Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 048

Monday, May 22 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 22:22:09 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Re: Halacha beyadua

Just to add to the mekoros R' Y. Zirkind already posted, see the Derashos 
haRan second derush based on Malachi 1:2.  It is noteworthy that R' Kook 
cited the GR"A on that pasuk in Malachi '...V'es Eisav saneisi' that 
es=hatafel l'Eisav (as the word es is frequently darshened by Chazal), but 
the essence of Eisav is rooted in kodesh as well.  R' Kook elsewhere wrote: 
"Ani ohev et hakol; aini yachol shelo le'ehov et habrioyt, et kol ha'amim."   
It is interesting that the lashon HaMidrash is 'Eisav soneh Ya'akov' - no 
explicit mention is made of what our feelings toward Eisav should be in 

-Chaim B.

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 17:41:04 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Aveilus and Omer

In the past, I've suggested here three reasons for aveilus during the omer:
1- It's the one time that had a special avodah that does not have a chiyuv
   of simchah. Therefore, this is the one special korbon we can express the
   loss of.
2- Talmidei R' Akivah. Who, we should note, did not show proper kavod zeh lazeh
   a mere generation after such attitdues lost us bayis sheini. And these would
   have been our next leaders!
3- The losses of the crusades during the second half of Iyar.

The following article from the United Syangogue of London's Daf Hashavua
(distributed by our chaveir Rafael Salasnik over BriJNet) suggests a fourth
reason -Ta"ch viTa"t.


: Events Recalled
: Rev Bernd Koschland

: Currently we are in the season of counting the Omer, of which the 33rd day
: occurs this Tuesday (23 May) and, according to the Sidrah, the 49-year
: cycle to the Jubilee Year. The latter counting differs from the Omer in
: two ways: the yearly cycle is only counted by the Great Beth Din and there
: is no berachah. The Sidrah also highlights the words 'days'. By extension,
: when we 'count' our lives -- 'Teach us to number our days...' (Psalm 90:12)
: - every day is important. When we count, when we relate our history ('count'
: and 'relate' come from the same root in Hebrew as in English, 'count' and
: 'recount'!), every day, every event must be recalled.

: Thus the Omer is a period when virtually every day has a special significance
: for us. Through the centuries it has been a period of tragic occurrences. The
: seventeenth century saw the decimation of Polish Jewry, in the years known
: by their Hebrew numerical acronym Ta'ch and Ta't (409/9 1648/9) at the hands
: of Bogdan Chmielnicki and his hordes. So came to an end the 'golden epoch'
: of Polish Jewry which had produced great Torah scholarship.

: The oppression of the Ukranian peasants by the Polish nobility culminated
: in the sweeping revolt of Chmielnicki. The Jews were between the opposing
: sides, as they practised a religion alien to the Catholic Poles and the
: Greek Orthodox Ukrainians as well as being agents for Polish landlords.
: Though others also suffered, the slaughter of Jews is estimated between
: 100,000 and 500,000. Descriptions of the horrific events have survived.
: 'There was no cruel device of murder (or torture) in the whole world that was
: not perpetrated by the enemy'. The Mishnah commentator, Yom Tov Lipman Heller
: (1579-1654) composed Kinot (elegies) recalling the events. It was decreed,
: that from Lag B'omer 1650 to Lag B'omer 1653 no fine clothes may be worn,
: nor musical instruments be played in 1650. A special fast with Selichot
: was ordained for 20th Sivan to commemorate the massacres, a date which once
: commemorated the pogroms of the First Crusade (1096).

: Whilst contemporary accounts thought Polish Jewry would not recover, as
: the years passed by, the communities revived until the Holocaust put an end
: to them.

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:17:25 +1000
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Sholom Aleichem

Further to the topic of "Sholom Aleichem-Aleichem Sholom" (as
well as the subject of greeting ones neighbors), I heard a nice vort
from our Rov today in the name of the previous
Belzer Rov, Rav Yissochor Dov zt'l.

Q. Why the change of nussach, with the first person saying "SA" and the
second replying "AS"?

He answers with the Gemoro that states that when is being "menader'' a
korban one should say "Korban L'Hashem" and not "L'Hashem Korban",
because he might die immediately after saying "L'Hashem" (before saying
"Korban") and he would have then said Shem Shomayim L'Vatolo.

Similarly (says the BR), "Sholom" being a name of HKBH should also not be
said in vain. L'choireh, therefore, one should have the same concern (of dying
after the first word)  when saying "SA".
However, the Gemoro states that the reward for initiating the greeting
- being Makdim Sholom - is Arichas Yomim (long life), therefore he has
a guarantee that he will live to complete the greeting "Sholom Aleichem".

However the responder does not have the same guarantee (as he was
not MAKDIM Sholom) so he cannot respond with "SA" - as he still has
the risk of dying after the first word), and must therefore say "AS".

Further to this, in the zemiros motzoei Shabbos we say about Eliyohu
Hanovi - "Ashrei Mi Shenosan Lo Sholom V'hechzir Lo Sholom" - EH
- also RESPONDS with "Sholom (Aleichem)" - because he, EH. lives forever,
and doesn't have the risk of dying (after saying Sholom...)

...And (addendum from SBA) as the Torah says by Pinchas
(= zeh Eliyohu)  "..hinneni nosen lo es bris *Sholom*.."


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:55:58 +1000
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Halacha beyadua

> Gershon Dubin wrote:        Subject: Halacha beyadua
> << 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?>>
>         Goyim include,  in addition to descendants of Esav,  descendants of
> Yishmael and of Chom.  I don't think that their love for us,  practically
> as opposed to halachically (halacha beyadua) is that much greater than
> bnei Esav.
I have tried to research thE saying "Halacha beyodua"
and the only place I found it was Rashi in Vayishlach
and his source the Sifri.

I have doubts  on how "halachik" this halacha really is.
(It's not brought in Shulchan Oruch).

In fact there is a second girsa "*Haloh* Yodua" rather
than "Halacha",  which would confirm that
there is no such a halacha...


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:09:19 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Sholom Aleichem

On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:17:25PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: ...And (addendum from SBA) as the Torah says by Pinchas
: (= zeh Eliyohu)  "..hinneni nosen lo es bris *Sholom*.."

Peenichas did die, though. Otherwise he couldn't be migalgeil.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 12:45:43 +0300
From: "Kira Sirote" <kira@sirote.net>

I would like to ask a serious question.

What would need to happen before the Sanhedrin can be reestablished?

Please don't answer Mashiach; for argument's sake let's go with the Rambam's
approach of a natural redemption, and establishing the Sanhedrin is not on
his list of Mashiach's responsibilities.

I know that one thing that has to happen is that the majority of Jews have
to live in Israel.  What else?


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:15:10 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
eisav soneh yaakov

> << 
>  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.
>   >>
On the other hand R. Yehuda and R. Yose disagreed and we pasken like them
over R. Shimon.

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 09:36:25 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: eisav soneh yaakov

On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 05:15:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> 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.

: On the other hand R. Yehuda and R. Yose disagreed and we pasken like them
: over R. Shimon.

I didn't know this was a matter of p'sak halachah.

Either way, the Rashi is quoting RaShbY, so I would want to explain the
quote lishitaso.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 09:42:04 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Re: Taz on Milah

As promised, I had planned to post a summary of R. Dovid Cohen's essay (in his 
book Gevul Yabetz pp. 70-111) on the famous sevara of the Taz that Chazal cannot
forbid anything that the Torah expressly permits.  However, after seeing his 
essay I realize that it is not summarizable(?).  After a long introduction, RDC 
has 90+ short discussions of different sugyos that either prove or can be 
understood based on the Taz's sevara.  He also addresses and tries to answer 
many kashyas.  Instead of summarizing it, I'll present some kelalim he derives, 
some acharonim who discuss the issue (at length), and many mareh mekomos that 
either prove, disprove, or can be understood based on the Taz's sevara.

But first, a vort on last week's parsha.

Rashi (VaYikra 25:9) quotes the Sifra that explains the redundancy regarding the
shofar of yovel of "be'asor lachodesh beyom hakipurim" as coming to teach us 
that even on Shabbos we blow the shofar.  The velt asks that blowing a shofar on
Shabbos is only forbidden miderabanan so why would the Torah need to expressly 
permit it?  I thought that based on the Taz's sevara we can say that the Torah 
was coming to teach us that Chazal have no power to forbid it.

*Three important kelalim*

1) Only halachahs that are mefurash in the Torah or based on a mesorah cannot be
forbidden.  Those that are learned through the 13 midos can be (p. 74).

2) When there is an asmachta to forbid then Chazal can (p. 76).

3) If the Torah only mentions something in a narrative Chazal can forbid it (see
Pardes Yosef, Shemos 35:3 sv beram).

*Some acharonim who discuss this topic*

Sedei Chemed ma'areches y"ud 17-27
Shu"t Toras Chesed O"C 11
Minchas Elazar vol. I 62
Pri Megadim pesichah kolleles 1:16
Shu"t Chasam Sofer Y"D 109, end of 73, vol. 6 52

*Mareh mekomos that either prove or can be explained by this sevara*

Sotah 7a - maclokes R. Yehudah and chachamim Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 (top of 2a)
Meiri, Megillah 4a sv veyeish metartzim Tosafos, Bava Metzia 64b sv velo
Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, Pesachim 23b sv iy hachi Tosafos, Chagigah 18a sv cholo
Tosafos, Bechoros 46a sv nisgayerah
Sefer HaChinuch, 163
Tosafos, Chullin 8b sv lo
Darchei Teshuvah 113:14 in the name of Sha'arei Deah Mishnah Berurah, Sha'ar 
HaTzion 629:21

*Mareh mekomos that disagree with or disprove the sevara*

Tosafos, Yoma 13b sv hayah
Kiddushin 5a - arusah bas Yisrael
Tosafos, Zevachim 32a sv uvatemei'im Chavos Yair 142
Aruch HaShulchan Y"D 117:1
Panim Meiros, Zevachim 74b
Pischei Teshuvah Y"D 117:3
Darchei Teshuvah 117:14 in the name of Shemen Rokeach

This is only the tip of the iceberg.  RD Cohen discusses much, much more.  His 
book was published in 1986 by Mesorah Publications.

Gil Student

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 >