Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 111

Sun, 10 Sep 2017

• 1. Re: Questions about mechiyas amalek (Arie Folger)
• 2. "Practices of the Tochacha" (Saul Guberman)
• 3. reactionary takanos and gezeiros (Sholom Simon)
• 4. Re: The Nature of Godlessness (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: In its mother's milk (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Questions about mechiyas amalek (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: Questions about mechiyas amalek (elazar teitz)
• 8. Re: Questions about mechiyas amalek (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Questions about mechiyas amalek (Zev Sero)
• 10. Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 11. Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Marty Bluke)
• 12. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Marty Bluke)
• 14. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Zev Sero)

R' Martin Bluke asked:
> 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says
> hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash
> states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the
night
> and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek.
>
> However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought
> Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if
> Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier?
>
> 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David
> and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted
to
> wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not?

This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent
and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out
Amalek.

First the data:
* The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha
misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters.
* The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh
* As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there
does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it
isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for
robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get
into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But
David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual
enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a
fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's
Pelishti stronghold.
* Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat
Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a
problem.

So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of
international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul.

Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were
pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef
veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like
the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave
them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans,
but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he
found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert.

So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can
defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them,
because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites,
Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we
didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world
safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean
coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that
important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge
or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself.

Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken
the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command.

Ad kaan.


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/

* Koscheres Geld (Podcast)
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/15/koscheres-geld-podcast/>

* Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen
Gedankengut (Podcast)
<http://rabbifolger.net/
2016/02/14/kennt-die-existenz-nur-den-chaos-gttliches-vorsehen-im-judischen
-gedankengut-podcast/>

* Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/11/halacha-zum-wochenabs
chnitt-baruch-hu-uwaruch-schemo/>

* Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/09/is-there-order-to
-the-world-providence-in-jewish-thought/>

* What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment)
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/08/what-is-modern-orthodoxy-fro
m-a-radio-segment/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170907/5d516fa7/attachment-0001.htm>

Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well
written and very interesting.

http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170907/b73fecb2/attachment-0001.htm>

At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
>: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when
>: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I.
>: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh).
>
>Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have
>recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken
>to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their
>national ethnicity. . . .
>
>You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without
>running afoul of rules about discussing politics?

Perhaps.  Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable 
with respect to Americans and the American Revolution!

Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, 
to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time?

-- Sholom

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy?
: http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethic
: alPeopleBeHoly.mp3

Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation:
    All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing
    good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get
    benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping
    another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an
    honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and
    strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community.
    Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body
    and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through
    this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does
    for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only"
: d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its
: mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right?
: 
: Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili,
: but we don't hold like him.

Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4.

It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20.

...
: We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from
: Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus
: seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's
: significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva,
: suggesting that this is indeed the halacha.

Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later
(you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel
RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted
the gezeira.

Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the
mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't
know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two
distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely.

: So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"?

Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul
aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev,
not so much.

I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo"
was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo"
rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get
that conclusion from "sevasheil".

And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds
yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should
be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful
edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim
lemiqra.

But it crashed down.

Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks 
with him the rest of life.

Ben

On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there 
> was anything he needed to ask. 

     I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw
it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather
than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar,"
just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170908/39442172/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote:
:      I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw
: it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather
: than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar,"
: just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan.

R Mordechai Breuer <www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega10_broyer.pdf>


On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote:
: How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him
: what the mitzvah and the dinim were?

: Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous
: mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know
: that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently
: no one informed him.

And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything
about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a
unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav
was strongly deferential to David.

Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't
picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with
David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the
questions as to why.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything
> about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a
> unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav
> was strongly deferential to David.

I don't see why this detail would ever have come up.  Suppose you're a 
caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which 
includes liver.  You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, 
and I agree.  You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how 
to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? 
At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha?

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah
cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh
[but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein
Issur Chal Al Issur.

So how is it that
RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may
not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when
RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos
HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling


May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our
commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170910/6aeb23bc/attachment-0001.htm>

> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R'
> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources
> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol
> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and
> Beis Hillel were unable to unite.

The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during
those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have
been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so,
why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam
says?

On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
>> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R'
>> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources
>> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol
>> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and
>> Beis Hillel were unable to unite.

> The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during
> those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have
> been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so,
> why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam
> says?

There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the
time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able
to function normally.

Lisa

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot.  And in the
> time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to
> function normally.

And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way.
The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states

"The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel,
Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was
Nasi in Yavneh)"

During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore
it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin
was not functioning normally.


[Email #2. -micha]

One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur
Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that
they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of
the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do
this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes?

On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
>> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R'
>> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources
>> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol
>> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and
>> Beis Hillel were unable to unite.
> 
> The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during
> those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have
> been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so,
> why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam
> says?

Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the 
one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod 
to both sides.  (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't 
afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to 
get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)