Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 156

Sunday, February 7 1999

• bekius
• Re: missing data
• Re: T'mimus and name calling
• Avraham and Eiruv Tavshilin
• The Rav and K'rias HaTorah
• Re: Hair covering
• Re: Moyshe and Yisroy - a lesson for our time
• Re: Moyshe and Yisroy - a lesson for our time
• Re: The Rav and Tfila
• Moshe
• Re: Moshe
• Re: Moshe
• Re: Avraham and Eiruv Tavshilin
• hair as ervah
• Re: Moyshe and Yisroy - a lesson for our time
• Halachic Man
• Re: Moshe

Avi Feldblum once told me that, when he was in R. Soloveitchik's
shiur, he once heard that some of the boys were learning bekius.  So he
announced that, since the boys weren't doing it right, they would learn
bekius together in shiur.  After rejecting some of their suggestions, he
decided they would learn Masseches Challah.
  Dr. Feldblum told me that he could not distinguish between the way the
Rav learned the regular shiur gemara and the way he learned Challah.

David Riceman.

In v2n153, Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> writes two suggestions
for why the entire Torah wasn't given ba'al peh:
: (1) See RaShY on Vayikra 25:1 ...
:                     ... without such a sedrah, Oral Law could be considered
: human legislation rather than (via the definition of the intent
: encapsulated in the Written Law) the transmission of divine laws.
: (2) The "halachic parts," as explained by Rabbi Dovid Green in his Project
: Genesis d'var torah on Mishpatim last year, help us understand what G-d
: wants from us as "anshei kodesh" (22:30)...

#2 reminds me of a suggestion I made a month back, maybe we can list it as...

(2b) The "halachic parts" of the Torah are about ta'amei hamitzvos, not
the halachah itself. Which is why, to repeat the same example, the Torah
says "lo sivasheil g'di bachleiv imo" and not something more explicit. To round
out the repeat, I also noted that when the two contradict, halachah is in the
RSB"P-ish d'rash, not p'shat, and that nearly all of B'reishis as well as the
entire rest of Torah shebichsav is aggadic (which would argue that even the
discussion of mitzvos is more aggadic than straight din).

IIRC, the only objections to this proposal were from people who didn't
understand my first, poorly phrased, post. The silence that reigned after
my qualification leads me to assume no flaws are known about the idea I
was trying to describe.

(3) The Malbim, in his introduction to Vayikra, says that given 613 rules of
s'varah and d'rashah, the entire TSBP can be recreated from the Chumash if
the TSBP were ch"v lost. (However, the exact rules for applying many of the
rules of d'rashah are lost. For example, a gezeirah shava can't be invented
anymore, we can only use those that already are known. So, how are we to
recreate the very rules?)

But even if not, R' SR Hirsch describes the Chumash as "lecture notes".

Both approaches stress the asmachtah value of the Chumash -- it gives us
quotes by which we can remember the TSBP.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6083 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 6-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I mentioned:
: the Gaon sees "lo lishmah" as requiring some form of kavanah, at least
: kavanah to reach lishmah."

Moshe Luchins mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com wrote:
:                  Rabeinu Yonah writes that Torah only improves ones midos
: when he is mikabel for the Torah to be  msaken his midos.

IOW, the Gaon is giving a minor variant of R' Yonah's shitah.

Fine, but think what that means...

Contemporary O teaches its adherents to keep mitzvos and learn Torah. We do
next to nothing to encourage that kibul or minimal kavvanah. Which means
that whatever success we may gain in encouraging orthopraxy (proper behavior)
we are failing miserably at putting people on the derech -- meaning that
word literally, the path toward our goal.

Now, for the audacious part:

If you're willing to agree that the typical frum Jew is off the derech,
would you be willing to agree that we need to be m'kareiv him -- with a
kiruv movement paralleling what we aim at the non-frum?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6083 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 6-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Never mind whether or not other Jews existed that would allow the ho'il to
apply to Avraham to allow eiruv tavshilin to apply.

A"A himself wasn't a Jew, at least not a bar chiyuvah WRT yom tov. Does this
mean he wasn't allowed to cook for himself?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6083 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 6-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes:
: 	I seem to remember a shiur in which the Rov described krias haTorah as
: needing to be ki'nsinosa,   so that every shva na and shva nach and
: mil'el and mil'ra was me'akev and needed to be corrected.

I find this hard to implement. For example, which havara did HKBH "speak" in?
Even if each sheivet heard in its own havaarah, we'd still need to know the
13 (since we're both counting Levi and two for Yosef) original havaros.

Aside from that, what if your havarah doesn't distinguish between shuruq and
chirik? Or betweeen kamatz and parach? Kamatz katan and kamatz gadol? Sh'va
na and sh'va nach? Mil'el/mil'ra?

For that matter what defines one's "traditional havarah" -- Toras imechah (ie
mimetic tradition), or "musar avichah" (textualism)? For example, Ashkenazim
tend not to distinguish mil'eil and mil'ra. Does that mean that our hav'arah
doesn't havew the concepts? Or what about Sepharadim (I don't remember the
specific kehillos) and the tzeirei, where they teach it be different than
the segol, but in practice no distinction is made in the pronunciation?

-mi

PS: Yes, I threw in an identification of R' Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's thesis
with traditional concepts as an aside. Speaking of a shift in balance between
"Toras Imechah" and "Mussar Avichah" suddenly makes the idea sound Yeshivhsh,
no?

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6083 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 6-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> How about things that were assur because they were generally considered
> to be dangerous and then many engaged in them and thus were no longer
> considered dangerous? 
> 
> Shavua tov Joel Rich
> 

Sounds good!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, David Herskovic wrote:
> And Moyshe's response to all this? Well, it was not 'fe! khodosh oser
> min hatoyre!' or some other nonsensical soundbite, nor did he feel it
> necessary to convene the moyetses gedoyley hatoyre or the hisakhdes to
> discuss the latest threat of alien invasions that will kholile wreak
> havoc with klal yisroel if allowed to proceed unimpeded. None of this.
> Moyshe rabayni was a leader who was able to identify common sense when
> it stared him in the face and did not even bother asking God before the
> plan was introduced. Now there is a leader!

I don't even want to address the arogant, patronizing, sarcastic, nasty
and false tone of this post. I just want to know why Dave thinks that
Moshe didn't ask Hashem before he proceeded. Granted the pasuk doesn't
mention it explicitly but I would u8ndersatnd that when the pasuk said
that Moshe did EVERYTHING that his FAther-in-law told him that would
include asking HAshem, as that was Yisro's request in Pasuk 23. Is there a
midrash or rishon that I'm missing which says that Moshe acted on his own
without consulting Hashem.( This is even more confusing because the Ramban
explicitly says that Moshe consulted with Hashem before proceeding.) If
not---it was a pretty bold statement to
accuse Moshe of acting without consulting HAshem, especially after Yisro
asked him.  In any case, I think we should check primary Rishonim like the
Ramban before building False arguments to slander whole groups within
yahdus.
Elie Ginsparg

David Herskovic wrote:
> 
> With all the discussion of the synthesis of Toyre and secular knowledge
> perhaps this week's sedre can teach us a lesson.
> 
> We find moyshe rabayni sitting down to adjudicate between klal yisroel.
> The bnay yisroel are over the yam sif, amolayk has been beaten, the mon
> is providing sustenance and the clouds and pillars of fire are guiding
> them. In a word the initial teething problems are behind them and life
> is returning to its normal course.
> 
> Moyshe rabayni, the first ben toyre, has surgery hours 'from morning to
> evening' and all on his own expects to manage the entire workload. This
> haphazard way of doing business, not unfamiliar to anyone acquainted
> with the workings of chareidi institutions or chasidic courts, results
> in long queues and presumably, with the bnay yisroel not being averse to
> grumbling, complaints and grievances.
> 
> Along comes yisroy the sophisticated priest of midyon, probably with a
> degree, a masters and, it seems, an MBA to boot and immediately
> identifies the problem. His reaction is not patronising nor admonishing;
> he constructively criticises the situation and suggests the best
> practical remedy. All that is needed is a management structure to cope
> with the volume. He does not think moyshe incapable of comprehending the
> problem nor of implementing the solution. He also has no hidden agenda
> as he feels confident enough to suggest to moyshe that he consult God
> before proceeding.
> 
> And Moyshe's response to all this? Well, it was not 'fe! khodosh oser
> min hatoyre!' or some other nonsensical soundbite, nor did he feel it
> necessary to convene the moyetses gedoyley hatoyre or the hisakhdes to
> discuss the latest threat of alien invasions that will kholile wreak
> havoc with klal yisroel if allowed to proceed unimpeded. None of this.
> Moyshe rabayni was a leader who was able to identify common sense when
> it stared him in the face and did not even bother asking God before the
> plan was introduced. Now there is a leader!
> 
> And the result? A happy symbiotic relationship where both sides,
> realising the benefits of the other, are confident enough to borrow the
> other's ideas when suitable and happy to let the other live as they see
> fit.
> 
> David Herskovic

I think there is another question here.  As the last weeks Blical 
portion states, Moses was doing it all.  Along comes Jethro, an 
acknowledged idolator, (albeit conceding the supremecy of G-d) and gives 
Moses advice. Moses tkes the adbvice.  Moses, the greatest Prophet who 
ever lived, the smartest man who ever lived, (this is not aguable), 
takes advice from an idolator.  Why didn't Moses think of thuis himself? 
 Why didn'tG-d help him out here?  Why did G-d allow a situation to 
develop whereby good advice is given the greatest man who ever lived by 
an acknowledged idolator? And finally, why does the Bible even relate 
this to us.  The answer I believe is in the ancient adage "Mekol 
Melamdei Hischalti".  The Bible is teaching by example, us that 
(as my father ZL always used to say,) "Guts, can min lernin afilu fun a 
ganif."  good adive should not be rejected by anyone from anyone.  G-d 
demands that we heed good advice and learn from all of mankind, even 
idolators.  This is the anecdotal lesson of this portion of the Bible.

I do agree with Elie, though, that there is no proof that Moses didn't 
ask G-d if this is a good idea or not. We don't really know if he did or 
not.  We just know that Jethro acknowledged that the plan neede G0-ds 
approval.  I think we can assume that it indeed had G-d's approval or 
Moses wouldn't have done it.

HM

R" R. Ziegler of the Yeshivat Har Etzion forwarded me this Sicha from
R'Lichtenstein on the above captioned topic which had been discussed on our
list.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich



                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
         ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
**************************************************************

  STUDENT SUMMARIES OF SICHOT DELIVERED BY THE ROSHEI YESHIVA


         SICHA OF HARAV AHARON LICHTENSTEIN SHLIT"A

      Prayer in the Teachings of Rav Soloveitchik ZT"L
                     Part I of III

               Summarized by Aviad Hacohen


	The gemara (Shabbat 10a) teaches:

	Rava observed Rav Hamnuna drawing out his prayer.  He 
	said, 'You are putting aside eternal life and involving 
	yourself with momentary life!' 
	[Rashi explains: 'Eternal life' refers to Torah, whereas 
	prayer focuses on the needs of our ephemeral physical 
	life, such as healing, peace, food.]
	And he [Rav Hamnuna] explained, 'Prayer has its time, and 
	Torah study has its time.'

	By virtue of his roots and influences, "the Rav" (as Rav 
Soloveitchik was known to his students) presumably belonged to 
the school of Rava.  Obviously, as regards the mitzvot of 
tefilla (prayer) on the minimal halakhic level, the position of 
Rav Hamnuna - "Prayer has its time, and Torah study has its 
time" - was recognized in both Volozhin and Brisk.  Halakha 
follows Rabbi Yochanan's opinion (Shabbat 11a) that Torah 
scholars' absolute exemption from prayer is limited to those, 
like Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, whose "Torah is their 
profession," i.e., those who devote all their time exclusively 
to Torah study.  Since they are not engaged in matters of this 
world, they are exempt from prayer.  Other than these rare 
exceptions, the obligation is binding and is taken for granted 
in the teachings of the Rav.

	At the same time, in the tradition of Volozhin and Brisk 
the value and status of prayer - relative both to other areas 
of Divine service (especially in comparison to Torah study) and 
to the special status and importance of prayer in the popular 
view - were quite limited.

	Volozhin and Brisk were guided by the central awareness 
that, in the words of the Rambam (Hilkhot Tefilla 6:8), "the 
mitzva of Torah study is greater than that of tefilla."  In 
truth, the issue was never evaluated in these terms.  Tefilla 
and Torah study were never placed on two arms of a scale with a 
view to comparing their respective weight.  The attraction to 
Torah study and commitment to it were understood first and 
foremost on the valuational and existential levels.  The 
obligation of conscientious study day and night, uninterrupted 
and unwavering, was emphasized over and over.

	Few were those who would have been courageous enough to 
emulate the pious ones of old, of whom it is told (Berakhot 
32b) that they would spend nine hours each day engaged in 
prayer, and nevertheless "because they were pious their Torah 
study was preserved and their labor was blessed."  Not many 
believed that they could rely on this promise.  In any event, I 
believe that in Volozhin and Brisk they neither desired nor 
aspired to this.  The prevailing motto was, "'If you walk in my 
statutes' - i.e., if you labor in My Torah."  The dominant 
emphasis was placed on the acquisition of Torah through 
investing supreme effort in its study. 

	There can be no doubt that this tradition regarding the 
relationship between Torah and tefilla left an indelible 
imprint on the Rav at the outset of his career, and had a 
determining influence on his way of life and also, to some 
extent, on his philosophy.

	For a long time, at least until the end of the 1950's, 
the Rav would not hesitate to pray alone in order to make more 
time available for learning.  He found support for this 
decision in Rav Chaim's understanding of the Rambam's approach 
to the laws of communal prayer.  He also offered an intriguing 
explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's opinion (Megilla 27a) 
that "a synagogue may be converted into a beit midrash (study 
hall)" (but not vice versa, because the sanctity of a study 
hall is greater than that of a synagogue).  According to the 
Rav, the sanctity and unique nature of a beit midrash are based 
not on our preference for the intellectual and rational aspect 
of our faith, but rather on the greater importance of study 
than tefilla on the existential plane.  Nevertheless, it is 
clear that prayer held a central place in the Rav's spiritual 
world.

	At the start of his career as a Torah luminary, the Rav 
paid special attention to the issue of prayer - both between 
the walls of his own beit midrash as well as from various 
public podiums.  When his father, Rav Moshe zt"l, would invite 
him to deliver a guest lecture at the yeshiva in New York, the 
Rav regularly chose to deal with issues in Tractate Berakhot.  
There is clearly no need to elaborate on the place which this 
held in the Rav's teachings throughout his life.  A brief 
perusal of his annual "Yahrzeit lectures" (collected in the two 
volumes of "Shiurim LeZekher Abba Mari Z"L") bears adequate 
witness to this.

	Alongside Torah study, tefilla represented a central and 
potent ingredient in the Rav's personality and his service of 
God.  Those closest to him remember with admiration not only 
his brilliant lectures but also the broken heart filled with 
longing which characterized his stance as a servant of God 
standing before his Master during the Ne'ila prayer on Yom 
Kippur, and the ecstasy and power which burst forth during his 
recitation of "Nishmat Kol Chai" at the Seder table.  Anyone 
seeking to understand the Rav's teachings, his philosophy and 
his essence must therefore turn his attention to his treatment 
of tefilla both as a subject of study and as a state of being.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Maryles [mailto:C-Maryles@neiu.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 1999 7:16 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: Moyshe and Yisroy - a lesson for our time

> Moses advice. Moses tkes the adbvice.  Moses, the greatest 
> Prophet who 
> ever lived, the smartest man who ever lived, (this is not aguable), 
> 

Why is it not arguable? What about Avraham Avinu, who proved the existence
of the Creator through observation and logic, against tremendous, active
pressure and argument to the contrary.

Avi Pechman

Pechman, Abraham wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harry Maryles [mailto:C-Maryles@neiu.edu]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 1999 7:16 AM
> > To: avodah@aishdas.org
> > Subject: Re: Moyshe and Yisroy - a lesson for our time
> 
> > Moses advice. Moses tkes the adbvice.  Moses, the greatest
> > Prophet who
> > ever lived, the smartest man who ever lived, (this is not aguable),
> >
> 
> Why is it not arguable? What about Avraham Avinu, who proved the existence
> of the Creator through observation and logic, against tremendous, active
> pressure and argument to the contrary.
> 
> Avi Pechman

To be sure, our Patriarch Abraham was one of the most brilliant men of 
all time.  This can be said of all of the Avos and Neviim.  As a matter 
of fact I have always said that if I could go back in time and meet only 
one person, that person would be Avraham Avinu.  The reason I believe 
that Moshe Rabeinu was THE smartest man of all time is simply because of 
the fact when he was on Har Sinai G-d explained everything about Torah 
and existance to him.  I believe, it is said by Chazal that Moshe 
understood all concepts except the infiniteness of G-d which I 
personally believe is impossible for finite man to grasp.  I don't think 
anyone in history comes close to that.

HM

In a message dated 2/7/99 1:41:26 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

> To be sure, our Patriarch Abraham was one of the most brilliant men of 
>  all time.  This can be said of all of the Avos and Neviim.  As a matter 
>  of fact I have always said that if I could go back in time and meet only 
>  one person, that person would be Avraham Avinu.  The reason I believe 
>  that Moshe Rabeinu was THE smartest man of all time is simply because of 
>  the fact when he was on Har Sinai G-d explained everything about Torah 
>  and existance to him.  I believe, it is said by Chazal that Moshe 
>  understood all concepts except the infiniteness of G-d which I 
>  personally believe is impossible for finite man to grasp.  I don't think 
>  anyone in history comes close to that.
>  
>  
While Moshe was the greatest in Nevuoh as far as the term smart it is reserved
for Shlomo Hamelech, (note the Gemoroh in Minochos when 6th row in front of
Rabi Akivoh),  until Moshiach takes that position (Ramabm Hil Tshuvoh 9:2).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/7/99 0:32:50 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> A"A himself wasn't a Jew, at least not a bar chiyuvah WRT yom tov. Does this
>  mean he wasn't allowed to cook for himself?
>  
Memah N'fshach.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The Baal HaTurim (and, I presume, many other rishonim) holds that Sear
b'Isha Ervah applies to married and unmarried women.  While his opinion
is not accepted in practice it makes all the gemaras a lot easier to
understand.  One way to understand Rashi (isha=eishes ish) is that ervah
needs the dual impetus of attraction and capital crime (the implication
that one's close relatives are never attractive need not concern us
here).  I suspect that Rabbi Kagan in the Mishna Berurah adopts a
variant of that approach when he rules that Kol b'Isha Erva applies to
pnuyoth because they are potentially niddoth.
  The point, such as it is, is that Shok is an issur in tzniuth and Sear
an issur in ervah, and therefore need not be comparable.  The
explanation (of the difference) is that tzniuth is inward directed (and
hence applies even at home; see the first Rama in Orach Chaim) and ervah
is outward directed (and hence does not apply at home - I think that's
Even HaEzer #21, but you guys have undoubtedly looked at the sources
more recently than I).

David Riceman

David Riceman

On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
> I think there is another question here.  As the last weeks Blical 
> portion states, Moses was doing it all.  Along comes Jethro, an 
> acknowledged idolator, (albeit conceding the supremecy of G-d) and gives 
> Moses advice. Moses tkes the adbvice.  Moses, the greatest Prophet who 
> ever lived, the smartest man who ever lived, (this is not aguable), 
> takes advice from an idolator.  Why didn't Moses think of thuis himself? 
>  Why didn'tG-d help him out here?  Why did G-d allow a situation to 
> develop whereby good advice is given the greatest man who ever lived by 
> an acknowledged idolator? And finally, why does the Bible even relate 
After Responding to David, I also was bothered by this question. So I
looked through some Medrashim and found a medrash which says that really
Hashem did command Moshe to set up courts like this. However, Hashem
caused Moshe to forget his command in order to allow an extra parsha to be
written in Yisro's honor. Much like bnos zlephchad. Since Yisro was coming
to be megayer and join Klal Yisroel and he displayed love for torah he was
Zoche to be the one to remind Moshe of the command. I think this
answers your legitimate question and continues to show the utter falseness
in David's attempt to slander large segments of klal yisroel as this whole
episode seems to have no relavence to the conflict between Western Culture
and TORAH.
Elie Ginsparg

On page 65 of Halachic Man 
"Halachic man does not struggle with his evil impulses, nor does he 
clash with the tempster who seeks to deprive  him of his senses. 
Halachic men are not subject to the whispered proffer of desire, and 
they need not exert themselves to resist its pull."
Does this mean that HM is so involved in Avodas Hashem and learning  
that he has no yetzer harah?
sk

Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 2/7/99 1:41:26 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:
> 
> > To be sure, our Patriarch Abraham was one of the most brilliant men of
> >  all time.  This can be said of all of the Avos and Neviim.  As a matter
> >  of fact I have always said that if I could go back in time and meet only
> >  one person, that person would be Avraham Avinu.  The reason I believe
> >  that Moshe Rabeinu was THE smartest man of all time is simply because of
> >  the fact when he was on Har Sinai G-d explained everything about Torah
> >  and existance to him.  I believe, it is said by Chazal that Moshe
> >  understood all concepts except the infiniteness of G-d which I
> >  personally believe is impossible for finite man to grasp.  I don't think
> >  anyone in history comes close to that.
> >
> >
> While Moshe was the greatest in Nevuoh as far as the term smart it is reserved
> for Shlomo Hamelech, (note the Gemoroh in Minochos when 6th row in front of
> Rabi Akivoh),  until Moshiach takes that position (Ramabm Hil Tshuvoh 9:2).
> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind

Touche!

HM

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


[ 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 ]