Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 046

Friday, May 19 2000

• Re: Hacarat hatov
• Re: Nashim *memaharot" lamut
• RE:tzibbur
• Hacarat hatov
• Esav sonei liYa'akov
• Re: Calendar controversy article
• Re: Calendar controversy article
• What constitutes a zibbur
• hakarat hatov
• ayin tachas ayin redux
• Re: Esav sonei liYa'akov
• Each word Divine - Rambam
• Hakaras hatov
• Re: Hacarat hatov
• Re: Esav sonei liYa'akov
• Re: Esav sonei liYa'akov
• Sefiras HaOmer
• Re: Sefiras HaOmer

In a message dated 5/16/00 9:11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

> Even before Moshe Rabbeinu, you could look at Leah ("HaPaam 
>  odeh es Hashem" when she named Yehuda), Avraham (when he 
>  insisted that Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei get their portions after the 
>  war of the kings - maybe the first recorded instance in which a 
>  human gave thanks to another human), Noach (korbanos after the 
>  mabul) and Hevel (korbanos - implicitly at least a korban toda?).
>  
WRT Odom Horishin the Midrash says that on the day of his creation he 
gathered all creations and said "Boiu Nishtachaveh...Lifnei Hashem Oiseinu"), 
and in a negative form Odom Horishon was "Kofar Btova" Rashi Breishis 3:12, 
(from AZ 5).

And that it is an Ikkar in Avodas Hashem is understood from the Mitzvah of 
BIkkurim, see Rashi Dvorim 26:3 from the Sifri.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

RJB writes:

>  > See also the lashon of the Tosafot haRosh (Ketuvot 52a): "she'rov
>  > nashim yesh lahen levura she'memaharot lamut yoter min ha'ish".
>  > It's also in the Shitta Mikubetzet there as well. The Rambam
>  > (Peyrush hamishnayot Niddah 5:6 d"h bat achat esrei shana, uses
>  > the lashon: "ush
>  > "ushnei hanekeiva l'onat nedarim pachot mi'shnei hazachar lihyot
>  > chayeihen ketzarim mi'chayei ha'ish barov".
>  >
>  > But Joel is right: I also didn't find it anywhere in the Yerushalmi !

RYGB writes:
> It certainly is in the Y-mi, as I remember teaching it recently, which means
>  it is in Yevamos, Kesuvos, Sotah or Nedarim. If I can recall more, I will
>  let you know!
>  

In Reshimos # 104 there is letter which the L. Rebbe wrote to the Ragitchover 
WRT the Rambam in Niddah, and the answer of the Ragitchover.  While he brings 
the Tosfos in Ksubos 52 he doesn't bring any Yerushalmi, among the many Marei 
Mkomos he brings is Tos. Ksubos 83b D"H Missa Shchicha (BTW the RaShaSh is 
also Mitzayein to that Tos.), however from his explanation it doesn't seem 
that he holds that that is the Taam Horambam, rather an agregate of their 
life span.

If anyone is interested in the entire Reshima drop me a private e-mail and a 
fax # or address.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

 

RYGB wrote:

>When you use an ambiguous term like "Tzibbur", you are tempting fate. The
>definition of tzibbur vis a vis minhagim is one thing, and I believe that
>it is a real defintion, and that is whay Sefaradim can eat kitniyos on
>Pesach and cannot eat our "Glatt", can marry multiple wives but cannot use
>most eruvin, etc. This is the definition of an "Edah", as in "Eidot
>ha'Mizrach" or "Eida Charedis".

>You are using "Tzibbur" not as I was, as "Edah", but more as "Umma". There
>is, of course, one Umma Ha'Yisraelis, for which every Edah must share
>concerns. And, an immediate Tzoro to a fellow Jew or, certainly, the Umma
>Kulla, would require all members thereof to jump to the nation's
>assistance. But, in this case, you are arguing that the siren call is a
>manifestation of minhag that transcends distinctions of Edah and becomes a
>matter of Umma. You need ra'ayos.

I am sorry if I misunderstood your statement.  However, this discussion
comes from my using the rambam of "poresh midarche tzibbur".  I would assume
that the natural definition of "zibbur" in this context is what you call
"umma", as it is in the rambam directly related to the response to a zara.
I start from the supposition that the threat to millions of Jews is real (a
zara), and the majority of Jews living in Israel have decreed a certain
response.  This seems clearly analogous to the rambam's use of tzibbur.

If, in a town which has several different edot, which is confronted by a
common enemy, the vast majority of the town decrees a certain response to
the za'ar, (say a ta'anit), would one edah (which is in the minority) have
the right to say that it is separate, and therefore would not follow that
new ta'anit?  The notion of the zibbur in the rambam's "poresh midarche
tzibbur" clearly extends beyond the minhagic community.

Meir Shinnar

> Carl M. Sherer wrote: Subject: Re: Hacarat hatov
> 
> ..Even before Moshe Rabbeinu, you could look at Leah ("HaPaam
> odeh es Hashem" when she named Yehuda)...

I once heard a nice pshat on that (I think from
the Maharam Schick zt''l)

Upon the birth of her 4th son, Leah was so grateful to Hashem, 
that she felt that to thank Him only once was simply not enough.
She said: "Hapaam (only once?) Odeh es Hashem??" 
- Vatikro Sh'mo Yehuda, she therefore named him "Yehuda" - 
meaning "thanks" ('Todah')... 
So EVERY time she mentioned his name - Yehuda - she was 
thanking Hashem...

SHLOMO B ABELES

On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:27:53PM -0400, R' Yitzchok Zlochower wrote to
Areivim:
: The use of the talmudic expression "Esav soneh leYa'akov" as some kind
: of support for the idea that the Gentile world hates us is a canard.
: The full statement of R' Shimon bar Yochai that is brought by Rashi in
: Vayishlach is, "Halacha he beyaduah sh'Esav soneh leYa'akov, elah
: shebechan nichmiru rachamav venashko bechol lebo" ... Somehow, this
: assessment of the emotional state of two brothers ...

As we're now arguing the text of a Sifri as quoted by Rashi, I'm moving it
to Avodah.

WADR, it's hard to see "halachah he beyadu'a" to mean a rule of thumb for
the behavior of Esav the individual. There are two statements of certainty
there: it's both "halachah", and a well known one. Not something of such
reduced applicability. The introductory clause wouldn't be there. OTOH,
remember who RSbY spent a good chunk of his life hiding from.

OTOH, it would be odd to speak of Esav and Yaakov and not of Edom and Yisrael
if he was quoting a well known truism about the occupying nation.

So, I'm not willing to commit either way.

Second, note that RSbY's conclusion supports an idea I suggested -- that while
Esav sonei liYa'akov, he is still capable of acts of pure, uncompromised,
love. That the statement is existential, not behavioral.

Somewhat tangentially, I know of two definitions of the word "halachah": "law"
and "deduction". The conclusion of a kal vachomer is often called "halachah",
in the second sense. Similarly, "hilkach" is pretty consistently "therefore".

So, unless I missed a third usage, RSbY is saying "it is a well-known
deduction".

Also, isn't it odd to say "sonei li-" as opposed to "sonei es"?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-May-00: Levi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:28:54AM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
: That still gives us some 650 years before Pesach starts prior to the
: Spring equinox.

Actually, prior to the tekufah, the Julian calendar's approximation of the
equinox. Pesach is actually sliding toward the summer solstice. The Jewish
calendar estimates a year closer than the Julian does, even if we use
Julian tekufos as part of the algorythm.

I might point out that Purim was in the spring as far back as 1267 (when
it would have been 3/21 on the Gregorian calendar had it been used yet). So
evidently Pesach need not be around the first full moon of spring. As RYGB
wrote. I still don't understand, though, why Nissan's name is "Aviv" if it
is not always the first spring month. Iyar is also always in spring.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-May-00: Levi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:28:54AM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
: That still gives us some 650 years before Pesach starts prior to the
: Spring equinox.

Actually, prior to the tekufah, the Julian calendar's approximation of the
equinox. Pesach is actually sliding toward the summer solstice. The Jewish
calendar estimates a year closer than the Julian does, even if we use
Julian tekufos as part of the algorythm.

I might point out that Purim was in the spring as far back as 1267 (when
it would have been 3/21 on the Gregorian calendar had it been used yet). So
evidently Pesach need not be around the first full moon of spring. As RYGB
wrote. I still don't understand, though, why Nissan's name is "Aviv" if it
is not always the first spring month.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-May-00: Levi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

> From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>

> When different minhagim started being accepted in the same city, initially
> under the influence of gerush sefarad and then later, under the influence of
> hassidut, there was a tremendous concern of lo titgodedu and prisha midarche
> tzibbur.It was accepted (grudgingly) that having separate minhagim did not
> constitute prisha min hatzibbur, 

Meir is hitting the nail on the head.

> From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

> You are using "Tzibbur" not as I was, as "Edah", but more as "Umma". There
> is, of course, one Umma Ha'Yisraelis, for which every Edah must share
> concerns. And, an immediate Tzoro to a fellow Jew or, certainly, the Umma
> Kulla, would require all members thereof to jump to the nation's assistance.
> But, in this case, you are arguing that the siren call is a manifestation of
> minhag that transcends distinctions of Edah and becomes a matter of Umma.
> You need ra'ayos.

Use of Tzibbur, Edah and Umma are definable terms which when used
incorrectly leads to semantic deficiency. Most people would put these
terms in a hierachical order: Am->Edah->Tzibbur. However a closer look at
reality would appear to have the order: Am->Tzibbur->Edah. In other words
the Umma Hayisraelis has thousands of congregations/communities around the
world, and in most big cities certainly more than one. 

Due to the post WWII after effects and of the current ease of relocation,
kibbutz galuyoth is rampant in most congregations. Thus the general/modern
orthodox shuls in Israel, Europe and the US, do have sphardim and
askenazim sitting side by side.

Amongst the Chareidishe communities, the trend is going back to the
perceived order of Am->Edah->Tzibbur. Members of a minority Edah inside a
particular congregation do try to establish their own congregation either
as a seperate entity or as a sub-congregation of the original.

Daniel

>I believe that RYBS posed the following question - if all tov comes from 
>HKBH, why do we thank the "messenger" rather than just HKB"H directly? 
>Answer- if we don't train ourselves to say thanks to the messenger we'll not 
>say thanks to HKBH. 
>
>Thus hakarat hatov seems a basic element of our avodat hashem.

Can't one also make an argument that is part of Kedoshim Tih'yu or the
combination of that with "v'Asita haTov vehaYashar b'Einei Hashem" (and you
shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of HaShem)?  This, as I
understand it is an application of Ramban's view of the two: as we are
ethically restricted in that which is permitted by Kedoshim Tih'yu, so we
are ethically motivated to go beyond the letter of the law by "v'Asita
haTov veaYashar b'Einei Hashem".

As R. Yitz EtShalom, in this week's Mikra (from Project Genesis),
translates Ramban on this pasuk:

"Now this ["v'Asita haTov veaYashar b'Einei Hashem"] is a great principle,
for it is impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of man's conduct
with his neighbors and friends, and all his various transactions, and the
ordinances of all societies and countries. But since He mentioned many of
them...he reverted to state in a general way that, in all matters, one
should do what is good and right, including even compromise and going
beyond the letter of the law...thus a person must seek to refine his
behavior in every form of activity, until he is worthy of being called
'good and upright'."

Doesn't it seem hakarat hatov would be part-and-parcel of what Ramban's
talking about?

-- Eric

Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:13:49 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re:

st separate meat and milk even WRT hana'ah,
why does the Torah talk only about cooking, goats, and their own mother's milk?
Why is the esrog described, but not named? Why is the Avodah for Y"K not


- -mi<<

this one's a softball.  I believe it is the Rambam who posits that cooking kids 
in its Mom's milk was an ancient pagan ritual - and iirc it has been confirmed 
by arachaeology.  Whether Rambam had a mesora or was inutivie if a nohter 
thread.

the point is that the Torah shbichsav was decrying the pgan ritual.  The Torah 
shbaal peh - as per usual - fleshed out the prgamatic APPLICATION of the 
anti-paganistic concept.  OK, so this case it is not a pyscholigcal 
visualization at work, rather it is a hirotical admonition to refrain from 
Maaseh eretz knaan on one level AND to seapre mildk from meat on an entirely 
otehr leve.

Also milk/meat is one of the very few places wehre Onkleos spells out literally 
do not eat meat in milk (ayein sham).

The point is that the Torah Shbichsav is operation on a different level - a 
machshovo level which can be pyscholigical or literay etc. - while the TSBP, and
expecialy medsrahs halachah- is about implement the concept into practice.

Think of the written Torah as conceptual and the medrash halacha as halacha 
pesuka like an early version of the Tur or SA or KSA.

Rich wolpoe

In a message dated 5/18/00 7:23:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

With it being transfered here, I hope my post will not be taken out of 
context.

>  
>  WADR, it's hard to see "halachah he beyadu'a" to mean a rule of thumb for
>  the behavior of Esav the individual. There are two statements of certainty
>  there: it's both "halachah", and a well known one. Not something of such
>  reduced applicability. The introductory clause wouldn't be there. OTOH,
>  remember who RSbY spent a good chunk of his life hiding from.
>  
>  OTOH, it would be odd to speak of Esav and Yaakov and not of Edom and 
> Yisrael
>  if he was quoting a well known truism about the occupying nation.
>  
>  So, I'm not willing to commit either way.

While in it's narrow context it may be limited to Esov and Yaakov not the 
nation, Betzem the Sinoh was allready there before birth and continues thru 
the generations, see Rashi Ramban and other Mforshim on Vayisrotzatzu 
Habonim...ULoim MIloim Ye'emotz (begining of Parshas Toldos), this is also 
included in "V'haya KAsher Torid" (Breishis 27:40), and see begining of the 
Novee Malochi (which is olso the Haftorah of Toldos) "Och Esov Lyaakov..." 
which refers to the times of the Guloh.

>  
>  Second, note that RSbY's conclusion supports an idea I suggested -- that 
> while
>  Esav sonei liYa'akov, he is still capable of acts of pure, uncompromised,
>  love. That the statement is existential, not behavioral.

However as a Yotzei Min Hakllal, and that if the word was not Mnukod, we 
would assume that it was not real, or like the Pirkei DR"E says that it means 
that the reading is Vayishokehu with a Cuhf meaning he intended to bite him.

>  
>  Somewhat tangentially, I know of two definitions of the word "halachah": "
> law"
>  and "deduction". The conclusion of a kal vachomer is often called 
"halachah",
> 
>  in the second sense. Similarly, "hilkach" is pretty consistently 
"therefore".
> 
>  
>  So, unless I missed a third usage, RSbY is saying "it is a well-known
>  deduction".

The Ntziv on the Sifri Teitchs it Halacha = Gmiri = tradition.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>If you read the Rambam's Eighth :: Principle in the 
original in perek Chelek, ...he holds that God 
transmitted to Moshe a series of precise images,
descriptions of which were written down by Moshe.<<<

The Rambam writes that Moshe transcribed 'like a sofer
writing every word said to him'.  I'm not quite sure 
how you read this to mean transmission of images rather
than dictation of words.  

Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:09:17 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: Hacarat hatov

<<Even before Moshe Rabbeinu, you could look at Leah ("HaPaam 
odeh es Hashem" when she named Yehuda), Avraham (when he 
insisted that Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei get their portions after the 
war of the kings - maybe the first recorded instance in which a 
human gave thanks to another human), Noach (korbanos after the 
mabul) and Hevel (korbanos - implicitly at least a korban toda?).>>

	The earliest instance is actually the opposite.  Adam Harishon said
"haisha asher nasata imadi" and blamed her for everything.  Rashi
comments there that he was kafuy tova.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 5/17/00 7:50:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Yzkd@aol.com 
writes:

<< WRT Odom Horishin the Midrash says that on the day of his creation he 
 gathered all creations and said "Boiu Nishtachaveh...Lifnei Hashem 
Oiseinu"), 
 and in a negative form Odom Horishon was "Kofar Btova" Rashi Breishis 3:12, 
 (from AZ 5). >>

Yitzchak,
Could you explain this idea a little more fully?

Jordan Hirsch

In a message dated 5/18/00 7:23:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< WADR, it's hard to see "halachah he beyadu'a" to mean a rule of thumb for
 the behavior of Esav the individual. There are two statements of certainty
 there: it's both "halachah", and a well known one. Not something of such
 reduced applicability. The introductory clause wouldn't be there. OTOH,
 remember who RSbY spent a good chunk of his life hiding from. >>


Would that this was so, would it not make sense to apply this concept only to 
those direct descendants of Eisav, as opposed to Goyim in general?


Jordan

On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 04:06:58PM -0400, TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:
: Would that this was so, would it not make sense to apply this concept only to 
: those direct descendants of Eisav, as opposed to Goyim in general?

I took it as a statement about Edom in terms of galus Edom. If we are to
consider this as the same galus as the Roman conquest, then we need to assume
a lineage from Rome to Western Civilization.

I have no basis, I didn't even consciously decide that stance. It was what
my head came up with as I read the text. So, perhaps you are right.


I should point out that not only to RaShbY need to hide from Edom, remember
why he hid -- because he said that anything good they did for Israel they did
for their own purposes. He certainly held that the Edom of his day had no
love for Yaakov.


-mi

There is an interesting Netziv last week's parsha that the words 'b'etzem hayom
hazeh' (23:21) by Shavous tell us that there is no din of tosefes Y"T by that
chag - that's why we have to wait till nightfall for ma'ariv. MG"A writes
that waiting is because sefirah requires temimus, but Netziv argues that if
that were true you should have to wait every night. Perhaps temimus means the
whole count of 50 days has to be shaleim - when you go from day 1 to day 2,
its true you are ending day 1 early, but day 2 of sefirah begins right away,
but on day 49 when there is no follow up day davening early means cutting the
count as a whole short. Nafka minah: if temimus is a din in the count of each
night then you should be mechuyav to count at the earliest possible moment.
Would this perhaps override saying keriyas shema first m'din tadir kodem?
B'pashtus tosefes doesn't mean you have ended the day early, as the Netziv
seems to assume, but that you have been mekadesh part of the day wwith
kedushas Y"T - e.g. a kohein who is a tvul yom couldn't eat terumah even if
he was mekabel Shabbos early.

Tos. in Menachos holds that you can count sefirah during bein hashemashos
because sefirah is derabbanan and sefeika derabbanan l'kula. Sounds like Tos.
assumes one is permitted l'chatchila to be machnis oneself into a situation of
safek? - the RZ"H and Ramban in Shabbos discuss whether you can put yourself
in a makom ones l'chatchila (leaving on a boat trip within 3 days of Shabbos),
though maybe you can be mechalek between safek derabbanan and ones.

One other thought: perhaps the minhag cited by M.B. of women not saying
a beracha on sefirah is based on women not saying a beracha on a mitzvas
aseh she-hazeman gerama which is mekuyam only through dibbur, see the Tav
by havdalah, also perhaps kiddush levanah would be an example.

-Chaim B.

In a message dated 5/18/00 5:11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, C1A1Brown writes:

> There is an interesting Netziv last week's parsha that
>  the words 'b'etzem hayom hazeh' (23:21) by Shavous tell
>  us that there is no din of tosefes Y"T by that chag - 
>  that's why we have to wait till nightfall for ma'ariv.

See S"A Horav  489:12 that Tosfos Shabbos would not help to count earlier 
then Bein Hashmoshos, and see S"A Horav 608:1.

>  MG"A writes that waiting is because sefirah requires 
>  temimus, but Netziv argues that if that were true you 
>  should have to wait every night.  Perhaps temimus means
>  the whole count of 50 days has to be shaleim - when you go from day 1 to 
day 
> 2, its true you are ending day 1 
>  early, but day 2 of sefirah begins right away, but on 
>  day 49 when there is no follow up day davening early 
>  means cutting the count as a whole short.

See S"A Horav 489:23, Temimois refers to all days together.

>  Nafka minah:
>  if temimus is a din in the count of each night then you
>  should be mechuyav to count at the earliest possible 
>  moment.  Would this perhaps override saying keriyas 
>  shema first m'din tadir kodem?

See S"A Horav (ibid 3) that the Sfira involves the day in order that it 
should be Tmimois we have to count prior to day, while it is a Mitzvah Min 
Hamuvchar to do early it doesn't override Tadir of Maariv (ibid 16).

    B'pashtus tosefes 
>  doesn't mean you have ended the day early, as the 
>  Netziv seems to assume, but that you have been mekadesh
>  part of the day wwith kedushas Y"T - e.g. a kohein who
>  is a tvul yom couldn't eat terumah even if he was 
>  mekabel Shabbos early.  
>  
>  Tos. in Menachos holds that you can count sefirah 
>  during bein hashemashos because sefirah is derabbanan 
>  and sefeika derabbanan l'kula.  Sounds like Tos. 
>  assumes one is permitted l'chatchila to be machnis
>  oneself into a situation of safek? -

Yes! see S"A Horav (ibid) 12.

> the RZ"H and Ramban
>  in Shabbos discuss whether you can put yourself in a 
>  makom ones l'chatchila (leaving on a boat trip within 3
>  days of Shabbos), though maybe you can be mechalek 
>  between safek derabbanan and ones.

Among the Chilukim, the Sofeik of Bein Hashmoshos is a true Sofeik, the 
Sofeik Ones is Oimeid Lhisbareir not a true Chisoron Yedia on that we use the 
Loshon in Y"D Daas Shotim Einoh Daas.

>  
>  One other thought: perhaps the minhag cited by M.B. of
>  women not saying a beracha on sefirah is based on women not saying a 
beracha 
> on a mitzvas aseh she-hazeman 
>  gerama which is mekuyam only through dibbur, see the 
>  Tav by havdalah, also perhaps kiddush levanah would 
>  be an example.
>  
The Taz 296:7 doesn't define the point of "dibbur" and see S"A Horav there 
Kuntres Achron (3), and 106:2.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]