Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 9

Sun, 18 Jan 2015

• 1. Is Making Snowballs Permitted on Shabbos? (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Beris in the Midbar: should be, No Beris in the Midbar (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 3. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Revealed: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: conquest of EY by Yehoshua (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: conquest of EY by Yehoshua (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: kiddush hashem (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: kiddush hashem (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Bris in the midbor (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: kiddush hashem (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Bris in the midbor (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Kenneth Miller)
• 14. Re: measurement error (Kenneth Miller)
• 15. Re: Bris in the midbor (Zev Sero)

Please see http://tinyurl.com/l24g8h2

I suggested, in response to Reb
Zev insisting that the Mitzvah of Beris Milah must be performed even where
it poses danger to life, - that the Jews in the Midbar did not perform
Beris because of risk to life. And this was, we may assume, with the
endorsement of Moshe Rabbenu.

I assume from Zev's silence that he concedes his words were a little hasty.

However, Isaac Balbin recently suggested that the situation in the Midbar
was a special ruling a HoRoAs ShaAh and could not be referred to as a
source proving that Beris Milah need not be performed where it is dangerous.

He suggests that in Yevamos Rashi implies a spiritual danger (lurked for
those who performed a Beris in the Midbar) and argues as proof to his
analysis, that it is not in Shulchan Aruch or Rambam.

He therefore wishes to support his previous position, that it was a Psak
exclusively for that generation, by Moshe as a Navi and not Moshe Rabbenu
as a Posek.

Micha argues that it refers to a true medical concern, and applies in any
generation where a similar medical safety concern exists.

My thoughts:
Firstly, Isaac should provide sources for his extraordinary assertions.

Secondly, even if true, it would be a KVeChomer, if for a spiritual risk
one is absolved from the obligation of Beris, then certainly where there is
a medical risk, we are not obligated.

I suspect that this discussion is distorted by a subliminal awareness that
in our history we have been Moser Nefesh for Beris. Of course this fact and
obligation is unrelated to medical risk. We are Moser Nefesh where our
religion is under attack, not where our health and well being is at risk.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150118/d078843f/attachment.htm>

When a rav gave a talk on this very subject, he stated that the common 
practice of people saying the names quietly by themselves is problematic 
for this reason. By having the tzibbur (gabbai) say the name the request 
becomes communal; an individual saying it makes it a private request.

Ben

On 1/11/2015 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But for all our reluctance to make personal baqashos on Shabbos (like
> Mi sheBeirakh) this doesn't apply to national baqashos. Look at
> Retzeih; Sim Shalom has lists of them.

On 1/16/2015 4:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>> After all, there was no intent to expel all the Canaanites, and there
>> would be a slow progression from conquest to suppressing rebellion to
>> policing. And at some point along that spectrum, the shevatim should
>> have be ready to accept some autonomy.

> I always understood that the mitzva was to remove all the Caanainites, 
> see the story with the Giveonites. Certainly Sefer Shoftim seems to 
> fault the Jews for not expelling the Caananites.

Yehoshua sent letters to the Canaanites offering them three choices.
Agree to become completely subjugated to us (dhimmi, as the term would
later be used by the Muslims), flee, or die. I suppose it's legitimate
to claim that the possibility was left open for Canaanites staying as
a servant class, but to say that "there was no intent to expel all the
Canaanites" is pushing things a bit. The intent most certainly /was/
to expel any free Canaanites, /as/ Canaanites. They were not to be
allowed any sort of autonomy whatsoever.

But to answer the initial question, the first 7 years were general
conquest. There were certainly hold-outs who needed to be rooted out,
and that was presumably the remaining 7 years.

In terms of the question "How did Chatzor become an independent
Canaanite city at the time of Devorah?", well, we misbehaved. That's how.
Even during the second 7 years, we only took possession of the land.
There would have been hold-outs in the hills. During invasions of
other nations, due to our misbehavior, they would have been able to
reclaim Chatzor. Possibly with Egyptian help, given that the head of
their armed forces had a distinctively Egyptian sounding name.

Lisa

On 01/14/2015 06:46 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> But in recent years I have heard that in this context, "all" really
> means "most" (as it is said, "rubo k'kulo"), and that many halachos
> will take on d'Oraisa aspects in the very near future - even
> according to the Rambam - when most of the world's Jews will live in
> Israel.

Terumah, maybe.  But Yovel and anything that depends on it requires
(at least according to the Rambam) that each tribe be on its own land.
Even if all Jews were to go on aliyah we couldn't each return to our
tribal lands without knowing our tribes.


On 01/13/2015 07:06 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> 1) What takes 7 years to divide the land above and beyond conquest

Mapping the land, without the benefit of modern (or indeed any sort of)
cartography, must have been a massive project.  Especially doing so to
land that hadn't yet been tamed, so one couldn't just go there and start
laying out boundary stones.

Then figuring out how much land each tribe needed, and in what general
region it should be, and doing the goral to decide the exact borders, all
without graphic maps as we know them, but just written descriptions, must
have taken a long time.

But once it was done each tribe had its land, and authority from the
beis din to go and conquer it in the name of the whole nation, so it
wouldn't be a kibbush yachid.   All that remained was the implementation,
which proved messier than expected.  No surprise to anyone who's
implemented a project from specs.  As they say, in theory there's no
difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

On 01/15/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>
> I want to repeat R' Michael Poppers' point because getting this wrong
> might get people wrongly labeled mamzeirim.
>
> He might be "a qadosh", but he didn't necessarily die "al qiddush
> hasheim". The latter would require his widow to remain unmarried, and
> no one suggested that of Shoah survivors.

There is no such halacha.   And even if there were, violating it would
certainly not create mamzerim!

On 01/15/2015 01:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> : The view of MB 288:28 is not clear to me. At first he clarifies the
> : Rama, that one may make a bracha for the health of a choleh ...  on
> : Shabbos, but only if the choleh is in sakanah. And then he goes on to
> : say that when one says a Mi Sheberach [now identified specifically by
> : that name] for a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah, he must include the words
> : "Shabbos hee miliz'ok".

> "Shabbos hi miliz'oq" makes sense to you in general? How does saying
> "I know this is inappropriate" make it any more appropriate to make a
> personal baqashah on Shabbos?

Becuase one says "shabbos hi miliz`ok" *instead* of crying out.
It means "I would be crying out if it were not Shabbos".

You're both misunderstanding the MB to mean that for a choleh she'eno mesukan
one says the usual mi sheberach, and then sticks in the additional phrase
"shabbos hi...".  Go back and look at it and you'll see that that's not what
he says at all.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:44pm EST, Zev Sero wrote:
: On 01/15/2015 01:37pm, Micha Berger wrote:
:> He might be "a qadosh", but he didn't necessarily die "al qiddush
:> hasheim". The latter would require his widow to remain unmarried, and
:> no one suggested that of Shoah survivors.

: There is no such halacha...

You're mistaken. See Otzar haPosqim EH siman 1, end.

And along the lines of my post (which was based on a memory of this
point being raised by R Yitchak Grossman CC-ed), R' Yehoshua Ehrenberg,
who is mentioned in Otzar haPosqim writes (shu"t Devar Yehoshua 1:32:15
and 5:Inyanim Shonim:37) rejects calling all victims "qedoshim" for
this reason. One of his arguments is this one -- not everyone who dies
for being a Jew was killed "al qiddush hasheim". To repeat RYG's translation:

    But that which people say that even if he has not given up his life
    Al Kidush Ha'Shem but he has been murdered by Akum because he is a
    Jew, he is also called 'kadosh', this is apparently 'kidushei taus'
    ... but certainly those who have been involuntarily killed, not
    through their good will to give up their lives for God and His Torah,
    even though the killing is because of hatred of Israel it is obvious
    to the Gemara that they have not reached the level that no creation
    can stand in their 'mehizah' ... but ordinary people ('beinonim')
    who were simply killed out of hatred of Israel and they did not say
    that if they violate the religion they will be saved. even though
    they receive atonement for their sins and they have risen to the
    level of servants of God, to the level of sanctifiers of God like
    the martyrs of Lod they have not reached.

:                             And even if there were, violating it would
: certainly not create mamzerim!

Agreed. But if people were led to believe the marriage was keneged
halakhah, it still "might get people wrongly labeled mamzeirim". And
such a qol, even unfounded, will create misery.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 01/14/2015 07:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:02:33PM -0500, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
> : I'm travelling and without seforim but from what I remembered in Yevamos
> : Rashi implied a spiritual danger something which I don't see in Shulchan
> : Aruch or Rambam and therefore it had to be a Psak for that generation
> : by the Novi Moshe

> But not necessarily a hora'as sha'ah. It would be a risk that is real
> that in any generation it would exist would be equally a matir. You're
> invoking a navi as need to identify that risk, which is different
> than a temporary override of halakhah.

Where is this coming from? Where is there any hint that Moshe identified
a risk, or in any way endorsed those who didn't circumcise?


On 01/17/2015 08:29 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote:
> I suggested, in response to Reb
> Zev insisting that the Mitzvah of Beris Milah must be performed even
> where it poses danger to life, - that the Jews in the Midbar did not
> perform Beris because of risk to life. And this was, we may assume,
> with the endorsement of Moshe Rabbenu.

> I assume from Zev's silence that he concedes his words were a little hasty.

What silence?  I have not been silent, and I dispute your entire premise.
You may certainly *not* assume it was with Moshe Rabbenu's endorsement.
On the contrary, his praise of Shevet Levi, "uvris'cho yintzoru", carries
an implied rebuke for those who did not.

But this entire discursus is futile, because you have deliberately
distorted my position.  I certainly don't deny that in cases where there
is a high risk of death, e.g. one born to a family that has already lost
two sons to milah, the risk overrides the mitzvah!  That is explicit in
halacha.  But by the very same token, no honest person can deny that the
Torah *does* require us to take very significant risks that fall short
of this standard.

> I suspect that this discussion is distorted by a subliminal awareness
> that in our history we have been Moser Nefesh for Beris. Of course
> this fact and obligation is unrelated to medical risk. We are Moser
> Nefesh where our religion is under attack, not where our health and
> well being is at risk.

This is plainly not true.

[First email
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 1:10 am EST
-micha]

On 01/18/2015 12:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:44pm EST, Zev Sero wrote:
>: On 01/15/2015 01:37pm, Micha Berger wrote:
>:> He might be "a qadosh", but he didn't necessarily die "al qiddush
>:> hasheim". The latter would require his widow to remain unmarried, and
>:> no one suggested that of Shoah survivors.

>: There is no such halacha...

> You're mistaken. See Otzar haPosqim EH siman 1, end.

Very interesting, but it is *not* halacha.  It's no more than one
person's feeling about what *ought* to happen.  And if you follow up
and look at the Machaneh Chayim for the reason he gives, it applies
to any Tzaddik.  The only thing special about a kadosh is that he is
now known to have been a tzaddik.  So unless you seriously propose
that the halacha requires any wife of a tzadik to remain unmarried
(if *she* believes her husband to have been a tzadik) you can't really
hold that this is halacha.


[Second email
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 1:38 am EST
-micha]

BTW to look at the original material:

Otzar Haposkim:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=36140&;pgnum=95

Machane Chayim:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=790&;pgnum=335

Shu"t R Chaim (ben) Or Zarua
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=997&;pgnum=27

Sefer Haparnes
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14609&;pgnum=23

Sefer Hamiktzo'os is not available on HebrewBooks.

So this idea has legs, but it's doesn't seem to be brought lehalocho by
any of the major poskim.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 03:21:30PM +0800, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
: Is a Ruchniyusdike temporal thing anything more than requiring a
: horoas shooh?

: Maybe Moshe should have pleaded so they could do Priya or whatever?

: shedim don't somehow fit in my rationalist world

Let's just talk theoretically for a moment:
But in any case, given a metaphysics in which includes connections from
this world in a manner other than halakhah... Identifying a spiritual risk
isn't necessary the creation of new law. A navi could see the spiritual
risk other than halachic, and then a poseiq could apply existing law.

That was what I tried to relay in my prior post.

Second theoretical point:
The question isn't whether sheidim fit in your world, it's whether they're
part of the shitah you're trying to understand. That's a problem when
holding like an opinion many / most amora'ei Bavel did not. You have to
keep "what would I say" and "what would the gemara say" distinct.

Now, speaking on our particular instance -- milah in the midbar:

Metaphysics isn't involved there. The gemara gives two explanations why
they didn't mahl their children:
1- the hustle and bustle of travel (Yevamos 71b)
2- vei'bei's eima: there was no ru'ach tzefonis (72a)

Rashi defines ru'ach tzefonis as a north wind, and not some northern
spirit, because he says it's at just the right temperature. On Yehoshua
5:2 repeats the gemara's second reason only, saying that they therefore
didn't have a day pleasant enough for milah.

So both possibilities are physical medical concerns.

Zev asked how we know that there was a pesaq to do so. The gemara's tenor
is agreement with their decision, as they work to suggest justifications.
Ralbag on Yehoshua 5:3 uses the word saqanah.

OTOH, the idea that Levi is praised "uverisekha yintzoro" for giving their
sons berisim in the midbar is a Sifri (ad loc; Devarim 33:9). Elaborated
by Rashi ad loc.

I do not know how to be meyasheiv the two Rashis.

But the gemara's assuption that being more risky than usual IS reason
to not do a beris is there. (Whether that's valid or not in the case
of the midbar, aside.)


Totally unrelated point, going back to the original topic of metzitzah
bepeh:
What is also, there, though, is that the gemara refers to peri'ah
as the sof. See on Yavamos 71a, 8 lines from the bottom, the point
made right before the discussion midbar.

    Ela lav leperi'ah.
    Umah "sheinis"?
    La'aqushei sof milah letechilas milah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Ben Waxman wrote:

> When a rav gave a talk on this very subject, he stated that the
> common practice of people saying the names quietly by themselves
> is problematic for this reason. By having the tzibbur (gabbai)
> say the name the request becomes communal; an individual saying
> it makes it a private request.

This made me realize that there's another common practice which causes a very similar problem. I had posted:

> By comparison, the Mi Sheberach can be seen less as a request,
> and more as a declaration of faith: "He Who blessed the avos
> *will* bless and heal this choleh, because of the tzedaka which
> he/we will donate..."

I have seen many shuls which change this text, and even the ArtScroll
offers this idea in a footnote. For fear of obligating people to give
donations that they might not ever give, they change the last phrase to
"because we are praying for him..."

The intention to avoid unfulfilled obligations is commendable, but I
concede that the alternate text makes my entire post inapplicable.
Including the phrase "because we are praying for him" makes it impossible
to claim that this is anything but a bakasha.

Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
What's your flood risk?
Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54bbb5869dc27358633e2st03vuc

A main idea discussed in this thread was the possibility that the word
"barzel" might also be used for metal in general, besides its specific
meaning of iron. Throughout the discussion, I wondered how the word
"mateches" fits into the language. Why use "barzel" if we already have a
perfectly useful word that means the same thing?

If anyone else is curious about this, I suggest looking at the very last
Rashi on yesterday's parsha (Vaera 9:33). He uses the word "mateches", but
only incidentally, in the course of comparing several other words, all of
which are verbs having the same shoresh.

Looking in my Mandelkern concordance (pg 776), I see about a dozen
different forms of this word, scattered across 22 psukim, all of which are
verbs. Most seem to mean "melt", thought that's exactly what Rashi was
discussing. Curiously, 21 of those psukim are from Nach, and only one is
from the Chumash.

My conclusion is that the noun "mateches", meaning "metal", did not appear until after the closing of Tanach.

Akiva Miller
KennethGMiller@juno,com

____________________________________________________________
What's your flood risk?
Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54bbb91a109f53919036dst03vuc

R' David Riceman wrote:

> But what bothers me about the claim that SZKS is a gezeirah is that
> it is a vacuous gezeirah. You're allowed to say KS with the brachos
> after 9 AM. So what's the content of the gezeirah? And, in spite of
> what RAM wrote, I am aware of many synagogues which recite KS on
> Shabbos after 9 AM. So where is the consensus?

We need to keep "the time for Shma" and "the time for Brachos of Shma" separate.

The Shma itself is psukim, which may be said any time of day, though one
fulfills the mitzvah only at certain times of the day, and one needs to
determine what those times are.

The Brachos of Shma may NOT be said at any time during the day. They have
the same halachos and zmanim as Tefila, as we recently discussed. Shuls
which reach the Shma after the calculated SZKS (or before it, for maariv)
are presuming that their congregants are careful to have said it
individually in the proper time.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Heavy rains mean flooding
Anywhere it rains it can flood. Learn your risk. Get flood insurance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54bbbda0cb2343da02050st04vuc

On 01/18/2015 08:55 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Zev asked how we know that there was a pesaq to do so. The gemara's tenor
> is agreement with their decision, as they work to suggest justifications.
> Ralbag on Yehoshua 5:3 uses the word saqanah.
>
> OTOH, the idea that Levi is praised "uverisekha yintzoro" for giving their
> sons berisim in the midbar is a Sifri (ad loc; Devarim 33:9). Elaborated
> by Rashi ad loc.
>
> I do not know how to be meyasheiv the two Rashis.

It's very simple. Neither Rashi nor the gemara endorses their decision, they
merely explain it.  There was a danger, and they were afraid.  But they
shouldn't have been; the danger wasn't that great, and they should have had
the mesirus nefesh and bitachon to ignore it.  Moshe himself had made the
same mistake on the way to Mitzrayim, and had been told quite graphically
that he was wrong.  If the danger really had been great enough to turn bitachon
into foolhardiness, then Levi would have heeded it too, and if they didn't
Moshe would have told them to.

See Malbim, who says pretty much that, with the addition that had there
been *no* heightened danger at all, Moshe's Beis Din would have forced them
to circumcise; but since they had a legally valid excuse the BD was powerless
to interfere.


  
> Totally unrelated point, going back to the original topic of metzitzah
> bepeh:
> What is also, there, though, is that the gemara refers to peri'ah
> as the sof. See on Yavamos 71a, 8 lines from the bottom, the point
> made right before the discussion midbar.
>
>      Ela lav leperi'ah.
>      Umah "sheinis"?
>      La'aqushei sof milah letechilas milah.

Peri`ah and Metitzah are fundamentally different, because omitting peri`ah
leaves the subject with something that shouldn't be there, so it can and
must be corrected with a later procedure, whereas omitting metzitzah can't
be corrected.  What are you going to do?  Stam make a wound and suck it?!
What will that achieve?  It won't be the wound of milah.  (AFAIK hatafas
dam bris is mid'rabanan, and entirely symbolic; it doesn't actually
achieve anything.)


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



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


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


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

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.)