Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 155

Sun, 01 Sep 2013

• 1. The Right Way to Give Tochachah (Micha Berger)
• 2. Minhagim of the Ashkenaz Synagogue ("The Luach") (5774) (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Minhagim of the Ashkenaz Synagogue ("The Luach") (5774) (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Minhagim of the Ashkenaz Synagogue ("The Luach") (5774) (Micha Berger)
• 5. meh choree (saul newman)
• 6. Rambam on False Messiahs (saul newman)
• 7. Re: Even veAven (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: self defense against rape or assault (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. IT'S ALL IN THE ORDER (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 10. Re: self defense against rape or assault (Zev Sero)
• 11. A Thought to LIFT Us Up (as long as we do the right thing) (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 12. Re: self defense against rape or assault (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. Re: Rambam on False Messiahs (saul newman)
• 14. Re: Rambam on False Messiahs (Lisa Liel)

From Wed's Hamodia (21-Aug-2013, pg 35), a Letter to the Editor.

:-)BBii!
-Micha


The Pro-Test

One Friday night in Yerushalayim, in the late 1950s, a Jewish driver
veered off course into Bayit Vegan and got out of his car to ask
directions. The first person he met was the Amshinover Rebbe, zy"a.

He got direction, but not what he expected.

"I can't let you leave," the Rebbe told him.

"What do you mean, you 'can't let me leave'?"

"It will ruin my Shabbos!"

One look at the Rebbe's face was enough to convince the driver this was
for real. The pain was all over the Rebbe's face.

He stayed for Shabbos.

I would love to be able to give a "rest of the story" epilogue about how
the driver went on to become a Rosh Yeshivah. I simply don't know what
happened to him. But I am sure he got a lesson that remained with him.

Back during the Shabbos protests on Bar Ilan Street in Yerushalayim,
I felt that the protesters would get much better results if they'd stop
yelling "SHABBOS!" at cars and, instead, hand out Yerushalmi kugel and
holler "GOOD SHABBOS!"

Today, when outrage over the assaults on the chareidi community spills
over into road-rage, we have to take a step back and analyze our real
motivations. Is it personal? Is it political? Is it self-serving?

The test of real kana'us (zealotry) is the motivation. The Yismach Yisrael
elucidates the supreme act of kana'us: when Pinchas executed Zimri.

Pinchas had no personal motive. No vendetta, no grudge, not even any
anger. He did it totally l'shem Shamayim. It wasn't anti-Zimri. It was
pro-Shamayim.

We know this because the passuk tells us: "Pinchas, the son of Elazar,
the son of Aaron Hakohen, turned My wrath away from the children of
Israel, because he was very zealous for My sake among them...." It was
only for the sake of Heaven.

In response, Hashem gives Pinchas His "bris (covenant)of shalom..." --
because Pinchas didn't just protest. He passed the pro-test.

Mordechai Schiller
New York

http://www.moreshesashkenaz.org/en/luach

The Full Document (pdf)  is at 
http://www.moreshesashkenaz.org/mm/publications/LuachMinhagim.pdf

YL

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:47:25AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> http://www.moreshesashkenaz.org/en/luach

Ezras Torah
http://ezrastorah.org/calendar5774.php?page=download

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:47:25AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> http://www.moreshesashkenaz.org/en/luach

Ezras Torah
http://ezrastorah.org/calendar5774.php?page=download

:-)BBii!
-Micha

having a little trouble understanding the sequencing of  the  'dor acharon'
 dialogue. , and reconciling with historical reality.                that
many have  asked  'meh choree'  is clear , both jew and gentile.
the answer though that has been given  not so sure.  specifically the
 claim 'al asher azvu'   .

 while  it may be  that 'dor rishonim'  of  jews  clearly held that  way  ,
we  see that  historically  later generations  [ and  we can take  the 20th
C  jewish people as representative , wherein  90 % could be fairly
classified themselves on some level as  'asher azvu']   don't per force see
Holocausts as punishment for abandonment of Divine imperative---  see eg
post-Holocaust  'Gd is dead' [r'l] movements ....

now that is just  the jewish perspective. what about  the 'kol hagoyim'  ?
 well,  in fact they don't see the Divine  Wrath as do to abandonment of
the  covenant --- but  rather stiff-necked rejection of  a new covenant....

so , in the 3500 yr  since  this Prophecy was given , it is not clear where
it was fulfilled---   unless we say that a Sodom-like  hyper-destruction of
the Land yet awaits ,  and the xtian world/moslem world will at that time
change their opinion of why the Jews  are punished....

or, was it  referring to the Babylonians  acknowledging the destruction at
that time , by a G-d they didn't believe in ? i would think they rather
attributed it to their superior army and gods...  as doubtless the Romans
did as well...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130830/da2e69b8/attachment-0001.htm>

from the tenor of  rMB and r ZS   discussion ,  it sounds  like  mashiach
is  sent  without the Dor being worthy necessarily ,   but  then the klal
blows  the opportunity .

 so why did  eliyahu say  'hayom, im bekolo  tishma'u?'   the implication
is that the Dor need be worthy  first ;

and furthermore,  the  prophetic descriptions of his  spiritual powers ,
one would think ,  would not  lend self  to further spiritual
 deterioration of the Dor.

 ironic,  was Bar  Kochva from the great Gedolei Hador ?   one thinks  in
terms of Mashiach as looking like r elyashiv  , not a frum  Ramatka''l.....

i wonder  what  a  pseudo-messiah would have to look like  to be able to
convince the Einei Haeidah
[and that would  essentially mean as  the 'gdolim' across the spectrum,
 and  the 'amcha' as well]--
eg  the recent generation's  claimant to the messianic title , great as he
was , was rejected  +unanamously+   by  all other than the followers  .  so
if the messiah  would be magnitudes greater than that ,   i am not sure  a]
how only  one of the gdolim [ ala r akiva ]  would follow him; and how
 potentially the generation could in spite of that spiritually deteriorate
leading to his decoronation , let's call it.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130830/93f6e7b6/attachment-0001.htm>

From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>

I'm  still up in the air about what time to put on an invitation, and 
whether there  might be something wrong (at least on a personal, 
spirit-of-the-law level) with  setting one's wristwatch to another time.

Akiva  Miller
 

>>>>>
There is a hint in halacha that it is OK to set your wristwatch ahead,  
because we human beings actually never can know to the second exactly what time 
 it is.  That's why we add extra minutes to the beginning and end of  
Shabbos.  In contrast,Hashem Himself does know to the second what time  Shabbos 
begins (and created a few things, like the donkey's mouth and Korach's  pit, 
at a time that for humans would have already been Shabbos -- see Pirkei  
Avos).
 



--Toby  Katz
KVCT
=============


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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130830/f2e2b2c8/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> ... I think that's why the question was posed as it was, as
> more theoretical than practical.  Suppose one *could* know
> -- "as clear as  the day" -- that the beating one is suffering
> (or about to suffer) would not result in death.

In such a totally theoretical situation, I suppose it would indeed be forbidden to kill the attacker.

But I don't know why you use the words
> why the question was posed as it was,
> as more theoretical than practical.

I saw nothing of that sort in R' Mordechai Cohen's post, which sounded very practical to me. He had written:

> I was asked if one halachically allowed to kill an attacker
> to save yourself from being raped or beaten?
> (rape question is where the victim is not married and the
> posukim of na'arah m'orasah don't apply)

If the *actual* original question, as posed *TO* R' Mordechai Cohen, had
additional theoretical factors which were not mentioned in his post, I
cannot be responsible for that.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
One Weird Trick
Could add $1,000s to Your Social Security Checks! See if you Qualify&#8230
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5221198fd363a198f6b43st03vuc

The letters of the word Oneg, rearranged, spell Nega. As I "see" it, 
the meaning of the pivotal ayin is instructive.  So the difference 
between the two words: oneg and nega? is where the ayin is placed. 
When it's the first letter of the word, oneg, it indicates the eye can see right from 
the beginning. In other words, one can see the complete picture  
and therefore has "delight."  As it says in the gemara: "Who is wise? 
The one who foresees the outcome of present actions or decisions (Tamid 32b).
However, if one does not "see" (and acts before thinking), then the
ayin comes at the end, and there is affliction (nega).

To further this theme, the gematria of ayin, nun, gimel is 123. The 
word "ma-oz" also has the gematria of 123. Ma-oz means stronghold or
mighty, and certainly can impart oneg (delight). On the other hand, when
oneg becomes nega, the word milchama, which also has the gematria of 123, 
could apply. In other words, "war" certainly IS and causes affliction.
May the New Year be one of ONEG,  with a stronghold of health, 
and may it happen one, two, three! 

May our order never become DISorder.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130830/a31135fb/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/08/2013 6:14 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:

>> ... I think that's why the question was posed as it was, as
>> more theoretical than practical.  Suppose one *could* know
>> -- "as clear as  the day" -- that the beating one is suffering
>> (or about to suffer) would not result in death.

> In such a totally theoretical situation, I suppose it would indeed be
> forbidden to kill the attacker.

Maybe.  But as I wrote in my answer to the original post, I'm not so sure.
It's a good question, and there are svaros that can be advanced that one
may take "life" to mean "life or limb", and kill to prevent "sakanas ever",
and also that rape, even of a single woman who is tehorah and not related
to her attacker, can also be regarded as included in arayos, and in the
right the Torah gives to kill the would-be rapist of an ervah.


>> But I don't know why you use the words
>> why the question was posed as it was,
>> as more theoretical than practical.

> I saw nothing of that sort in R' Mordechai Cohen's post


See the last paragraph of the original post:
> Perhaps this is only theoretical because practically (except for
> father on child) one can assume that they may try to kill as per Bah
> b?machteres?




-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

The Rabbis make a play on the words "V'zot haTorah asher SAHM (shin, mem) Moshe:
This is the Torah which Moses set."   Sahm with a shin can mean "to set", but sahm with a samech
can mean "poison."  Hence, if our Torah is not kept in the right way, then it becomes "poison."

When you lift up your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I do not listen. Your hands are full of blood!
Isaiah 1:15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130901/cd68672e/attachment-0001.htm>

A victim or his relative does not have to be precise in his evaluation of
what to do to stop an attack. Thus the rule that a rodef it is prohibited
to kill a rodef when it is unnecessary to stop the attack does not apply
to the victim or his relatives.

Rav Moshe Halberstam (Yeschurun 15): We see in the Mishna LeMelech
(Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik 8:10) who brings commentary that the law that if
it is possible to stop the pursuer by injuring one of his limits only
applies to third parties but the pursued himself is able to kill him
freely even if he could have saved himself by damages one of the pursuers
limbs...Thus it is proven that the relatives of the pursuer (rodef) are
in fact the pursued themselves and they are the closest to the obligation
and mitzva to stop the rodef from perpetrating his evil designs on them...

Shevus Yaakov 2:187 ... It is explicitly expressed from his words
that the pursued himself is permitted to killed his pursuer (rodef)
even if he can save himself by wounding one of the pursuer's limbs.
Even stronger than this the Levush Orah writes there that if the pursuer
comes to kill his wife and children he is also allowed to kill the rodef
and it is not necessary to stop him by wounding one of the pursuer's
limbs. It is this last point that the Tzeida L'Derech disagrees but
not on the issue that the pursuer himself can kill the pursuer without
having to seek a less method of stopping him. This also indicates that
he agrees with the view of the R'am and this makes sense.

Taz (C.M. 421:13):... So when he did stop the assailant it was good and
he did a mitzva. Nevertheless it would seem that there is a distinction
to be made. Beating up an assailant who hit a Jew is not exempt unless
it is totally clear that he couldn't save the victim in another manner.
In contrast regarding a relative it is not necessary to be so careful.
That means that even when it is not clear that there was an alternative
it is permitted because a relative is like the person himself or
herself. Even though it says in simon 4 that a person is not exempt if
he could stop the assailant without giving him a beating but that is
concerned with saving money. However here we are dealing with saving a
relative who is being beaten and that is like someone is beating you.
In such a case even if there is a doubt whether hitting the other person
is needed to save yourself it is permitted. This distinction of self and
relatives versus others can be perceived in the Rosh (Bava Kama 3:13) and
the Tur (421:20). They say concerning a relative they say the reason for
beating the assailant is to save the relative. In contrast when saving
another Jew there is no exemption unless it is absolutely certain that
there is no other way of saving him. In contrast with saving a relative
there is no need to be so certain and it is not needed to be absolutely
certain there is no other way of saving him because a relative is like
oneself.

Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 3:27): The Rosh (13) says, "Similarly if a
man sees an assailant beating his father or son or brother and he beats
the assailant in order to save his relative - he is exempt just as the
wife who hurt the assailant to save her husband if she could not do it
in another manner. This is also like the case of one who sees another
Jew being beaten and he is not able to save the victim without beating
the assailant - even though the assailant is not giving life threatening
blows - he is still able to beat him in order to get the assailant to
stop from sinning." We see that the Rosh divides the matter into two
categories. First he writes concerning beating an assailant who is hitting
his father, son or brother. In such a case the reason that he is able to
save his relative is just as a wife as the right to save her husband. Then
the Rosh talks about the case of saving a non-relative from a beating
in order to stop the assailant from sinning. Thus we see that saving a
relative is different than saving others. I agree with this view. That
is because is clear that if a wife sees someone hitting her husband -
even if he deserved it but she doesn't know - and she save him - it is
obvious that she is exempt because this is truly something beyond her
control. Since she doesn't know the reason he is being beaten how is
it possible to withstand the pain and control her self? Furthermore the
assailant should not have hit her husband in front of her. This case is
like that of someone seeing his father, son or brother being assaulted. No
man is able to control himself when he sees his suffering. Also in this
case the assailant should have been careful not to hit the relative in
front of him. However if there are witnesses that the father knew his
son was being beaten within the guidelines of the law - it is obvious
that if the father attacks the assailant he is liable and also in the
case of the wife. They are no different than the victim himself. In
contrast if you see someone else being beaten who is not a relative.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>                                                 He did things that
> could be seen as symbolic of the steps in Moshiach's revelation, as
> listed by the Rambam, which his followers trumpeted, perhaps correctly;
> but these were merely symbolic, possible foreshadowings of the actual
> steps to be taken later, and not replacements for those steps.  Had he
> begun fulfilling them literally, he would have steadily gathered
> believers.

and of course to the thousands who crowned him messiah amongst his
followers still believe he is.... and one can therefore envision the
difficulty of the pre-clearlymashiach period..... one wonders what
the 'amcha' believed in r akiva's time--were they hailing him as the
messianic king?

On 8/30/2013 10:43 AM, saul newman wrote:
> from the tenor of  rMB and r ZS   discussion ,  it sounds  like 
>  mashiach is  sent  without the Dor being worthy necessarily ,   but 
>  then the klal blows  the opportunity .

See, I don't read it that way.  Mashiach isn't "sent".  That's an idea 
that's rooted in Christianity.  Mashiach isn't some otherworldly 
creature.  He's flesh and blood like me and you.  He isn't mashiach 
prior to accomplishing the things the Rambam lists.  That's just the 
label that's put on the leader who does those things.

Bar Kochva was a leader who looked like he had a chance of freeing us 
from Rome.  He accomplished enough that in the words of Rambam, he was 
b'chezkat she'hu mashiach.  I think the Rambam's whole point is that 
while we can't wait for some supernatural Mashiach to come before doing 
these things, we also can't wait until someone has done everything 
before we start acting on the presumption that's he's the one who *will* 
do everything.

I honestly don't see any rav who isn't involved in the day-to-day 
leadership of the Jews in Israel ever becoming Mashiach.  It's contrary 
not only to what the Rambam wrote, but to the way Rabbi Akiva clearly 
saw things.  He didn't posit that one of his teachers was Mashiach, 
after all.  Mashiach may not be the greatest talmid chacham of his 
generation.  Will he learn Torah?  Sure.  Will he keep the mitzvot?  
Sure.  But no one who sits cloistered away in the Beit Midrash is ever 
going to be the leader that the nevi'im talked about.

Lisa


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 155
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)