Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 071
Tuesday, June 1 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:49:52 +0200
From: Ben Waxman <bwaxman@foxcom.com>
Subject: RE: dakar
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_01BEAB5B.B1BE6490
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1255"
Given that most of the bodies and/or remains are probably destroyed (depth
of the sub/time since sinking) the chances of finding anything is remote at
best.
> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 11:25:36 +0200
> From: Menachem Burack <Mburack@emiltd.com>
> Subject: The Dakar submarine
>
> Attached is the opening paragraph from an Israeli Newspaper about the
> sunken Dakar submarine. Do they have a din of a "meis
> mitzva"? Should we
> go around collecting and donating to raise the billions needed?
>
> Navy Chief: No Existing Technology Can Raise Dakar Submarine
> The cost of raising the Dakar submarine, the remains of which were
> discovered at the weekend close to Crete, will amount to billions of
> dollars - if such an attempt is possible. It would be like the only
> similar attempt in military history, when the US army brought a
> classified Russian submarine to the surface. These are the assessments
> by navy headquarters, which is investigating the possibility
> of raising
> the submarine that sank in 1968, and rescuing the bones of
> the 69 member
> crew.
>
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BEAB5B.B1BE6490
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="windows-1255"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1255">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: dakar</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Given that most of the bodies and/or remains are =
probably destroyed (depth of the sub/time since sinking) the chances of =
finding anything is remote at best.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 11:25:36 +0200</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Menachem Burack =
<Mburack@emiltd.com></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: The Dakar submarine</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Attached is the opening paragraph from an =
Israeli Newspaper about the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> sunken Dakar submarine. Do they have a din of a =
"meis </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> mitzva"? Should we</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> go around collecting and donating to raise the =
billions needed?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Navy Chief: No Existing Technology Can Raise =
Dakar Submarine </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The cost of raising the Dakar submarine, the =
remains of which were</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> discovered at the weekend close to Crete, will =
amount to billions of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> dollars - if such an attempt is possible. It =
would be like the only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> similar attempt in military history, when the =
US army brought a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> classified Russian submarine to the surface. =
These are the assessments</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> by navy headquarters, which is investigating =
the possibility </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of raising</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the submarine that sank in 1968, and rescuing =
the bones of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the 69 member</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> crew. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BEAB5B.B1BE6490--
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 14:34:35 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: lason hara
> Further, it is quite possible that IF the CC was machmir in this area, he did
> so applying the rule of being strict with people who are not B'nei Torah
>
I would argue the opposite. The chances of anyone who is not a Ben Torah to
abstain from talking to his/her spouse about problems with the boss is zero.
I think this is much harder than a doctor/lawyer/rabbi not taling about a client/patient.
There the rabbi is an outsider. Here a person is deeply upset about the way he
is treated in the office. It is almost unreasonable to expect such a person not
to talk to anyone about his problems. I think almost all psychiatrists were say that
speaking about ones feelings is very theraputic. As already pointed out in many
office positions there is no way to speak about the problem without mentioning
names, eg the fight is with the boss.
I would suspect that only people close to the level of CC could go through a lifetime
without complaining about their office workers. Of course if one sits in a kollel
learning all day it is much easier.
There is a story told that the Gra asked the Dubover Maggid to give him Musar.
The maggid answered that the Gra was such a tzaddik because he wasn't a
businessman. That being in business brought all sorts of problems that don't exist
when sitting and learning. The Gra cried and admitted the Maggid was right.
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 09:46:37 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kiddush levana
In a message dated 5/30/99 8:41:51 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> Theoretically it should be half of the 29d 12h 793c after the molad, when
> the moon begins to wane,
And taking in consideration that (in most cases) the time of the Molad is
Yerusholayim time. (perhaps in the Ezras Torah Luach they adjust for this).
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 10:28:29 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Kiddush Levana
>>>Someone asked me this week what the sof zman Kiddush Levana was for this
month. <<<
See Sanhedrin 41b for the basics.
-CB
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:31:26 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: ketana age 3 being a besula for a ben noach
In a message dated 5/29/99 9:31:49 PM EST, RCB writes:
> Gemera in Nidah 44-45 brings down din that a ketana under 3 will always be
a
> besulah even if she has relations because her besulim will return. Rashi
on
> chumash holds Rivkah was age 3 when she married Yitzchak, so one wonders
at
> the praise that she was a "besulah ish lo yeda-ah". Of course she was a
> besulah - she was under 3 at the time! One is forced to say that the word
> besulah is not the technical definition, but simply means that she never
had
> relations,
Some Mforshim say so, others say that Rashi doesn't mean 3 years to the day,
(as they bring Rayoh's one even brings from end of MS. Sofrim that she was 3
years and 3 days, however the GR"A deletes the words 3 days).
> or, more to my liking, perhaps the shiur of age 3 for assuming
> besulim grow back does not apply to a ben noach
The Gemoroh over there according to one answer says "Asher Bsar Chamorim
Bsorom", so it may have a place even with regard to Zman Hroui L'bioh, but
Bnosof to Geirus (see E"H 6:8 and the Chochmas Shlomo there), Bhanogeia to
Rivkah Rashi writes that he waited for 3 years Shtehei R'uyoh L'bioh
(Breishis 25:20), likewise he waited that she should be Ruyoh Lholid at 13
(25:26), so here it wouldn't make a difference.
An interesting issue would be how the 3 years would be counted, Shnos
Hachamoh (as is Mashma from Rashi 21:2), or since Sod Hoibur was known to
them (Pirkei DR"E) it went according to 3 lunar years, (Kyodua the Yerushalmi
on L'K-eil Gomeir Olay that if B"D makes a leap month then Bsuleh Chozrin).
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:57:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Yom ha-Shoah revisited
For those still interested in this topic, see Joel Wolowelsky,
"Observing Yom Hasho'a," Tradition 24:4 (Summer 1989), 46-58.
According to Wolowelsky, the Hazon Ish's letter (whose provenance has
been questioned) related only to the issue of establishing a public
fast. The same qualification is true about a statement of R. Moshe
Feinstein's in Am ha-Torah. Apparently, both R. Y.Y. Weinberg (the
Seridei Esh) and R. P.M. Teitz (then a leader of the aggudas
ha-Rabbonim) supported a memorial day for Yom ha-Shoah.
Wolowelsky notes that we say Yizkor on Pesah and the SA 580:2 lists 26
Nisan as a fast day. He notes too that the position of Agudas Yisroel,
which currently favors reciting a special kinah on 9 Av, seems to
conflict with the Hazon Ish's comment that our response to the Holocaust
is one of shetikah.
He concludes that the reluctance of the yeshiva world to participate in
Yom ha-Shoah activities is rooted in its rejection of Zionism, because
the day was established by the Keneset.
[As I have stated, I think the issue is a little more complex.]
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 16:16:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Be-Ikvot ha-Yirah
----------
From: Clark, Eli
To: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Be-Ikvot ha-Yirah
Date: Monday, May 31, 1999 4:16PM
RYGB quotes from R. A. Eliyahu:
>We have become paupers happy with our lot in our [limited]
>spiritual property. The Lithuanian Jew is happy with the glory of his
>lomdus; the Polish Jew - with the majesty of his mysticism and lightning
>pilpul; the Hungarian Jew - with his Torah fervor and detailed grasp of
>Talmudic topics; the German Jew - with his meticulous mitzvah observance
>and secular acquisitions. The common denominator among us all is that we
>suffice with what we have, placidly and quietly, each of us in our own
>[portions], slumbering deeply... [nothing] contains enough spirit of life
>to arouse and encourage, to uplift and to lead..."
>One might paraphrase:
>The one kind of Jew will only accept advice in Avodah if emanating from
>Rav Shach, the other only from Rav Soloveitchik, yet another only from Rav
>Kook, and many others yet only from their respective Rebbe.
With respect, that is not how I understood the passage. R. Eliyahu
seems to be decrying spiritual complacency, not religious divisions.
Thus, all of the different Jews mentioned, however different in their
derekh Hashem, all share the same problem -- complacency. The solution
need not be to borrow from one another -- does the Polish Jew really
need the secular acquisitions of the Yekke -- but to grow within one's
own derekh.
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 16:20:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Mishnah Berurah -- not pesak?
It was recently asserted on the list that the Mishnah berurah is
properly seen not as a sefer pesak, but a compendium. I wonder.
I recently came across the MB's discussion of making tea in siman 318,
and it seemed to me that R. Kagan is very much engaging in pesak. Is it
the position of anyone on this list that this passage should be viewed
largely as an aberration in a non-pesak-oriented work?
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:38:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Yom ha-Shoah revisited
My shiur on the issue was based on RJW's essay.
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
> Wolowelsky notes that we say Yizkor on Pesah and the SA 580:2 lists 26
> Nisan as a fast day. He notes too that the position of Agudas Yisroel,
> which currently favors reciting a special kinah on 9 Av, seems to
> conflict with the Hazon Ish's comment that our response to the Holocaust
> is one of shetikah.
>
These are obviously incorrect arguments:
1. The fast day mentioned is not a public fast, but a private one - like
those who fast every Sheni va-Chamishi, who may do so in Nissan as well.
Furthermore, that fast day has a precipitating event (the death of
Yehoshua). 27 Nissan does not.
2. The CI was not advocating silence in the lliterl sense, but silence in
the halachic sense.
> He concludes that the reluctance of the yeshiva world to participate in
> Yom ha-Shoah activities is rooted in its rejection of Zionism, because
> the day was established by the Keneset.
>
There are those who conclude that the enthusiasm of the modern world to
participate in Yom ha-Shoah activities is rooted in its embrace of
Zionism, because the day was established by the Knesset.
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: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:03:41 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in Metzius
Joel Rich>> I think Rackman has said this and been attacked. If the gemoro
erred
legabei
maggots, did it err legabei females?
Rich Wolpoe
>>
The Rav(YBSoloveitchik) said in a taped shiur that Tan du was part of the
briah and not subject to change.<<
ein hochi nami. this is a hair-split but here goes,
The very fact that the Rav felt it necesary to posit his thesis wrt to this,
implies that it is debatable;
UNLESS
he is merely explaining a given, that the principle is accepted and he is merely
exlpaining a given.
But, if principles of Gemoro are subject to indpendent (i.e non-halachic)
verification, who is to stop any given rav from using said indpendennt
verifciation to verify what HE chooses to see?
If the sociological case of women and tav lemeisav is too fuzzy; let's switch
to the solar year being 365.25 days long.
Isn't the fact that the gemoro and the luach assume 365.25 days to the solar
year idenifiably incorrect? And if so, doesn't that throw into question our
kevius process?
Rich Wolpoe
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 ]