Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 060

Monday, November 23 1998

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:37:16 -0500
From: bjk1@pipeline.com

Does anyone know the reason people stand for havadlah even though they sit
for kiddush ? Also what is the source for the practice or is there a source
that women have the minhag of not drinking from the cup of havadlah?

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:18:49 +0200 ("IST)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>

Subject: emulation of avot

Two points:

There is an interesting story in the introduction to the latest volume
of iggrot moshe (by his grandsons).

Whil Rav Moshe was rav in Luban he went to visit a sick person.
The person asked everyone to leave. The man said he had a twisted
tongue and would explain to Rav Moshe how that came about. 

The previous week he had complained against the daughters of Lot for
publicly stating where their children came from. That night they
appeared to him in a dream and said that if they wanted to they could
have said that the babies camed from G-d and start a new religion.
Since they were related to Abraham and the whole story involved
miracles they would have been believed. Instead they specially told
the truth to prevent such a new religion. In turn that he said he
would suffer and die from his loshon ha-rah.

After finishing the story he died and Rav Moshe is quoted as saying
that the story is reasonable and he believes it.

2. When Yaakov pretended to be Esau in order to get the blessings
The Nitzav states that this occurred because Isaac and Rivkah had
communication problems because Rivka considered Isaac as being above
her and not an equal as with Abraham/Sarah & Yaakov/Rachel-Leah.

He explictly states that this was hasgacha pratit?

Again as I stated with Abraham & Ishmael I hope no one takes the
model of Isaac and Rivka as the ideal marriage (though I know
of some that do). The Netziv is clear that he doesn't consider this
as a good marriage.
On the other hand he strongly implies that many stories in Chumash
are hasgacha pratit and NOT meant to be emulated bu future generations.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:09:21 +0200
From: Shragai Botwinick <shragai.b@sapiens.com>
Re: Halachic parsha problems

The Ksot Hachoshen in siman 278 quotes the Rivash.  He then gives his own answer
that Esav lost the bechora mdin siluk when he says "lama zeh li bechora".

The meforshim in the standard mikrot gedolot  also address these questions:

1. The Rasbam, Seforno and one opinion quoted in the Ramban all say that the
bechora was sold for money not for lentils. So the  issue of ona'ah can be
resolved lshitatum.

2.  The Kli Yakar says that the saying of "michra Hayom" is a sale of  'mhayom
vlachar mita' - which solves the issue of davar she'lo ba la'olam.

3. The Or HaChaim Hakdosh says no problem with davar she'lo ba la'olam based on
Shulchan Aruch  Choshen Mishpat 211:2 that when it is for 'kdey chayav' it works
even though it is 'lo ba'olam'.
He then says that there was also no problem of  ona'ah based on a Mharik (found in
Shulchan Aruch  Choshen Mishpat 227:9) that  a sale due to a persons own distress
('mipnei dochako') even if sold below value is a valid sale because there is
mechila mdat.


C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Some parsha problems:
> (1) The Netziv already resolves the difficulty of selling bechora, which is a
> davar she'lo ba la'olam, with a chiddush of tshuvot haRivash that pre-mattan
> Torah this was not an issue (I do not have a Shut Rivash but am speculating
> that perhaps this is a general din in kinyanim done by bnei noach).  I thought
> perhaps one could compare the bechorah sale to a sale of tovas ha'na'ah.  In
> any event, I am still bothered by why there is no issur of ona'ah in the
> exchange of the bechorah for a simple pot of lentils.
> -Chaim B

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 07:30:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@cnj.digex.net>
Re: Ayin tahat ayin

> Ein hochi nami, the MONETARY aspect might be from the drush; All I
> mean to say is not to take Ayin tachas Ayin as meaning to literally
> poke out an eye; not necessarily because the chachomim darshend this
> away, rather because as an idiom it never meant it literally in the
> first place.  My inutiive guess is that it means one is obligated to
> restore or make reparations for the lost eye/tooth/limb, etc. (Just
> compensation)

I don't have a copy of Pritchard's Near East Documents, but I'm pretty
sure that he brings several Near East texts of laws that are both fairly
close in idiomatic structure to Ayin tachas Ayin, and whose
interpretation is likely to have been fairly literal. I am not argueing
here what the Torah interpretation of the posuk should be. My point is
that before we make claims what the idiomatic expression "must have
meant" we should make sure that we are not biasing ourselves on a later
view of what the range of the idiom could mean. This issue potentially
slides for me to "the Torah could not have meant that because it
violates basic rules of [fairness, equal rights, etc.]".

Avi Feldblum

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:05:43 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Ki Tzayid be'fiv

Dear Group,
     I did not see this in any of the perisuhim I saw, if I missed this borush 
shkivanti and my apologies.

It occured to me that Vayeehav Yizchok es Eisov Ki tzayid be'fiv is understood 

A popular question is: Why did Yitzchok request that Eisov hunt him a meal prior
to giving him a brocho?

A flash occured to me. Change the peshat of Ki to WHEN.  Now read it thus: 
Yiztchok loved Eisov WHEN he hunted for him (and possibly NOT otherwise).  So we
see why Yitzchok requested that Eisov hunt for him.  this is a an even narrower 
version of the Ramban who learns that Eisov was givin the "gashmiyos" Brocho.  
It might have been motivated by Yitzchok;s gratitude for all that Eisov did for 
him as a hunter alone that earned him that Brocho...

Rich Wolpoe        

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:59:00 -0500
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
R. Kook/Melekh/Israeli Government

R. YGB  asked about my statement:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

>> Now, R. Kook has written that the
>> government of the State of Israel has a din of melekh.  This would
>> suggest that violating any state law (even speeding or jaywalking) would
>> constitute meridah be-malkhut.

>Where does R' Kook say this and in what context (considering that he
>passed away thirteen years before the birth of the State)?

Then answered his own question:
>Found it cited in the Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:14, from the Mishpat Kohen 144.

However, the second part of his question -- in what context -- remains

In Mishpat Kohen no. 144, R. Kook discusses the Hasmonean Kings and
states that, where there is no Jewish king, the halakhic authority of
the king reverts to the people (ha-umah bikhlalah).  On this basis, he
suggests that a national leader, such as a shofet, may have a status of
melekh.  This explains how Yehoshua was authorized to execute Akhan (see
Rambam, Hil. Melakhim, implicitly describing the minui of Yehoshua by
Moshe u-veit dino as a minui of melekh and Sanhedrin 49a).  R. Kook
concludes that "shofetim musmakhim" and "nesi'im kelaliyim" stand in
place of the melekh.

But the story does not end there.  In an article originally published in
the 1950's in the journal Ha-Torah ve-he-Medinah (and re-published in
his Amud ha-Yemini), the late R. Shaul Yisraeli expands on this
statement of R. Kook, demonstrating (among other things) that the need
for navi and Sanhedrin in the selection of a king is required only when
the king is not chosen by the people.  Thus, when the people choose the
king, neither navi nor Sanhedrin is required.  Similarly, argues R.
Yisraeli, the people can choose a council which would share this
authority of melekh.

[By the way, the same issue of Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah contains several
interesting discussions from a range of 20th century posekim whether
dina de-malkhuta dina applies to the modern State of Israel.]

Of course, one may choose to disagree either with R. Kook or R.
Yisraeli's elaboration of his teacher's point of view.  However, I
mentioned this shitah in the context of an analysis of certain recent
halakhic rulings emanating from rabbis who regard R. Kook as their
ideological mentor.  Many are products of Yeshivat Merkaz ha-Rav, where
R. Yisraeli served as co-Rosh Yeshiva.  Therefore, I remain quite
perplexed that the rulings in question make no mention of this issue.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

PS: I hope this post meets R. YGB's desired standard for high level
Torah discussion. :)

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:57:13 -0600
From: "Steve. Katz" <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Re: Havadlah

bjk1@pipeline.com wrote:
> Does anyone know the reason people stand for havadlah not all stand, some of us have the minhag to sit.

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:56:10 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Where have all the names gone?

Does anyone know why the names of famous Amoraim, EG, Abaye, Huna, Ashi, Puppo, 
etc., have fallen into disuse?



Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:42:10 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Havadlah

In a message dated 11/22/98 7:38:17 PM EST, bjk1@pipeline.com writes:

> Does anyone know the reason people stand for havadlah even though they sit
>  for kiddush ?

The source is the Kol Boy (brought in the Ramoh O"C 296) the reason is that
when we are Mlaveh a king it is done standing.

> Also what is the source for the practice or is there a source
>  that women have the minhag of not drinking from the cup of havadlah?

This is brought in the Mogein Avrohom (ibid) the Mokor is the Shaloh, the
reason is being that the Eitz Hadas was Gefen, this caused Daam Nidus, however
if and when she makes her own Havdoloh, it would seem that she makes it on
wine and drinks it.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:56:44 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Nice Vort!

This Shabbos I heard a nice Drush.

The Gemoroh says that Rabi Shimon Darshened all Essin that it says in the
Torah when he came to Ess Has-hem E-lokecho Tiro he refrained, until Rabi
Akiva Darshened it Lrabbos Talmeedei Chachomim, Rabi Akiva came from Gerim
from Amoleik who came from Esov, that is the Teitch in (25:22) Vateilech
"Lidrosh Ess Hashem".

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind 

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:30:36 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Re: Havadlah

> In a message dated 11/22/98 7:38:17 PM EST, bjk1@pipeline.com writes:
>  Does anyone know the reason people stand for havadlah even though they sit
>   for kiddush ?

There is an extensive discussion the 8th volume of the Igros Moshe. O.H. V #16.5-8
and #20.17

                                      Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:38:55 -0500
From: Joel Margolies <margol@ms.com>
Re: Ki Tzayid be'fiv

That pshat is nice, however, doesn't the Ramban say that the brocho
intended for Eisav was 'Bircas Avrohom' - the succession of klal
yisroel?  (I don't really understand the Ramban because that brocho
seems to be given at the end of the parsha to Yaakov - if it was
destined for Eisav - why didn't Yitzchak give it to Ya'akov when he
appeared before Yitzchak as Eisav?) Does he 'owe' Eisav that much?

Take care,


richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
this is a an even narrower
> version of the Ramban who learns that Eisov was givin the "gashmiyos" Brocho.
> It might have been motivated by Yitzchok;s gratitude for all that Eisov did for
> him as a hunter alone that earned him that Brocho...



Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:50:29 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
eved as shliach, kinyanim on bechorah

>>>I didn't see the Rivash but from the quotation is Mashma that this is not
Yisroel/ben-noach issue, <<<

Agreed - but why draw a distinction pre/post mattan Torah.  If the din of
davar shelo ba la'olam is a function of da'as makneh rather then an arbitrary
gezeirat kakatuv it works misevara at all times/places (yes, I should qualify
my assumptions, but it is a reasonable position).

>>>Another point Bpashtus Haksuvim it seems that this was a Kinyan

Maybe - but see Ramban who cites opinion that there was a kinyan kessef not
mentioned in the text, and the sale was not accomplished by the transfer of
the lentils (and this will take care of the ona'ah question).

>>>However according to  the Even Hoezer which brings that there was a benefit
for a Bchor in the then and there, (Bnogeia to Pi Shnayim seems to be argument
among Mforshim whether Kodom Matan Torah was such a Din), hence that would
answer the Rivash's question, as it was Kvar Bah Lolom, <<<

Let us say that there was a significance to the title of bechor irresepective
of pi shenayim - how do you make a kinyan on a title?  (Agav, in England I
think titles can be sold/transferred, but I'm not sure, so this may be nogeiya
l'ma'ase :-))

>>>2) Mincho Bluloh, Veod: Avrohom freed him so he was no Eved.<<<

I think Chasam Sofer follows a similar derech (sorry, I don't recall the

3) Ponim Yofos, Makneh (Kidushin 41b): since "Yad Eved Kyad Raboi" so it is
not Btoras Shliuchs, rather as if he himself did it <<<

Fantastic chiddush!  I thought yad eved k'yad rabo minimizes the ability of
the eved to make kinyanim, e.g. raised in Gittin in connection with the
question of how the eved is koneh even his own shtar shchrirur.   Can you
provide an example where this sevara works to grant additional power to the
eved?  e.g. if an eved took terumah for his master would you say that even
though he is mufka from shlichut the terumah is chal because of yad of the
owner?  Just curious...    

>>>1) WRT freeing Eliezer we enter the issue of Oveir B'esseh, perhaps this
would be like Mitzvoh D'rabim (Brochos 47b). <<<

Without the derush you could argue this mehalech based on Ramban's geder of
that aseih being equivalent to 'lo techaneim' and you don't need mitzvah
d'rabbim.  Derech derush perhaps everything with regard to the avos is mitzvah
d'rabbim as they embodied all of klal yisrael at the time.   

Enjoyed the lomdus!

-Chaim B

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:01:46 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
yad eved k'yad rabbo

I erred in an earlier posting of mine.  An eved taking terumah on behalf of
his owner would not be a problem without using the sevara of yad eved k'yad
rabbo because  an eved is pasul for shlichut only in the area of gittin
v'kiddushin.  However, achronim (Machne Ephrayim Shluchim 11, among others)
extend the sevara of yad-k'ba'alim to a poel - yad poel k'yad ba'al habayit,
possibly even if the poel is an akum.  In that case, the question of a poel
akum taking terumah becomes germane (Sha'ar HaMelech Hil. Terumot 1:11).  

Even granting the sevara of yad eved k'yad rabbo for sh'chitat kodshim, as is
the context of the Sefer HaMakneh quoted by Yitzchak, couldn't one distinguish
between the mechanical act of shchitah and the act of kiddushin where a verbal
declaration of harei at... is required ? (Avnei Miluim 35:9 uses a similar
sevara to explain why acc. to some Rishonim a shliach l'holachs haget is
kosher but not a shliach kabbabla).   

-Chaim B.

Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

< Previous Next >