Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 94

Mon, 16 Jul 2012

• 1. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Doron Beckerman)
• 4. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Re: [Areivim] earthquakes (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Micha Berger)
• 7. Lehadlik Ner (Allan Engel)
• 8. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Doron Beckerman)
• 11. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Doron Beckerman)

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 10:07:34AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: > 1. Maybe he wasn't a talmid chacham then
: 
: Even in Shemuel II 8:1, where he was melekh already? He already wrote
: numerous kapitelach Tehillim by this point. (LeDavid beshanoso es ta'amo
: was written when on the lam from Shaul, no?)

See Rashi on Pinechas 27:17 (tr R' David Sedley
<http://rabbisedley.blogspot.com/2012/07/another-reason-to-love-israe
l.html>
without whom I wouldn't have noticed):
    Who will go forth before them: Not like the kings of the [gentile]
    nations, who sit at home and send their armies to war, but as I
    [Moshe] did, for I fought against Sihon and Og, as it says,
    "Do not fear him" (21:34), and as Joshua did, as it says,
    "Joshua went to him and said to him, Are you for us [or for our
    enemies]?" (Josh. 5:13). Similarly, concerning David it says, "For
    he went forth and came in before them" (I Sam. 18:16)-he went out [to
    battle] at their head and came in before them. -- [Sifrei Pinchas 23]

Someone else raised issues in private email that I wished they would have
repeated on list. Now that RDS's blog post had me revisiting the topic,
I will.

First, if David haMelekh wasn't a TC yet at the time he was still
fighting was himself, lo kol shekein anyone alive today. And if he was
able to go to war and THEN become the head of the Sanhedrin and a navi,
then doesn't that indicate something? Alternatively, he was a TC when
he went to war. Either way, it doesn't support the chareidi.

Second, how is it suddenly accepted chareidi thought that the shofetim
were /not/ gedolei Torah? R' Shach clearly thought otherwise when he
objected (to put it mildly) to R' Edin Shteinzaltz playing down the TC
aspect of Shimshon?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Picture being able to tie why you're going to the store to what
> it is you plan on accomplishing in your life's avodah. I think
> it would be very powerful in making all of life, even
> recreation or side interests, holy -- however it is you define
> holiness.

R' David Riceman asked:
> Why doesn't it work just as well for just a little time every
> day? Not everything you do at work ties directly into the
> Master Plan.

I'm wondering why RDR included the qualifier "directly". Suppose one would
run his life in a manner such that everything one does at work ties into
the Master Plan somehow or other, whether directly or indirectly.

It seems to me that the first time Rav Shimon Bar Yochai left the cave, he
had felt that all our actions must tie into the Master Plan directly. So he
was sent back in, and when he emerged the second time, he understood the
value of indirect ties as well. My only problem is when there are no ties
at all.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Apply for the Black Card&#8482
Enjoy Unlimited Airport Lounge Visits For You and Your Guests.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50033000a30d2fff4911st51vuc

>> First, if David haMelekh wasn't a TC yet... <<

As Zev already pointed out, nobody says that TCs can't volunteer. They
clearly did, as did Kohanim and Leviyim. It doesn't matter if he was or
wasn't.

>> Second, how is it suddenly accepted chareidi thought that the shofetim
were /not/ gedolei Torah? <<

Who said it is "accepted Chareidi thought"? Why is it "accepted non-Charedi
thought" that every thought expressed by a Chareidi is "accepted Charedi
thought"?

But, again, it is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is - can the
govt. draft TCs.  Please provide a proof text that the govt. can *draft*
them to the army, and how to reconcile that source with Sotah 10 and
Nedarim 32, because everything else is utterly irrelevant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120716/de1374b8/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> In a fully lit room, where one woman has already lit candles,
> while it is preferable for any other women who want to light
> to light in a different place in the house, we (I think this
> is only for Ashkenazim but I don't remember) hold that tosefet
> ohr is enough of a reason to make a bracha over an additional
> lighting.

R' Micha Berger added:
> For that matter, most women today are lighting candles in an
> area already well lit by the room's electric lighting.
> RHSchachter suggested that these be shut off and turned back
> on too. IIRC but I'm not certain I do recall correctly, he too
> said it was on the order of preferable, not mandatory.

If Rav Schachter did say that it was mandatory, then what is his
suggestion when we have consecutive days of Shabbos and Yom Tov? Would
we have to install timers so that all the lights in the room are off
while the neros are lit?

This question is discussed in Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa, 43:34, where he
does says that it is "min hara'uy" to do so. In footnote 171, he writes:

"Tzorech iyun about oil lights, which we never light nowadays for kavod,
or for extra light, or to enjoy the abundant light. We don't use them
except for a yahrzeit or in a beis evel, and if so, when there is already
a strong and clear light, there is no 'simcha yeseira' from this. And
if so, how is it possible to make a bracha on it? Maybe it is because
Chazal established oil as the Hidur Mitzvah, and because it is known and
obvious that it is L'Kavod Shabbos, so that's why it is considered Hanaah
and Simcha. It also seems that all the married women are very makpid
on this mitzvah, possibly making it into a Minhag Chashuv for adding
such neros L'Shem Mitzvah, and saying a bracha on it, just like when we
make a bracha on the Neros Chanukah in shul - even according to the Beis
Yosef who does not allow saying a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh..."

If I'm understanding that correctly, he holds that the presence of
abundant electric light totally removes the obligation of lighting
additional lights, yet despite this, the bracha can be said on these
additional lights purely because of the importance given to them by
the women.

In chapter 45 note 32, he uses different words to describe what I believe
is the same reasoning, for the situation where many women are all lighting
Ner Shabbos - with the bracha - even though they are technically exempt
because they are all guests of the same host. And he refers to this note
later on, in notes 35 and 43 of that chapter.

[Email #2. -micha]

R"n Toby Katz asked:
> Can we not translate "lehadlik ner" as "to turn on a light"?

That's exactly the problem.

Consider this: In Modern Hebrew, "lehadlik" is indeed the word one uses
for turning on an electric light. But - again in Modern Hebrew - the noun
"delek" refers to fuel.

But that's Modern Hebrew, and a mere introduction to the real questions,
which are: What does "l'hadlik ner" mean in Lashon Hakodesh? What is a
"ner"? What of a light which does *not* consume any fuel? Does lighting
such a light constitute "hadlaka"?

R' Marty Bluke posted a link to
http://www.yutorah.com/_materials/Candle%20Lighting%20Part%20II.pdf
That is a 3-page pdf file, in English, which gives a very nice summary
of many answers to these questions.

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 07:36:01AM -0400, Joseph Kaplan replied to me on
Areivim:
[I quoted:]
:>> In fact [some famous Xian preacher] never said that God brought
:>> the bad thing; he said that when
:>> we sin Hashem *removes His protection* and then we're exposed to whatever
:>> nature or evildoers might bring.  In other words he believes "mipi Elyon
:>> lo tetzei hara`ot vehatov" benichuta, not bitmiha...

[Me:]
:> Appears to be shitas haRambam you're describing.

[RJK's reply:]
: Not quite sure I understand.  When, exactly, aren't we sinning?

I meant, the Rambam holds that HP is earned rather than guaranteed to all
homo sapiens. That when Chazal say that all people get HP (Morah 3:17)
the concept of person is what we'd call today a fuzzy set and proportional
to yediah (3:18). Therefore, according to the Rambam, the primary form
of onesh is to be subject to nature, chance and the whims of others.

This is less extreme than the last sentence I quoted. "Mipi Elyon lo
seitzei hara'os vehatov" is bimiha, but "hara'os" often means being left
subject to the laws on entropy, not the actual ra that ensues from such
wilfull neglect.

Shitas haRambam doesn't mean that we're only subject to HP when the
person isn't sinning at all. Rather, different levels of yedi'ah, which
according to the Rambam is both the cause and consequence of mitzvos
and maasim tovim, mean different amounts of HP.

This might even be the Rambam's peshat in the very difficult pasuq,
"Na'ar hayisi vegam zaqanti..." Difficult, because it's easy to find
tzadiqim who don't have enough money for food for all their children
and therefore they are mevaqeish lakhem. But according to the Rambam,
perhaps he would say that a tzadiq who suffers such deprivation does
so behashgachah; it's what is best for him and his children according
to Hashem's Plan for them. He wasn't ne'ezav. As opposed to a rasha,
whose success or failure has nothing to do with the Divine Plan, HQBH
doesn't bother intervening. (And so on for most people who are various
places in between.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:46:17PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
:> First, if David haMelekh wasn't a TC yet...

: As Zev already pointed out, nobody says that TCs can't volunteer. They
: clearly did, as did Kohanim and Leviyim. It doesn't matter if he was or
: wasn't.

You questioned the notion that numerous gedolim did serve altogether, when
I compiled a list from Shofetim, David haMelekh, Benayahu, R' Aqiva, etc...
It seems now you're okay with them having served, because it was voluntary.

:> Second, how is it suddenly accepted chareidi thought that the shofetim
:> were /not/ gedolei Torah?

: Who said it is "accepted Chareidi thought"? Why is it "accepted non-Charedi
: thought" that every thought expressed by a Chareidi is "accepted Charedi
: thought"?

You were the chareidi in question. By suggesting that Yiftach was not
a gadol baTorah, you were opening yourself to the same questions R' Shach
asked about R' Shteinzaltz's early books.

: But, again, it is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is - can the
: govt. draft TCs.  Please provide a proof text that the govt. can *draft*
: them to the army, and how to reconcile that source with Sotah 10 and
: Nedarim 32, because everything else is utterly irrelevant.

I was addressing the tangent of arguing whether or not they had in the
past indeed served... If we're retiring that discussion with a chiluq
between serving and being drafted...

R' Yehudah's very complaint against Asa "afilu chasan meichedro vekalah
meichupaso" (Sotah 10a) is taken from the mishnah (44b) to refer to the
extent of the chiyuv for a milkhemes mitzvah. "Bameh devarim amurim,
bemilkhemes reshus, aval bemilkhemes mitzvah..."

Besides, as I already noted, Rav, who associates Asa's cheit with drafting
TC says it's because they are drafted for angarya. If it were the draft
altogether, and we assume he disagrees with R' Yehudah because it taqeh
/was/ a milkhemes mitzvah, why the rare Greek (transliterating the Greek
original: aggareia) loan word?

Which is also the problem the problem I would have learning anything
from what R' Avohu says on Nedaim 32 about why Avraham deserved our
being enslaved in Mitzrayim. There too it's, shena'aseh anagrya beTC,
with the rare lashon rather than usual terms for going off to war.
So again we're not sure it was a milkhemes mitzvah, and we're not sure
the problem was using TC to fight, or to collect the enemy's property.

Nor is it clear R' Avohu is the masqanah of that gemara. See the
subsequent machloqes of Rav and Shemuel on how to understand R' Avohu's
prooftext, neither of which fit R' Avohu's use of the pasuq. Rashi
follows Rav and Shmuel, by saying "vayireq es chanikhav" is that
Avraham stirred them up, which fits having a machloqes if he motivated
them with Torah or with gold. It doesn't fit the notion of drafting
them to gather enemy materiel.

There is only arguable indication from the Rambam that a TC can choose
to be midin sheivet leivi even when it comes to being drafted for a
milkhemes mitzvah. Sheivet leivi isn't listed in Hil' Melakhim, so we
can argue whether their petur applies for milkhemes mitzvah. And the
ability for anyone to assume the role of sheivet Leivi doesn't mention
whether this is also for the draft altogether. Nor is a petur for the
draft mentioned when discussing their petur for paying for the police.
So while the argument can be made, it is VERY far from clearcut proof.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

A similar question could arise over the brocho for tefillin.

The mitzva is to wear tefillin, but the brocho is 'Lehoniach Tefillin' - to
'put them on'. The 'putting on' is merely the process by which the mitzva
is achieved, not the mitzva itself, unlike, say, 'Al Achilas Matza'.

Similarly, 'Lehadlik Ner' could the process by which the desired result,
extra light, is achieved. Perhaps in both cases the 'action' is secondary
to the result.

The nafka mina with tefillin might be when a man does not put on his own
tefillin, for example if he's old or ill (or when boys have tefillin put on
for them by chasiddic Rebbes).




On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Akiva Miller <kennethgmil...@juno.com>wrote:
>
> But that's Modern Hebrew, and a mere introduction to the real questions,
> which are: What does "l'hadlik ner" mean in Lashon Hakodesh? What is a
> "ner"? What of a light which does *not* consume any fuel? Does lighting
> such a light constitute "hadlaka"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120716/5edf3aff/attachment-0001.htm>

I had asked about glow sticks, wondering if they constitute "aish" or not, as regards Meleches Hav'arah. Here's an argument in another direction:

At the s'neh, Moshe Rabenu remarked that it was "bo'er" without being
consumed. Apparently, this is a very unusual thing, but not outside of the
definition of the words. Perhaps "bo'er" can refer to something which burns
without consuming any fuel, whereas "dolek" does require a fuel to burn.

If so, then perhaps lighting a glow stick would be hav'arah, even though it
is not hadlakah and no fuel is being used up. (Alternatively, perhaps the
fact that a glow stick lasts for only a few hours means that it *does* use
up its energy source, even though no heat is produced.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
5 Diet Pills that Work
2012's Top 5 Weight Loss Pills. Updated Consumer Ratings. Free Report.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5004222ee6bad222e3590st52vuc

RDR:

<<If a change in
perspective >can transform a neutral act into a virtuous act, why can't it
also change a prohibited act into a virtuous act?>>

Me:

<< Can't it (in extremis)?  How do you deal with the concept of an averah
lishma and the discussion of Horayos 10b?>>

RDR:

>The entire sugya deserves more extended remarks, but that particular
citation can be dealt with concisely.  See the Maharsha ad. loc. citing an
>unspecified Tosafos in Yevamos that Yael did not enjoy the event.  He
construes "lishmah" to mean without physical pleasure. 

How does that help you?

Or in other words, does that explanation not continue to raise the problem?

Here we have a situation where something would be a prohibited act, and
Yael's change of perspective (ie not deriving any pleasure from the event)
changes it into a virtuous act.

I am not sure that the Maharsha is right though, since in the Yerushalmi
Sotah 4:4 the same Rabbi Yochanan accepted that pleasure derived from being
forced is irrelevant:

???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????. ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????
??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??
????? ???? ??? ??. ??????.
(A woman came to Rav Yochanan and said she has been raped.  He said to her,
didn't you enjoy it in the end.  She said if a man dips his finger in honey
and forced it into your mouth on Yom Kippur, is it not bad for you and is it
not enjoyable for you in the end, he accepted her).

Unless you want to say that, from this Rav Yochanan, that Rav Yochanan
denies the possibility that there can never any pleasure in the end, unless
someone is functioning on the level of Yael.  But that is a pretty extreme
reading of this gemora, more logically, the question is how does one
characterise a situation where there was force initially and later
enjoyment, does the later enjoyment nullify the force, or does it not.

But that does not matter, because whether you say that the essence of the
change in perspective was an absence of enjoyment in the act, or an
intention to do the act not for personal reasons but to save klal yisroel
(which I think is a far more straightforward pshat), the key factor is that
what was going on in Yael's head is what makes this averah lishma greater
than a mitzvah.

>The Maharsha stops there, bit I will add that the halacha is that a passive
woman is guilty of adultery only if she has pleasure (that's the sugya of
>Esther karka olam haysa).  So it's lack of physical pleasure that changed
the potential aveirah into a non-aveirah.

Err, I don't think so.  I mean, it is a great defence to adultery - actually
your honour (or whatever you call a member of the Sanhedrin), I didn't enjoy
it, so that's alright then.  

Rather the aspect of passivity is not enjoyment or lack of enjoyment, but
solicitation or lack of solicitation.  A woman can be subject to rape even
if she is asleep (or, for that matter, dead), her consciousness is not at
all required.  Similarly with a rape, where she is fully conscious, but
unwilling, the key fact is lack of active consent.  

And that is precisely, as you say, the sugya of Esther karka olam haysa.  If
it were merely a matter of enjoyment or lack of enjoyment, what difference
would it make to Esther whether she went to the king to plead for the Jews
or not, her lack of enjoyment in the actual act would remain the same.  But
part of the whole understanding of this sugya, is that when Esther says:
v'kasher avaditi, avaditi, it means sheavaditi me'beis aba kach oved m'mecha
(Megilla 15a).  By voluntarily doing an act which would amount to
solicitation of attention from Achashverosh, she was no longer karka olam,
and would become forbidden to Mordechai.

Similarly, if Sisera had raped Yael, then there would have been no question
of it being an averah on her part, lishma or otherwise "ain l'na'arah ches
maves" (Devarim 22:26) anymore than there is a sin on behalf of the victim
of a murder to whom the Torah likens the case.  The issue only arises
because of the understanding that Yael was instrumental in arranging the act
in question to take place- albeit that she did it in order to save klal
yisroel.  

>Incidentally, the Yalkut Shimoni (#44) disputes R. Yohanan's contention
that Yael misbehaved.

Does it?  Where do you see that?  (The version I get up on Bar Ilan - #45 -
I don't see it in #44) doesn't seem to me to dispute it - although it brings
the averah lishma language in the name of Rabbi Nachman, and it brings other
aspects as well).

>But I think there's a more general issue.  The sugya is clearly thinking in
terms of mitzvos; "lishmah" in the sugya means l'sheim mitzvah, not l'sheim
>servitude to God.  Now I think one can (and RYL has at least hinted in that
direction) try to argue that this is a distinction in terminology rather
>than content,

Yes but if we go deeper, and that is why the Yael scenario is of particular
relevance - why was Yael doing whatever she did?  Whether you want to argue
lack of pleasure or whatever, Yael's fundamental motivation (ie what
replaced any question of pleasure) has to be for the greater good, beyond
the specific act - and it is this acting for the greater good that renders
the averah aspect of the specific act greater than a mitzvah.

> but I also think that anyone arguing that solving math problems for
pleasure is a kiyum mitzva is pushing that argument farther than it >ought
to go.

I didn't think anybody was suggesting that solving maths problems for
pleasure was a kiyum mitzvah.  I thought they were arguing that solving
maths problems for the sake of servitude to G-d (or perhaps for the sake of
knowing G-d, eg as the Rambam appears to understand it) could be a kiyum
mitzvah, even if one got pleasure out of that combination. 

>David Riceman

Regards

Chana

>> You questioned the notion that numerous gedolim did serve altogether,
when
I compiled a list from Shofetim, David haMelekh, Benayahu, R' Aqiva, etc...
It seems now you're okay with them having served, because it was voluntary.
<<

I never said otherwise. I indeed questioned some of the list as to whether
they were TCs when they served, since it would would serve as another
Teshuvah LaDavar, but it is still irrelevant to the question at hand. As
you say below, it is tangential.

>> You were the chareidi in question. <<

And I am VERY troubled that you think it okay to espouse and post a notion
(is it accepted non-Charedi thought?) that any thought expressed by a
Charedi is indicative of "accepted Charedi thought." I actually find
it deeply offensive. Who even says I'm a Charedi? By whose definition?

>> R' Yehudah's very complaint <<<

How do you know it is a complaint? Did you look up the Maharsha?

>> If it were the draft
altogether, and we assume he disagrees with R' Yehudah because it taqeh
/was/ a milkhemes mitzvah, why the rare Greek (transliterating the Greek
original: aggareia) loan word? <<

Did you look up the definition of the term Angaria!? It does NOT, NOT, NOT
mean "loan"  in the Gemara!! It means "a compulsory service imposed by
the government"! Rashi said it - Avodas Hamelech. Google it. (hopefully you
will look this time so you won't have to twist Nedarim into a pretzel). You
do realize that you are basing your entire analysis of a Gemara on
incorrect etymology, against all the Teshuvos I linked to.

>> Sheivet leivi isn't listed in Hil' Melakhim, so we
can argue whether their petur applies for milkhemes mitzvah. <<

Zev already explained that. Besides, I already quoted RMF that it isn't
clear that the wars today are Milchemes Mitzvah.

>> And the
ability for anyone to assume the role of sheivet Leivi doesn't mention
whether this is also for the draft altogether. <<

It is pashut pshat in the Rambam,

>> Nor is a petur for the
draft mentioned when discussing their petur for paying for the police. <<

Because those are two entirely separate issues.

>>> So while the argument can be made, it is VERY far from clearcut proof.
<<

It is actually about as clear as it gets.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120716/81d160a7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 06:37:43PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
:> You were the chareidi in question.
: 
: And I am VERY troubled that you think it okay to espouse and post a notion
: (is it accepted non-Charedi thought?) that any thought expressed by a
: Charedi is indicative of "accepted Charedi thought." I actually find
: it deeply offensive. Who even says I'm a Charedi? By whose definition?

R' Shach's statements are "accepted Chareidi thought", in particular in
Israel. So your proposed defense, relying on defying not only R' Shach's
position, but a cause he used to declare someone's writings -- even on
other subjects -- michutz lamachaneh, doesn't work. Not because you
personally must follow REMS, but because the people whose decision you're
explaining do.

:> R' Yehudah's very complaint...

: How do you know it is a complaint? Did you look up the Maharsha?

The Maharsha is where I got the idea that R' Yehudah bases his shitah
of what was Asa's cheit (drafting chasanom and kallos) on it not being a
milkhemes mitzvah.

Which is why I don't think any discussion of Asa's wars has anything to
do with today's defensive wars. (See definition of a milkhemes mitzvah
in Hil' Melakhim 5:1.) A war aimed at saving lives or defending existing
borders does call for drafting chasanim and kallos -- something to think
about if we ever get to discussing giyus banos.

In addition to the milkhemes mitzvah vs Asa's milkhemes reshus issue,
Rav emphasizes that the TC were being drafted for grunt work and not
core duties. Which brings us to "anagriah"...

:> If it were the draft
:> altogether, and we assume he disagrees with R' Yehudah because it taqeh
:> /was/ a milkhemes mitzvah, why the rare Greek (transliterating the Greek
:> original: aggareia) loan word?

: Did you look up the definition of the term Angaria!? It does NOT, NOT, NOT
: mean "loan"  in the Gemara!! ...

In Greek (from which the word was borroed -- thus I called the word a
"loan word") it means specifically to collect enemy materiel for use
in the war. This meaning is still its usage in English. It is also is
how "anagria" is used in BQ and BM, when discussing an owner who loses
animals to anagria.

In Asa's case it is clear from the rest of the pasuq that the work in
question is anagry in the Greek, Latin and English sense of the word
"... vayis'u es avnei haramah ve'es eitzeha asher bana Ba'sha..."

Angaria is "bevinyan, vachavita ... lishruras hamelekh" (from which Hil'
Talmud Torah 6:10 exempts the TC), not lehilakheim.

:> Sheivet leivi isn't listed in Hil' Melakhim, so we
:> can argue whether their petur applies for milkhemes mitzvah.

: Zev already explained that. Besides, I already quoted RMF that it isn't
: clear that the wars today are Milchemes Mitzvah.

And I acknowledged that it was possible to pasqen that way, and that many
did. But it is far from clear-cut enough to be called a "proof" of anything.

:> And the
:> ability for anyone to assume the role of sheivet Leivi doesn't mention
:> whether this is also for the draft altogether.

: It is pashut pshat in the Rambam,

Depending upon what you walk up to the Rambam depending to find. To wit:
:> Nor is a petur for the
:> draft mentioned when discussing their petur for paying for the police.

: Because those are two entirely separate issues.

Less so than public support vs drafting. At least there, both are
contrubitions and both are about defense.

Look at how the Rambam discusses sheivet Leivi, without presuming one
conclusion or the other. I'm looking at the end of in Hil' Shemittah
veYovel (13:12-13). Halakhos 10-11 said that sheivet leivi do not get
spoils or land specifically from the EY HQBH promised the avos. 

12 now says why, "mipenei shehuvdal la'avod es H' ulsharso... lo orikhim
milkhamah... ela heim cheil H'... veHu barukh Hu zikah lahem..."

And 13, "velo sheivet leivi bilvad". How far does this go? A TC from
one of the other shevatim has nachala. So the Rambam's arguments against
getting spoils doesn't apply. For that matter, he proves his point from
David haMelekh "H' menas chelqi vegorali..." (Tehillim 16:5) And David
haMelekh DID go to war, and DID take spoils from war -- both metaltalim
and qarqa.

It would seem just as compelling to say that the Rambam was closing his
Seifer Zera'im -- a book that to a large extent is aimed at an agrarian's
sociaty's baalei bayis -- with aggadita, promoting to those who are
capable of it ("vehevino mada'o") to go into kelei qoedesh. (Nothing
specific there about learning, BTW, but "lesharso ule'avdo, ledei'ah es
H', vehalakh yashar...")

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

RCL:

<<Here we have a situation where something would be a prohibited act, 
and Yael's change of perspective (ie not deriving any pleasure from the 
event) changes it into a virtuous act.>>

It's not a change in perspective.  It's a different physical event.  As 
the Maharsha (and three Tosafoses I have subsequently encountered -- 
I'll cite the one in Sanhedrin below and it'll point you to the others) 
construes the event, Yael did not enjoy the encounter, even though she 
initiated it.  See Tos. Sanhedrin 74b s.v. "V'ha Esther Parhesya havah", 
"hana'ah hashiva k'ma'aseh" (just before the citation of Perek HaMeiniah).

Admittedly Hazal's explanation of why she didn't enjoy it is cryptic: 
"d'ka shadi bah zuhama (Yevamos 103b)", but nonetheless the main thrust 
of the argument in our sugya is clear: The Imahos performed the mitzva 
of having children, but the mitzva was not pure because they enjoyed the 
initial preparation; Yael did not enjoy the initial preparation for 
killing Sisera even though she initiated it.

> <<I am not sure that the Maharsha is right though, since in the 
> Yerushalmi Sotah 4:4 the same Rabbi Yochanan accepted that pleasure 
> derived from being forced is irrelevant: ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? 
> ????? ???? ??? ??????. ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? 
> ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? 
> ??. ??????. (A woman came to Rav Yochanan and said she has been raped. 
> He said to her, didn't you enjoy it in the end. She said if a man dips 
> his finger in honey and forced it into your mouth on Yom Kippur, is it 
> not bad for you and is it not enjoyable for you in the end, he 
> accepted her). Unless you want to say that, from this Rav Yochanan, 
> that Rav Yochanan denies the possibility that there can never any 
> pleasure in the end, unless someone is functioning on the level of Yael.>>

The gemara in Yevamos I just cited is also construing the opinion of R. 
Yohanan.  I don't understand why there's a contradiction, however.  The 
simple fact is that, according to R Yohanan, Yael seduced Sisera 
(according to R Yohanan).

On a more general level I don't understand your point.  The Maharsha 
construes the gemara as praising "lishmah" in the sense of "having no 
personal benefit from the act". The Yerushalmi is discussing whether the 
raped wife of a cohen needs to get divorced.  One would expect different 
criteria for these very different contexts.


<<Rather the aspect of passivity is not enjoyment or lack of enjoyment, but
solicitation or lack of solicitation.  A woman can be subject to rape even
if she is asleep (or, for that matter, dead), her consciousness is not at
all required.  Similarly with a rape, where she is fully conscious, but
unwilling, the key fact is lack of active consent.>>

See the passage in Tosafos I cited above.  Tosafos constures the criterion to be, not solicitation, but participation, and "hana'ah hashivah k'ma'ashe".

>> Incidentally, the Yalkut Shimoni (#44) disputes R. Yohanan's contention
> that Yael misbehaved.
>
> Does it?  Where do you see that?  (The version I get up on Bar Ilan - #45 -
> I don't see it in #44) doesn't seem to me to dispute it - although it brings
> the averah lishma language in the name of Rabbi Nachman, and it brings other
> aspects as well).
""Amar R. Shimon ben Lakish ... shmi me'id bah shelo naga bah oso 
rasha."  The editor cites VaYikra Rabba 23:10 as a source.  And, indeed, 
Margalios in his notes there (p. 542 note 6) observes that this 
disagrees with R. Yohanan.
> <<Yes but if we go deeper, and that is why the Yael scenario is of 
> particular relevance - why was Yael doing whatever she did? Whether 
> you want to argue lack of pleasure or whatever, Yael's fundamental 
> motivation (ie what replaced any question of pleasure) has to be for 
> the greater good, beyond the specific act - and it is this acting for 
> the greater good that renders the averah aspect of the specific act 
> greater than a mitzvah.>> 

Here is where I think you are either misconstruing or disagreeing with 
the Maharsha.  The gemara accepts that seduction was a means to a good 
end, but doesn't accept that it was "greater than a mitzvah", except for 
the one detail that Yael did not personally benefit from it.

If I understand you correctly, however, you are arguing that Yael's goal 
made that event a "good deed".  But part of the Maharsha's point is that 
the event was not technically prohibited.
> <<I didn't think anybody was suggesting that solving maths problems 
> for pleasure was a kiyum mitzvah. I thought they were arguing that 
> solving maths problems for the sake of servitude to G-d (or perhaps 
> for the sake of knowing G-d, eg as the Rambam appears to understand 
> it) could be a kiyum mitzvah, even if one got pleasure out of that 
> combination.>>

There were two strains of thought.  One that I should have servitude to 
God as my goal.  The other that since, objectively, if I succeed in 
solving the problem it will benefit mankind, my attempts are service to 
God whether or not that is my intention.

Your formulation is acceptable, but neither of the others are.

David Riceman

>
> >> R' Shach's statements are "accepted Chareidi thought", in particular in
> Israel. So your proposed defense, relying on defying not only R' Shach's
> position, but a cause he used to declare someone's writings -- even on
> other subjects -- michutz lamachaneh, doesn't work. Not because you
> personally must follow REMS, but because the people whose decision you're
> explaining do. <<
>

Really? Everyone who does not go to the army assumes that Shimshon was the
Gadol Hador? I beg to differ.

>
> >> The Maharsha is where I got the idea that R' Yehudah bases his shitah
> of what was Asa's cheit (drafting chasanom and kallos) on it not being a
> milkhemes mitzvah. <<
>

That is ONE possibility ("Efshar") in the Maharsha itself. The Tzitz
Eliezer says that Asa's Hava Amina to take Chasan Mechadro was because he
thought it to be a Milchemes Mitzvah, and he is STILL criticized for taking
the TCs.

>
> >> In Greek (from which the word was borroed -- thus I called the word a
> "loan word") it means specifically to collect enemy materiel for use
> in the war. <<


GOOGLE IT! I cited Merriam-Webster's first definition. It just does NOT
make sense otherwise.

>> Angaria is "bevinyan, vachavita ... lishruras hamelekh" (from which Hil'
Talmud Torah 6:10 exempts the TC), not lehilakheim. <<

No, it means ANY service that the govt. imposes.

>> Depending upon what you walk up to the Rambam depending to find. <<


You mean like the Tzitz Eliezer, RYMT, and Rav Arieli from Mercaz Harav did?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120716/c0f478cd/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 94
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."