Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 035

Wednesday, May 3 2000

• Re: Yom Tov Sheni
• Kdushas Shviis (was Re: Avodah V5 #30)
• Shaving on Yom Hatzmaut
• Days yomtov
• Re: Early Xianity in Chazal
• Re: Days yomtov
• Haircutting on YhA
• Re: Days yomtov
• Re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot
• Re: Early Xianity in Chazal
• Re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot
• Re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot
• Re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot
• Re: Heter Mechira (was Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha))
• Re: Kdushas Shviis (was Re: Avodah V5 #30)
• Re: Sources on each word divine
• Re: Sources on each word divine
• Re: Sources on each word divine
• Re: Heter Mechira (was Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha))

On 2 May 00, at 14:16, David Glasner wrote:

> Carl Sherer [sorry for all the times I misspelled your name - dg] wrote:

Don't worry - it happens all the time :-) 

> <<<
> Now, I'm curious. I always understood that people like Rav Goren, 
> who held that chutznikim in Eretz Yisrael could hold one day of 
> Yom Tov, did so on the grounds that what is kovea how many days 
> of Yom Tov you keep is your location and not your permanent 
> residence. If so, shouldn't they hold that Israelis in Chutz LaAretz 
> should keep two days?
> >>>
> 
> I had the same thought.  However, the issue is minhag avoseichem
> b'yodeichem.  The minhog of those living in chutz la'aretz was always
> not to observe yom tov sheni when they were in eretz yisrael.  The
> minhag of those who lived in eretz yisrael was always to observe
> yom tov sheni when they were in chutz la'aretz.  

Do you have a source for that? All I remember the Gemara (Beitza 
4 IIRC) saying was that those who are in chutz la'aretz should be 
nizhar for the minhag of their forefathers, in case some day the 
goyim prevent the maintenance of a Jewish calendar R"L.

That argues 
> against R. Goren's position.  The only way to have it both ways 
> would be to say that minhag avoseichem was applied only to b'nei 
> ha-golah, whereas b'nei eretz yisrael had no minhag of observance 
> of yom tov sheni other than the occasional s'feika d'yoma when they 
> happened to be outside eretz yisrael.  The takana of Chazal therefore 
> did not apply to them at all, only to the b'nei ha-golah.  B'nei eretz 
> yisrael are governed by s'feika d'yoma wherever they are, so the only 
> issue for their observance of yom tov sheni ba-golah is maras ayin.  

Even if we say that Bnei EY's only prohibition against doing 
melacha on Yom Tov Sheini in chutz la'aretz is mareis ayin, don't 
we also hold kol mah she'assur mishoom mareis ayin, afilu 
b'chadrei chadorim assur?

Just to complicate things a little bit more - it is widely accepted 
among the Bnei Eretz Yisrael that we are allowed to travel on Yom 
Tov Sheini, even to chutz la'aretz, so long as we do not go 
anywhere where there is a yishuv Yehudi. Thus, for example, I have 
travelled on business trips on Yom Tov Sheini, and waited in the 
airport (or in one case, across the street in a hotel just outside the 
airport) until Yom Tov was out. I'm not sure this would work with 
airports in the New York area (particularly JFK - although I have 
heard of people who travelled there and just stayed in the airport 
until the Chag was over), but I know of many other airports where 
there is no Jewish community for miles around and it would work.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 2 May 00, at 23:08, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> In message , M. Press <mpress@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >Shmita - one poster raised the question of mitzvo haba'ah b'aveira with
> >regard to the heter mechira, implying that one could not make a brocho on
> >such produce, etc.  This is not so.  Even if one were to violate the
> >prohibition of lo sechanem in selling the land, produce grown on it would
> >have nothing to do with the problem of mhb. 
> 
> What about produce that has kedusha shevi'is but which has been sold in
> violation of the strict requirements regarding sale of such produce?

I think that mitzva ha'baa b'aveira presupposes that both the mitzva 
and the aveira take place simultaneously. That is not the case with 
eating produce that was grown in violation of shmitta.

> > Also, the question was raised
> >about the status of money that may have kdushas shvi'is.  Aside from the
> >good points raised about the different nature of money in the modern
> >economy, the simplest response is that since shvi'is is generally accepted
> >as drabonon today, we are lenient in sfeikos drabonon.
> >
> 
> Why is this not equally applicable to the produce itself? Deliberately
> mix it with other produce and say we are lenient in sfeikos d'rabanon?
> After all, isn't that what is being done with the money? The fact that
> the people do not think there is a problem with the money when they mix
> it does not change the fact that they are deliberately mixing it with
> other money.  

Ain mevatlin issur le'chatchila. I don't think anyone goes and 
purposely mixes money when they know that some of the money 
has kdushas shviis. 

Adina told me last night that Rabbi Aberman treated the whole 
question of kdushas shviis attaching to money in a shiur he gave 
seven years ago (I don't recall if it was within the framework of 
Nishmat or specifically for Michlala alumnae) that dealt with 
Hilchos Shmitta. But she doesn't remember what he said.... If 
someone lurking out there is close with him, please ask, 
otherwise, bli neder, I will try to call.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

>Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>                    Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:

    > About a 15 years ago I asked Rav Gershuni whether one could shave
erev
    > Yom haAtzmaut in anticipation of the Hag or only on Yom haAtzmaut
    > proper. He wrote me that one should shave erev haHag so as not to
    > enter the Hag menuval.

>If that's the case, did he allow shaving on Erev Shvii Shel Pesach,
>or Hoshana Rabba, and if not, why not?

Good question. And BTW isn't the day before a Yom Zikaron (or similar)
- which one would assume Zionist Rabbis would liken to an avelus (just as
YH is considered a chag)? So even when they decide that Sefirah should be
overruled, shouldn't it be ossur to shave in its own right...?

And how do they pasken with regards to an Ovel R"L? Does YH take over the
Shiva or the Shloshim? Or at least can he also shave?

 SBA

I think the difference is Shulchan Aruch HaRav holds that there is a
spiritual reason for 2 days yomtov chutz la'aretz and 1 day yomtov eretz
Israel (not just an issue of calendar and minhag avoseinu).  

RE Turkel wrote:

>>I don't know of any secular scholar, including Berger that takes this gemara 
at face value. Either it is talking abouts someone else (yeshu was a common 
name) or it was altered by censorship.>>

I think it was first suggested by R. Yechiel from Paris in his disputation that 
this was a different Yeshu.  He said something like "Not every Louis is the king
of France."  Are you saying that this is the standard approach taken by 
historians?

I don't know what censorship you are talking about.  These gemaras were all 
removed by censors but we have plenty of uncensored manuscripts.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On 3 May 2000, at 11:53, Alan Davidson wrote:
> I think the difference is Shulchan Aruch HaRav holds that there is a
> spiritual reason for 2 days yomtov chutz la'aretz and 1 day yomtov eretz
> Israel (not just an issue of calendar and minhag avoseinu).  

A spiritual reason that applies based on residency or location? And 
BTW do you have a cite?

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Without any names, please, just straight lomdus, what authority can overturn
Minhag Yisroel to refrain from hircuts on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut? 'Twould seem to
me that only a cheftza of a Yom Tov can do that, and I do not see how we can
devise such a Yom Tov without an haskomo from rov minyan u'binyan Am
Yisroel.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

In a message dated 5/3/00 1:19:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

> A spiritual reason that applies based on residency or location? And 
>  BTW do you have a cite?
>  
See S"A Horav 1:8 (Mahadura Tinyana, but printed first in the S"A Horav).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

--- ben waxman <benwaxman55@yahoo.com> wrote:
> does anyone know of written pskei halacha which
> mattir
> shaving on Israel independence day?
> 
> thanks

R. Aaron Soloveichik Paskins that you may shave during
Sfira.

Also, I believe that Chaftez Chaim Guys shave for
Shabbos during Sfira.

HM



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:37:59AM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: I think it was first suggested by R. Yechiel from Paris in his disputation
: that this was a different Yeshu.

I don't see the chidush. the Yeishu of the gemara was a contemporary (or
perhaps 2, 1/2 of a generation apart) of R' Shim'on ben Shetach (as I already
mentioned in v4n329). As RSbS was Alexander Jannau's brother-in-law, he lived
in the 2nd cent BCE. (Even Eli Clark, who questioned the historicity of the
last point, must agree that RSbS lived well before the common era. Otherwise
dating his life wouldn't pose an issue.)

-mi

On 3 May 2000, at 10:32, Harry Maryles wrote:

> 
> 
> --- ben waxman <benwaxman55@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > does anyone know of written pskei halacha which
> > mattir
> > shaving on Israel independence day?
> > 
> > thanks
> 
> R. Aaron Soloveichik Paskins that you may shave during
> Sfira.

ANY time during sfira? Does he also pasken that you can take 
haircuts? If not, mai nafka mina?

> Also, I believe that Chaftez Chaim Guys shave for
> Shabbos during Sfira.

I know Rav Aaron Lichtenstein paskens that you can shave for 
Shabbos during sfira as well. I never asked about haircuts.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 10:40:28PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: ANY time during sfira? Does he also pasken that you can take 
: haircuts? If not, mai nafka mina?

People who shave tend to do so daily. OTOH, we aren't bothered by going
35 days between haircuts. 

So, while our ancestors would not have considered entering Shabbos with
a week's growth to be a lack of kavod/simchah, we *are* bothered by "five
oclock shadow". Unlike forgoing haircuts.

By shaving each day we may be considered istanisim on this issue, and we are
meikil on aveilus for an istanis. An istanis is someone for whom doing
without is a tza'ar as opposed to doing with being a source of simchah.

Second, there are issues of hefsed for those of us who work outside the frum
community, particularly people in sales and marketing. And how many people
aren't trying to impress buyers, potential suppliers, or even trying sell their
boss on the idea of a promotion? Unlike forgoing haircuts.

-mi

On 3 May 2000, at 14:57, Micha Berger wrote:

> By shaving each day we may be considered istanisim on this issue, and we are
> meikil on aveilus for an istanis. An istanis is someone for whom doing
> without is a tza'ar as opposed to doing with being a source of simchah.

Are we generally meikil in Hilchos Aveilus for an istenis? I once 
heard the Rav of my shul comment that he never gets questions 
about changing clothes from people sitting shiva, but that he 
always gets them during the nine days.

> Second, there are issues of hefsed for those of us who work outside the frum
> community, particularly people in sales and marketing. And how many people
> aren't trying to impress buyers, potential suppliers, or even trying sell their
> boss on the idea of a promotion? Unlike forgoing haircuts.

But I understood from RHM's post that RAS holds *generally* that 
you can shave during sfira and not just when it's for purposes of 
parnassa (or avoiding a hefsed). Is RAS's permissive stance limited 
to instances where not to shave c/would cause a hefsed, or does 
he hold that way even for someone for whom it doesn't matter.

-- Carl 


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In message <200005030445.HAA24642@lmail.actcom.co.il>, Carl and Adina
Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>> I guess where I am struggling to understand your position, is that your
>> understanding of the interrelationship in the mind of Rav Kook of the
>> shas ha'dchak and whatever issur there is.
>
>So am I, at least outside of Shmitta :-) 
>
>> Let's try to ask the questions step by step:
>> 
>> a) is there an issur to sell land to a goy?
>
>According to the Rambam, yes, except maybe under the 
>circumstances described in the heara (i.e. one who already owns 
>land). According to the Raavad, maybe not. According to Rav 
>Kook, not for purposes of shas ha'dchak and for the good of Klal 
>Yisrael, not clear in other circumstances.
>
>> b) if yes, is it from the Torah, or d'rabbanan?
>
>According to the Rambam, not clear. According to the Raavad and 
>Rav Kook, d'Rabbanan.
>

I think this is where I have the most problems with your analysis.  Rav
Kook clearly holds that Shmitta bzman hazeh is d'rabbanan.  How can you
violate a d'rabbanan to prevent violation of a d'rabbanan (I could
understand it if it was a violation of a d'rabbanan to prevent a
violation of a d'orisa)?  So he must hold, when push comes to shove,
that it is less than even an issur d'rabbanan, ie it is mutar
l'chatchila.

I do understand that, even so, he might take the view that were there
not a shas ha'dchak you should be choshesh for the other opinions.

An analogous situation might be Robert's posek and eruvin.  Because I
was not strictly accurate when I made reference to his reasoning
regarding eruvin.  The reason he will not let Robert carry in Jerusalem
is that he believes that Jerusalem, having more than 600,000 people, is
a reshus harabim d'orisa even according to the yesh omrim in the
Shulchan Aruch - so there is no way he will let Robert carry.  On the
other hand, he will let Robert carry in Efrat.  He himself would not
carry there, because he himself is choshesh for the view of the Rambam,
but because there is a yesh omrim in the Shulchan Aruch regarding the
600,000 he will permit others to carry, and I am sure in a shas ha'dchak
he would carry himself (presumably, because he is that sort of person,
if his wife was struggling with a pram).

This is not to say that the heter is in any way an ideal - what I am
trying to separate out is the halachic mechanism by which the heter is
regarded as being achieved and the goal itself (it may be perfectly
halachic to sell chametz to goyim a few days before pesach, but people
can still have problems with doing it for the purpose of getting around
the issurim - for which reason Robert insists on actually getting rid of
all our chametz, how much more so in this case).

>BTW there is nothing in either discussion that indicates that most 
>of the farmers were not fruhm.

Don't we know historically that this was the case (ie that most of the
farmers were not frum - or have I been duped by too much secular Zionist
history)?

>In reading throught RYMT's sefer very quickly, I note that there was 
>apparently some difference of opinion between R. Yitzchak 
>Elchonon and the Maharil Diskin as to how the heter should be 
>accomplished (the Maharil Diskin felt that trees and land sufficient 
>for yenika should be sold al tnai of cutting them, which apparently 
>solves the lo s'choneim problem,

That is the mishna Avodah Zara 19b.  I did vaguely wonder why this
approach wasn't used - but while I can see how that helps with the
produce (at least that which can be considered sufficiently grown to be
identifiable as produce, I would have thought that tilling the land
would still be a problem).

>-- Carl

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message <957348572.107186.0@square.inter.net.il>, Carl M. Sherer
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>> > Also, the question was raised
>> >about the status of money that may have kdushas shvi'is.  Aside from the
>> >good points raised about the different nature of money in the modern
>> >economy, the simplest response is that since shvi'is is generally accepted
>> >as drabonon today, we are lenient in sfeikos drabonon.
>> >
>> 
>> Why is this not equally applicable to the produce itself? Deliberately
>> mix it with other produce and say we are lenient in sfeikos d'rabanon?
>> After all, isn't that what is being done with the money? The fact that
>> the people do not think there is a problem with the money when they mix
>> it does not change the fact that they are deliberately mixing it with
>> other money.  
>
>Ain mevatlin issur le'chatchila.

That is what I thought, butthat means I still have my problem with money
- see below.

> I don't think anyone goes and 
>purposely mixes money when they know that some of the money 
>has kdushas shviis. 
>

Not if they hold the money does not have kedushas shvi'is (such as
somebody holding by the heter) or somebody who is not frum (and so
doesn't care).  If I hold the money has no kedusha, I will certainly
deliberately mix it with my other money, why not?  But if you hold that
money has kedushas shvi'is, does that not make all of my money
problematic (in the same way as if I hold some ingredient is kosher, and
you hold it is treif d'rabbanan, I understood that if I deliberately
mixed that ingredient into some general food, holding of course that it
was all kosher, you would not eat it).

>Adina told me last night that Rabbi Aberman treated the whole 
>question of kdushas shviis attaching to money in a shiur he gave 
>seven years ago (I don't recall if it was within the framework of 
>Nishmat or specifically for Michlala alumnae) that dealt with 
>Hilchos Shmitta. But she doesn't remember what he said.... If 
>someone lurking out there is close with him, please ask, 
>otherwise, bli neder, I will try to call.
>

Please do, this question has been bugging me for a while (well the last
Shmitta, anyway, I keep forgetting about it in between - although
presumably some of the money, which, at least according to some opinions
would have had kedushas shvi'is on it, may still be circulating -
although on the other hand, given the historic Israeli inflation rate,
maybe it is only recently that it ever became an issue.  However, at the
time of Rav Kook, when the currency was presumably Turkish diners or
some such, I imagine there was no inflation to take currency out of
circulation, and there were not cheques or electronic transfers, and the
coins probably did contain real gold and silver).

>-- Carl
>

Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

>Ibn Ezra feels that the last 13 verses were written by Joshua. What does he
>hold with regards to the rest of the Torah?

This is extremely controversial. The Ibn Ezra seems to say that there are
several pasukim in the Torah that may have been edited after the time of
Moshe Rabbeinu, as it would be anachronistic for Moshe to have written them.
However, ALL of the pasukim are still of divine origin; it is just that a
later navi might have added them or changed them, through a prophecy from
HaShem.

Some say that these statements, even though they appear in the Ibn Ezra's
commentary, could not possibly be authentic.

(See the Ibn Ezra at the beginning of sefer devorim, regarding the "Sod of
the shnayim-asar").

Kol Tuv,
David Hojda

>I once heard that a letter recently showed up authored by Rabbi Yehudah
>Halevi (or was it HaChassid) saying that not all of Torah was Moshe MiPi
>HaGvurah. Does anyone have any more information on such a letter?

You are probably referring to a manuscript that was published under the
title of "Perushei Rebbi Yehudah HaChasid al HaTorah". This was claimed to
be authored by Reb Yehuda HaChosid's son and contains various comments about
the Torah that he says that he either heard himself or heard from others as
to what Reb Yehuda HaChosid had said. This sefer's authenticity has been
questioned.

Rav Moshe Feinstein has two strongly-worded teshuvos that insist that these
comments about certain pasukim having been added at a later date could not
possibly have been made by R'YHaCH and that the existing copies of this
book, which he considered to contain apikorsus, should be burned.

Other Rabbonim allowed the book to be distributed, with the comments of
questionable authenticity whited-out. This PSAK was accepted by the author
of the sefer and this is the form in which the book was eventually
distributed.

I have seen the uncensored version and wish to point out that, from what I
remember, the offending comments are third-hand, not heard directly by the
author of
the manuscript, but stated as things that he was told by someone else
who says that he heard them from R'YHaCH .

However, some of those strange comments also appear in other sources and
many scholars consider it plausible that they are authentic.

Kol Tuv,
David Hojda

>In some editions, Rashi goes on to say, "Asher Hufchuhu >Zichronam LiVracha
>Lichtov Ken" which seems to very clearly say that Chazal changed the actual
text.

See the authoritative sefer, Rashi HaShalem for an extensive discussion
questioning the authenticity of this version of Rashi and the Rashba who
outright rejects the possibility that RASHI could have written such a thing.

Kol Tuv,

David Hojda

On 3 May 00, at 21:40, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> >> Let's try to ask the questions step by step:
> >> 
> >> a) is there an issur to sell land to a goy?
> >
> >According to the Rambam, yes, except maybe under the 
> >circumstances described in the heara (i.e. one who already owns 
> >land). According to the Raavad, maybe not. According to Rav 
> >Kook, not for purposes of shas ha'dchak and for the good of Klal 
> >Yisrael, not clear in other circumstances.
> >
> >> b) if yes, is it from the Torah, or d'rabbanan?
> >
> >According to the Rambam, not clear. According to the Raavad and 
> >Rav Kook, d'Rabbanan.
> >
> 
> I think this is where I have the most problems with your analysis.  Rav
> Kook clearly holds that Shmitta bzman hazeh is d'rabbanan.  How can you
> violate a d'rabbanan to prevent violation of a d'rabbanan (I could
> understand it if it was a violation of a d'rabbanan to prevent a
> violation of a d'orisa)?  So he must hold, when push comes to shove,
> that it is less than even an issur d'rabbanan, ie it is mutar
> l'chatchila.

I don't see how you decide that if something is "less than" an issur 
d'Rabbanan, it suddenly becomes mutar lechatchila. 

In any event, I think that Rav Kook held you could violate an issur 
d'Rabbanan of Lo S'Choneim because of the shas ha'dchak he 
perceived in requiring the entire country to observe shmitta. I know, 
if he had said instead to violate shmitta, that too would only have 
been a d'Rabbanan. But as I noted this morning, the issue was 
decided before Rav Kook (the arggument pre-dates him by over 20 
years), so the real kashya is on Rav Yitzchok Elchonon and not on 
Rav Kook - did he hold Shmitta to be d'oraysa? If not, why did he 
choose to violate lo s'choneim rather than shmitta? Rabbi Wein in 
his footnotes cites a sefer called "Shmitta 5649" by Rabbi Shlomo 
Shternberg. If anyone has it, please pipe up! By Rav Kook's time, it 
probably would have been too radical to say, "okay, shmitta is only 
a d'rabbanan, so we'll violate shmitta instead of lo s'choneim." 
Another explanation I can think of is that Rav Kook envisioned a 
time when the country would not need the heter. He may have felt 
that it would be easier to teach people to stop selling the land to 
the Arabs once every seven years than it would be to teach them 
that there is such a thing as shmitta. Then there is an inyan of 
"shelo tishtakach toras shmitta." And when you add that the failure 
to observe shmitta was one of the causes of churban Bayis 
Rishon.... Well, I can think of a lot of reasons why he might have 
chosen one and not the other.

> I do understand that, even so, he might take the view that were there
> not a shas ha'dchak you should be choshesh for the other opinions.

Yes. And that's in fact what Rav Tukichinsky says in Sefer 
HaShmitta in Rav Kook's name.

> An analogous situation might be Robert's posek and eruvin.  Because I
> was not strictly accurate when I made reference to his reasoning
> regarding eruvin.  The reason he will not let Robert carry in Jerusalem
> is that he believes that Jerusalem, having more than 600,000 people, is
> a reshus harabim d'orisa even according to the yesh omrim in the
> Shulchan Aruch - so there is no way he will let Robert carry.  

This is a separate issue, but I always understood the 600,000 as 
meaning that 600,000 people had to go by that place each day and 
that the street in question had to be 16 amos wide (e.g. Ocean 
Parkway in New York and Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, both 
of which cause the respective eruvin involved to become 
problematic).

> >BTW there is nothing in either discussion that indicates that most 
> >of the farmers were not fruhm.
> 
> Don't we know historically that this was the case (ie that most of the
> farmers were not frum - or have I been duped by too much secular Zionist
> history)?

I think you've been duped. Many Rabbonim backed the Chovevei 
Zion in the late 1880's through the first years of the 20th century. 
Rabbi Wein differentiates between the Yishuv HaYashan, which 
were the earlier arrivals, and the Yishuv HaChadash which were 
more secular. What apparently tore the Chovevei apart were 
Messianism that crept into the movement and the increasing 
influence of the seculars (he describes Achad Ha'Am as one of the 
leaders of that - Achad Ha'Am lived from 1856-1927). If you can get 
a hold of Triumph of Survival, it's all described in Chapter 23, Pages 
218-231. As far as I can tell, the large secular immigration was 
from 1904 and onwards.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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


[ 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         ]