Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 059

Thursday, May 20 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:32:54 EDT
From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Israeli Elections, Public Policy and Halakhah


In a message dated 5/18/99 1:37:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< I would think that meta-halakhic principles must come into play here,
 especially issues of kiddush Hashem.  On that analysis, the overall
 impression given by Torah Jews and their elected representatives might
 be paramount, superseding even specific policy issues relating to talmud
 Torah or the issurim mentioned above.  However, this analysis is clearly
 contradicted le-ma'aseh by the religious parties in Israel.  (All of
 them, though to varying degrees.)  So, someone must have a different
 sevara.  Any ideas? >>


There is another issue here as well. Do we vote for the candidate whose views 
on Torah related issues may more closely line up with ours, even if that 
candidate is in other respects less competent to run the country? How do we 
balance those factors? Thats an even bigger issue in the U.S. where a 
candidate may have views on Israel that we like, but may in other area be 
worse for the U.S. As U.S. citizens, where does our obligation lie?

Jordan   


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 15:30:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject:
13 Ikkarim


Rich Wolpoe writes:

>My impression of what prompted the Rambam to "codify" his ikkarim was
>2-fold:
>1) For the benefit of those who were "closet" Jews and outward Moslems
>2) To counter the Karaites

I am not sure that is correct..  For one thing, unlike R. Sa'adia,
Rambam was not engaged in anti-Karaite polemic.  To the contrary, he
takes a (surprisingly) conciliatory approach to them.  Note too that the
Karaites agreed with at least the main five of the ikkarim.
Second, Rambam's ikkarim cannot be viewed independently from his overall
philosophical ouevre.  Anyone familiar with it will notice that, on
issues of theology, he is very much concerned with halakhically
observant Jews whose beliefs were theologically questionable, such as
crude images of olam ha-ba.

The most persuasive explanation of which I am aware for the formulation
of the 13 Ikkarim (espoused by A. Hyman and others) is that Rambam felt
that olam ha-ba required correct beliefs, yet many philosophically
unsophisticated but sincere Jews could lose their olam ha-ba
inadvertently.  So he formulated what he felt was the minimum necessary
in a relatively popular, easily accessible form.

(This ties into the issue of inadvertence in Maimonidean theology,
regarding which RYGB has asked for proof.  Beli neder tomorrow.)

Kol tuv,

Eli 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:34:38 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Eiruv Tavshilin


From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
>>
Comments on Micha who believes his wife has to be yotzeh E"T by listening:<<

According to that MB shiur:
1) Zechiya is NOT needed for "someich al shulchono" 
2) House guests are in a grey area.
3) Hotel guests don't count at all as someich and should be mitztareif with the 
mashgiach of the hotel or do their own...
4) Zechiya IS required for the Rav on behalf of his k'hillo (IOW when he says 
l'chol hadorin.. he needs to be mezekeh al yedei acheir)

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:40:13 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Avodah vs. Melocho - Humor Alert


If we do Avodas Hashem we become an Eved Hashem, so
if we do Meleches Hashem do we become a Mal'ach Hashem?

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:58:58 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Davening with a minyan


From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>

Is there any halachik difference in the requirement to daven with a minyan 
(what ever that requirement is) on yom kippur, or other "special" days, vs on 
an ordinary day?<<

This is a bit tangential to the question, nevertheless, I recall learning that  
during the week semichas geulo litfilloh supercedes tefilloh betzibbur (see MB 
52:7), while on Shabbos and Yomtov tefilloh betzibbur supercedes semichas geulo 
litfilloh.  (So far I cannot find a source for this chilluk.)

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:57:05 +0300
From: Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Final Israel Election Results


Below are the final, offical election results as they were just announced
over the radio.  There are a few changes over previous reports.

One Israel - 26
Likud  -  19
Shas  -  17
Meretz - 10
Center Party - 6
Shinui (Lapid) - 6
Yisrael B'aliyah - 6
Mafdal (NRP) - 5
United Torah Judaism - 5
United Arab List - 5
National Union - 4
Yisrael Beiteinu - 4
Chadash - 3
Balad (Ahmad Tibi) - 2
Am Echad - 2

Now that the final results are in, let the analyses & pontification begin!!

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 00:42:43 +0300
From: Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V3 #58 -Israeli Election - Shas


>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
>From: alustig@erenj.com (Arnold Lustiger)
>Subject: Re:Israeli Election - Shas
>
>Shas on the other hand, which was not established until 1985, grew from 0 to
>17 seats. It is by far the fastest growing party in Israeli political
>history, and now has almost as many seats as the Likud.
>
>A large number, perhaps a majority, of the Shas voters are chozrim
>biteshuvah, influenced primarily by one of the many educational or social
>institutions set up by the party just for this purpose. Assuming that each
>Kneset seat represents 33,000 voters, and assuming that only half of Shas
>are chozrim biteshuvah on one level or another, that is 264,000 baalei
>teshuvah who have become religious over a period of 14 years.( These numbers
>are very conservative).  One can argue about the primitive nature of the
>religious commitment of many of them, and the baggage that they bring to
>Israeli religious community (dybbuks, kameyos), but they are indeed baalei
>teshuvah.
>
>Which brings me to the hashkafah question. Many of us (myself included)...

Your basic premise is flawed.

By Shas' own repeated admission (made as recently as this evening by Shas
MK Shlomo Benizri) the vast majority of Shas voters are not chozrei
b'tshuva, let alone hareidi in the Shas mold.  Most of them are Masorti
(traditional, e.g., after going to shul shabbat morning, they sit down to a
nice meal and turn on the TV to watch the soccer games; or the women are
makpid on taharat hamishpacha, even driving to the mikveh on a Friday
night). Another large source of Shas voters are refugees from the Mafdal
(NRP/Mizrachi) who generally are Dati and especially from the Likud (which
is why the Likud dropped from 32 seats to 19 seats).  Although there are
Chozrei B'tshuva who now vote Shas, their numbers are not that electorally
significant.

The common denominator is that the Shas voters are S'fardi and at least not
hostile to Yahadut.  The latter characteristic is very common among
S'fardim in general, and much less common among non-dati, non-hareidi
Ashkenazim.

The growth of Shas is a very complicated story and probably has more to do
with their social programs that succeed where the massive Israeli welfare
state has failed miserably.  It also has to do with their chain of free/low
cost pre-schools for 3 & 4 year olds which has become a lifeline for many
working parents.

The Shas results are also a function of, or perhaps more correctly a
reaction to, the Deri conviction for bribery, and Tommy Lapid's (Shinui
Party) anti-hareidi vitriol which propelled that journalist turned politico
to a respectable 6 seats.

BTW, the Lapid/Shinui tactic probably also benefitted the United Torah
Judaism list as it was reported that a number of Rabbanim in the Eidah
Hahareidit lifted their usual ban on participating in the elections and
told their following to vote for UTJ to counter Lapid & Co.

One final point - in trying to assess the influence of Ba'alei Tshuva to
the various (not just Shas) religious groupings (whatever their number is,
and I'm sure it's less than 264,000), you have to offset that by an
apparently roughly equal number of chozrei leshe'eilah and Shovavnikim.

(Shovavnikim are kids from Chareidi homes who retain the "black" uniform,
but don't go to shul or yeshiva, and hang out in bars, discos, video game
parlors, pizza places, and various other establishments of doubtful repute).

Keep in mind that despite all the Chozrei B'Tshuva, and the higher birth
rate of Dati & Hareidi families, the overall combined strength of the
religious parties have not increased that much over the years, particularly
in view of the heterogeneous nature of the Shas constituency.  This is but
the tip of the iceberg of some very complex religious/sociological issues
on the "hiloni rebellion" which was a major and successful issue in the
present election.

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 01:01:06 +0300
From: Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V3 #57


>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:37:00 -0400
>From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
>Subject: Israeli Elections, Public Policy and Halakhah
>
>In hope of using current events as a springboard to a Torah discussion:
>
..
..
..
>Why?  We start from the premise that none of the prime ministerial
>candidates embodies the ideal halakhic candidate.  (At least two,
>Yitzhak Mordekhai and Netanyahu are respectful of tradition, but neither
>is observant.)

That is not quite true or fair regarding Yitzhak Mordechai. He is actually
quite "traditional".  He does not drive on Shabbat, nor (I think) watch TV
or listen to the radio on Shabbat.  He keeps kosher, both in and out of the
house, and is known to be very close to Rav Ovadia Yosef (Mordechai got
into trouble with the more secular wing of his hodgepodge Center party by
getting caught kissing the beard of Rav Ovadia, apparently an old Sephardi
custom of showing respect to a Talmid Hacham) and is known to daven
regularly (relatively) in Rav Ovadiah's shul.  As Defense Minister
Mordechai was also a big supporter and fan of the Hesder Yeshivot, and
especially the religious Mechinot T'rom Tzavah. He also smoothed the way
for establishing the recently ressurected Hareidi Nahal unit.

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:16:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Israeli Elections, Public Policy and Halakhah


On Tue, 18 May 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> In hope of using current events as a springboard to a Torah discussion:
> 
> How does (or should) Halakhah relate to voting decisions?  As is
> well-known, with the exception of Meimad, all of the religious parties
> aligned themselves with Netanyahu.  Indeed, R. Mordekhai Eliyahu went so
> far as to issue a halakhic "pesak" requiring one to vote for Netanyahu. 
> 

Witholding any personal perspective for the moment, I remember as
yesterday the comment made by Rav Dzimitrovski at the end of Shiur Klali
one fine evening in Sha'alvim, just before the first election in which the
now defunct "Techiya" vied for Orthodox votes:

The very act of putting a ballot for a non-Orthodox party in the ballot
box is a ma'aseh issur.

This, because of the prohibition of minui melech and other mesimos that
are not from achicha - b'mitzvos.

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:18:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Round Numbers


Someone asked last week about the round numbers in Parashas Bamidbar.
Both the Meshech Chochmo and Emes l'Ya'akov deal with this, saying the
count was actually of regiments (tzeva'os). For the MC, that meant
rounding to Sarei Asaros, for the ElY, rounding to Sarei Chamishim.

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 18:30:45 -0500
From: "Bob Miller" <miller@tafa.com>
Subject:
Analysis of Polarization, etc.


1.	In a collection of lectures under the title "haMidrash 
vehaMaaseh by  Rav Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam (Sanz-
Klausenburger Rebbe), published by the Sanzer Chasidim, I found 
an interesting thesis about the idea that before Mashiach we will be 
fully innocent or fully guilty,  Namely, that both phenomena will 
happen at the same time---a polarization or clarification will occur 
in place of confusion.  Some of this same sorting out may be 
evident in recent Israeli politics.  I'm not doing justice to his deep 
analysis, which I believe was presented in Shabbos drashos in 
Antwerp in the 80's.  

He discussed this in the context of Rivka's uneasiness about the 
twins about to be born.  At first she thought it was one fetus acting 
in very contradictory ways, which alarmed her about our people's 
future.  If we were in a permanent state of confusion between 
avodah and avodah zarah, we would have no hope for success. 
When she was told that two were invoved---Yaakov and Esav, each 
having the opposite tendency, she felt reassured.  The gist of his 
discussion (I think) was that clarification was needed at the end of 
days for complete teshuva to result---even among the wicked, 
because, as long as they remained a confused mixture of good and 
bad, they would have such a positive self image as to see no need 
for teshuvah!  Reaching rock bottom, they would finally see the 
need to straighten out, (sort of like alcoholics, addicts, etc).

2.  Why do some people spell halachic with a final "k"?  What is 
the corresponding word and spelling in Yiddish?  The only proper 
ending if this is an English word now would be a "c".

Sincerely, Yitzchak Avraham (Bob) Miller


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:34:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Eureka! New Understanding of RABM's 642 Chalakim!


I think I have it!

The Torah Sheleima brings the Sefer Ha'Ibbur's linking the 642 chalakim to
the International Dateline shitta of the Kuzari and Ba'al HaMa'or. This
led to the following rational explanation:

The Molad Zakein rule, according to these Rishonim, was adopted so that
Jews in the furthest Easterly settlment of Jews - one just on the other
side of the dateline - would expereince the Molad prior to the onset of
Rosh Hashana 9the evening before). We also understood that to work with an
imaginary line of settlement 90 degrees East of Yerushalayim, with the
Jews on the other side of that line being the ones who experienced the
Molad the priior evening.

RABM sought the actual furthest known Jewish settlement of the time - that
being Kaifeng, China. (See EJ on China). That settlement is actually not
as far away as 90 degrees from Yerushalayim - it is about 80 or so degrees
from Yerushalayim. Thus, the sun set which is the final demarcation of the
previous day takes place somewhat later than that which takes place at the
time of Chatzos "the next day" in Yerushalayim - about 35-40 minutes
later. This very closely approximates the 642 chalakim that RABM proposed
to add to the Molad Zakein rule!! (given imprecision in geography, etc.,
it is, in fact, relatively precise)! So?

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Israeli Elections, Public Policy and Halakhah


Conversation with an Israeli charedi cousin in April:

MF: If I were an Israeli citizen I *might* vote for Meimad for
Knesset and Barak for PM.

COUSIN: But, how can you vote for a non-religious party, since Meimad
is part of One Israel?  It's assur to vote for a non-religious party.

MF: Aren't you yourself planning to vote for Netanyahu for PM?

COUSIN: There are no religious people running for PM, so ain breirah.
 But you do have a choice of a religious party for Knesset.

MF: So, if I declare my candidacy for PM, you'll vote for me rather
than for Netanyahu?

COUSIN: You'd have no chance of winning.  My vote would be wasted. 
So I'd vote for Netanyahu for PM because he's the best alternative.

MF: So I'd vote for Meimad/One Israel for Knesset because they're the
best possible alternative.


--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"  wrote:
> Witholding any personal perspective for the moment, I remember as
> yesterday the comment made by Rav Dzimitrovski at the end of Shiur
> Klali
> one fine evening in Sha'alvim, just before the first election in
> which the
> now defunct "Techiya" vied for Orthodox votes:
> 
> The very act of putting a ballot for a non-Orthodox party in the
> ballot
> box is a ma'aseh issur.
> 
> This, because of the prohibition of minui melech and other mesimos
> that
> are not from achicha - b'mitzvos.

_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 20:37:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
Subject:
Looking for Someone


I know it's off-topic, but if I can't find out here, I don't know where I
can.

My wife is trying to find an old friend in the old city (Jerusalem) named
Yeshara Gold. Her husband is something to do with the Diasporah Yeshiva,
but I can't find it (the Yeshiva) on-line. Apparently that's a nickname or
something, and not the real name of the yeshiva.

Anyone got any advice on where to find the "Diaspora Yeshiva"? Or a
Jerusalem phone book to look up Yeshara Gold? I don't know her husband's
name.

Thanks in advance. Replies can be sent off-list to either 

mailto:sambo@charm.net
or 
mailto:imaleah@art-museum.org


---sam


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 20:05:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Rambam's ikkarim


To give people an idea of how differently your post could appear to the
writer than they do to the rest of the list, I though my last two posts
were clear. Since they weren't, here (and the next post) are clarifications.

In general, I would assert that there's no equivalent to p'sak halachah in
the realm of hashkafah.

However, hashkafah and halachah intersect in at least two places: the
definition of mumar/min and apikores, and the definition of kabbalas ol
for geirus.

Lima'aseh, in both cases, general consensus is to use the Rambam's ikkarim.

So, when can say that this aspect of the Rambam's hashkafah is actually
accepted lihalachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-May-99: Revi'i
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 319:27-33
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 82b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Shmuel-II 24


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 21:24:50 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: ikarim


>>>Question: Does any major contemporary poseik lemaaseh dispute the Rambam's 
formulation of the Ikkarim?<<<

What would be the nafka minah l'ma'aseh that would require psak in this area??
-CB


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 20:24:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Eiruv Tavshilin


I thought I was pretty clear that although we make a point of doing exactly
what we do when I'm motzi my wife for kiddush I did /not/ consider eiruv
tavshilin a similar case. For example, my kids who make their own eggs and
such are not necessarily gathered.

I did mention that relying on another's E"T is only bidi'eved. However, it
does serve to show that one needn't have in mind to be yotzei in order to be
included in another's eiruv. (BTW, what about people who exclude themselves
from the community. I'm under the impression they aren't included in
eiruvei chatzeiros. Would something similar be true here?)

I too heard (although I'd love a source) that one can only rely on a
neighbor's E"T more than once or twice. I doubt, though, that someone who
does so a third time is oveir on hachanah. If the mechanism works, why would
the person's history be at issue? Rather, it's a gezeirah so as to ensure
that people would make their own techum, and he's in violation of that
gezeirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-May-99: Revi'i
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 319:27-33
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 82b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Shmuel-II 24


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 20:34:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Rambam's ikkarim


To answer R' YGB's question, doesn't the Rambam in the Moreh III:51
argue that it is one's yedi'ah of Hashem that is the cause of nitzchiyus?
If so, would it make a difference whether someone lacks that yedi'ah
by choice or by circumstance?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-May-99: Revi'i
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 319:27-33
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 82b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Shmuel-II 24


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 21:46:58 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Moda'ah rabbah l'oraysa


"Moda'ah rabba l'oraysa" (Shabbos88) - Bnei Yisrael had a ta'anas ones for 
not doing mitzvot.  However, see R' Yosef Engel (Esvan D'Oraysa) who is 
choker whether there is a pstur of ones by mitzvot aseh, as the gezeiras 
hakatuv of v'lana'arah lo ta'aseh davar is written by a lav only and may be 
limited to that context.  (Also see Taz in Y.D. 393. R' Elchanan in Koveitz 
Shiurim has a tzad to say that oisek b'mitzva patur min hamitzva is midin 
ones).  If that be correct, one can perhaps answer Tos. kashe in Shabbos 
(d.h. moda'ah) that the kerisus bris was for mitzvot aseh where the ptur of 
ones doesn't apply.

Also wondering - aside from the ptur of ones l'gabi not fufilling specific 
mitzvot (as Rashi presents the gemara) isn;t there an issue here of a 
kabbalas hamitzvot of geirus done b'ones here? 

-CB


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:36:13 +0200
From: Ben Waxman <bwaxman@foxcom.com>
Subject:
RE: Avodah V3 #58


This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BEA28B.0E387230
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1255"

I agree 100%.

 Not only that, but the major media is almost 
> exclusively anti-chareidi and they have chosen to exacerbate 
> any and all ill  feelings.
>   >>
> 
> 
> I have to say that as this subject is likely to produce the 
> most vehement 
> feelings we can muster, I STRONGLY suggest we stop this 
> thread before it 
> starts. 
> 
> Jordan
>
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01BEA28B.0E387230
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1255"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1255">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Avodah V3 #58</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>I agree 100%.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;Not only that, but the major media is almost </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; exclusively anti-chareidi and they have chosen to exacerbate </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; any and all ill&nbsp; feelings.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; I have to say that as this subject is likely to produce the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; most vehement </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; feelings we can muster, I STRONGLY suggest we stop this </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; thread before it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; starts. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Jordan</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BEA28B.0E387230--


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:29:25 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Moda'ah rabbah l'oraysa


C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> "Moda'ah rabba l'oraysa" (Shabbos88) - Bnei Yisrael had a ta'anas ones 
>for not doing mitzvot.

Here are a number of relevant sources.

Medrash Tanchmua (Noach #3) states that force was applied only for Oral Law.
Ohr Hachaim (Yisro 19:5) rejects Tosfos - while not mentioning the Tanchuma
says that the Oral Law was more difficult to keep and they didn't want the 
new interpretation and decrees of the rabbinic authority. 
Maharal (Tiferes Yisroel #32) also has problem with Tosfos. 
He indicates that the relationship could not be a voluntary one.
Their willingness was a signal that they should be forced so the
 relationship could not be abrogated later.


Mechilta d'Rashbi 19:17) states that na'aseh v'nishma was said
 *after* they were forced.


Of importance is an alternative approach to the acceptance. 
Namely that it was tainted. According to Tosefta Bava Kama 7:3) 
they did not tell the truth. They were in fact interested in avoda zara
 at that moment. see also shemos rabba #42 and yalkut shimoni (Hoshea 247). 
Michtav M'Eliyahu discusses this discrepancy volu 2 page 87-88) and 
volume 4 page 288. An alternative understanding is found in 
Rav Tzadok (Yisroel Kedoshim 43b) where he says there are three levels
 of a person. Mind - heart and inner person. This is basis of
 Rambam (Gerushin 2:20) of forcing a person to do something he claims 
he doesn't want. He also explains why Esav's lies were positive sign to 
Yaakov. see alos Yisroel Keshoshim 66a concerning the result of being
 forced  to accept Torah.Netziv Shemos 19:8 says it was only a minority
who lied.  Minchas Yitzchok 6:107 discusses the halachic consequences 
of this tosefta.


Ramban (Shabbos 88a), Rashba, Ran, Ritva deal with why Jews were punished
 and exiled if they were not bound by the Torah until Purim. Basically it 
was a condition in being in Israel rather than a punishment Meshech Chochma 
Shemos 15:16) uses this explain why the kedusha of first temple was not 
permanent while that of the second was. He (Devarim 8:1) notes that they 
were punished for avoda zara just like non Jews.

Rav Tzadok (Tzidkas haTzadik #76) uses this Tanchuma to explain why the more
difficult Oral Law is the domain of Geirim who accepted the entire Torah
willing while the FFB only wanted the easier Written Law. Machshovos Charitz
#19 geirim have a greater love of Torah.


> Also wondering - aside from the ptur of ones l'gabi not fufilling specific
> mitzvot (as Rashi presents the gemara) isn;t there an issue here of a
> kabbalas hamitzvot of geirus done b'ones here?

Maharal (Gur Aryeh Bereishis 46:10) said those who were forced at Sinai were
not full geirim who would be considered new born and not related to blood
relatives. Only the voluntary geirim are considered new born. Meshech Chochma
Devarim 5:27) asserts they were not prohibted to their former wives and only
the next generation was prohibited. He says this itself is the source of
knowing that a ger is considered newborn.

Finally Rav Kook (Daas Cohen #173) brings the above Tosefta to argue that
 since geirus is learned from Sinai and there they were thinking avoda zara
 when they accepted the Torah - modern geirim do not have to be sincere.
 He apparently retracted this astounding assertion in Daas Cohen #174)


 Chag Someach

 Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.


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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >