associated with them which should obligate
>women, these mitzvos are categorized as m"a she'hazman gerama and women are
>exempt completely (Tos there who answers differently).  2 deyos in Tos BB 8
>whether the lav is sufficient reason to enpower kefiyas B"D by tzedaka - the
>diyun could be this very point, whether we treat the lav as an independent
>entity or just a shmira of the aseh.  Achronim say this on other mitzvos as
>well (e.g. sha'agas arye by re'iyas panim b'azarah).

I like this answer. I would classify it as Poilish.

At 03:23 PM 6/8/2004, [Micha] wrote:
>My first reaction is to wonder if not giving because he is oseiq bemitzvah
>qualifies as amitzas haleiv. There is a far gap between being too busy
>helping the person who lost an object and being too callous hearted
>to give.

Noch a Telzer...

Amazing Reb Dovid Lifshitz's influence...

YGB 

[Particularly if you knew how rarely I was awake in shiur... -mi]


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 >