Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 081

Wednesday, August 1 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:13:00 +0300
From: "Daniel Schiffman" <schiffd@mail.biu.ac.il>
Re: Rabbenu Gershom's Rebbe

According to Prof. Avraham Grossman (whom R. Gil mentioned), Rabbenu Yehuda
(Leontin) Hacohen was Rabbenu Gershom's Rebbe.  Only three Halachot that he
taught are known to us.  IIRC, one of these three is that hespedim are
permitted on Chanuka/Purim for a chacham if the niftar is present

Daniel Schiffman

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:32:07 -0400
From: "David Glasner" <DGLASNER@ftc.gov>
Re: Dor Revi'i on va-ethanan el ha-Sheim ba-eit ha-hu (or how prayer works)

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website

va-ethanan el ha-Sheim ba-eit ha-hi: Rashi comments:
    All forms of the verb "hinun" (beseeching) signify a gratuitous gift.

In the Midrash (Deuternonomy Rabbah 2) it is written
    R. Yohanan said there are ten words that describe prayer. . . .
    But from all of these, Moshe only prayed using the term "beseeching,"
    as it is written "and I besought" (va-ethanan). R. Yohanan said from
    here one can deduce that a creature has no claim upon his Creator,
    for Moshe, the master of all prophets, approached the Deity using
    the only term "beseeching."

Now this discussion is very obscure, for is it not apparent that the
prophets and seers, the righteous of every generation, poured out their
supplications to the Eternal using a variety of different expressions?
For example: "and Yitzhak entreated the L-rd opposite his wife"
(va-ye'etar yitzhaq l'nokhah ishto) (Genesis 25:21); "and Pinhas stood
up and interposed" (va-ya'amod pinhas va-y'phaleil) (Psalms 106:30);
"and Sh'lomo prayed" (va-yitpaleil sh'lomo) (1 Kings 8:6). And Moshe also
said (Deuteronomy 9:18) "then I lay prostrate before the L-rd" (va-etnapal
li-phnei ha-Sheim). Why did Moshe, just before his death, choose a crafty
expression (l'shon arumim) by which to request a gratuitous gift? And how
obscure in this case are the ways of the Eternal Who became incensed at
Moshe as if he were an adversary and replied harshly (Deuteronomy 3:26):
"Let it suffice you; speak to Me no more of this matter." Was it not
sufficient that He made no response and did not accept Moshe's prayer?
Why did He also pour out His fiery wrath and shout at Moshe in anger?
What was this about and why did this happen? What was the reason for
this great anger?

Now see how our master explained this and enlightened us in a wonderful
manner. For we know that the G-d of the universe remains steadfast
and does not change. And once He has spoken in holiness, He will not
retract his word, "for He is not a man, that He should repent" (lo adam
hu l'hinaheim) (1 Samuel 15:29). And the prayer that someone in distress
utters, pouring out the bitterness of his complaint, even calling out to
high heaven, will not cause the Eternal to change His decision concerning
this person, for His thoughts are not the thoughts of a human being. Any
prayer that a person may direct toward his G-d can, thus, have an effect
in only two ways. If the person is wicked, his prayer may inspire him
to return to the Eternal with all his heart and abandon his evil path,
never again to return to his folly. And if he is righteous, his prayer
may inspire him to increase his devotion to the Torah of the Eternal,
and to continue on the path of righteousness, ascending ever higher and
higher. In either case, the bad that was coming to him may be averted,
and the evil decree may not befall him, for now, having changed himself
into a new person, he is not the man upon whom the original judgment
was rendered.

Now, at the end of his life, Moshe had already reached the pinnacle
He had ascended the ladder that rises to the house of G-d until he had
arrived at the highest level that a human being could ever reach. He had
become like one of the heavenly hosts "whose dwelling is not with flesh"
(di m'darhon im bisra lo itohi) (Daniel 2:11). There was no room for
him to ascend any further. He therefore knew that to pray and to cry
out would be futile and that he would not be heard, because he had no
means by which to avoid the judgment that had been rendered upon him
by saying: "this is not the one, he has become another." For it was not
in his power, having become so great that he was almost like a god, to
elevate his soul any further. Thus, prayer or supplication was futile
"for G-d is not a man that He should lie" (Numbers 23:19).

Moshe therefore went out to confront G-d with a different maneuver and
he beseeched "at that time" (i.e., when he could no longer reach a higher
spiritual level) and he said: "O L-rd, G-d, Thou hast only begun to show
Thy servant Thy greatness, and Thy mighty hand, for who knows as I do
that Thou dost perform wonders and Thy name is great and mighty. If Thy
hand is not shortened, do this deed to change my decree for the better
to show that Thou canst do anything even change Thine earlier decree."
And this was Rashi's comment:
    Thou art unlike a mortal king who has counselors and assessors who
    would prevent him when he wishes to show kindness and to forego what
    is due him.

"But who can tell Thee what to do? And if Thou art G-d, show that Thy
signs are true signs and that Thou hast the power to do anything even
to annul Thine earlier decree. And if not I will know that Thy hand
does not rule over everything and that even Thy deeds are limited and
confined." This was the gratuitous gift that Moshe begged for. He was
asking not for kindness after transforming himself into a new person,
but was asking to be given, as he was "at that time," a gratuitous gift.

However, "great in counsel and mighty in work," (Jeremiah 32:19) the
Ruler, infuriated at the master of the prophets, rebuked him emphatically
for daring to approach the Eternal and to urge Him to change His trait.
And in anger, the Eternal replied to Moshe: "Let it suffice thee; speak
to Me no more of this matter to change My decision, for My thoughts are
not like your thoughts. What have you to do with these secrets of the
Merciful One? Are they not the mysteries of the Master of the Universe,
and how dare you seek to rise up?"

Now all these matters are tightly packed in the Midrash that is quoted
above (which is identical with Rashi's comment that "beseeching" (hinun)
is for a gratuitous gift, but differs from the second explanation of
Rashi): "R. Yohanan said from here one can deduce that a creature has
no claim upon his Creator." This means that one may never pray for a
gratuitous gift, i.e., for the Creator to change His will. "For Moshe,
the master of all prophets, approached the Deity using only the term of
"beseeching," which was a prayer for a gratuitous gift that the Eternal
should change His decree upon Moshe, that he should die in the desert.
The Eternal therefore became incensed at him, and "in overflowing wrath
[He] hid [His] face" (Isaiah 54:8) from Moshe. A person should therefore
only pray to inspire himself to repent, and by repenting he may be cured.

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:43:26 EDT
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
Rav Shimon Schwab z"l re Moshiach and Geulah and nusach Ashkenaz Kaddish thought

I just recently learned a piece in the new Artscroll sefer by Rav Shimon 
Schwab z"l (Rav Schwab on Prayer) that is relevant to the discussion about 
the proper balance re focus on moshiach and geulah and avodas Hashem.

It starts on the bottom of page 186 after 'sivro al Hashem Elokav'.

Rav Schwab cites the piece in shacharis of Shabbos that says 'efes bilticho 
goaleinu liymos hamoshiach' - that even when Moshiach comes, only Hashem will 
be our saviour - not Moshiach! He says that even Moshiach himself will be 
among those who will be saved (citing Zecharia 9:9) !

He then mentions the problem of people focusing excessively on Moshiach which 
can almost eclipse the real purpose of the geulah, that of the revelation of 
Hakodosh boruch hu in this world....

Ayin shom for more....

He also has a masterful piece on ' waiting for Moshiach' which appears as the 
first essay in 'Selected Speeches' (CIS publications).

This discussion also brought a new thought to my mind - that the danger of 
excessive focus on / obsession with Moshiach may be another (or part of the) 
reason why nusach Ashkenaz doesn't say ' viyatzmach purqanei... in kaddish 
(of course, perhaps the ikkar, related reason for this is, as the Oruch 
Hashulchan says [or alludes to], because since the whole idea of Moshiach is 
to bring / establish the rule / kingdom of HKB"H on earth, so once we say 
'Viyamlich malchusei' [asking that Hashem's kingdom should rule on earth], 
the idea of Moshiach is already included, and there is no need to make an 
additional specific mention of it).

Also, I think that the singing of 'We want Moshiach now' (WWMN) is also 
something that should be examined - especially the versions which include - 
'and we don't wannna wait'.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:03:22 -0400
From: "Stuart Goldstein" <stugolden@hotmail.com>
Re: Rav Shimon Schwab z"l on Tefilah

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:43:26 Phyllostac wrote:
<I just recently learned a piece in the new Artscroll sefer by Rav Shimon 
Schwab z"l (Rav Schwab on Prayer) ......... >

I also saw the book this past Shabbos and from a few minutes perusal,
noticed something that surprised me a little. At the end of his
discussion of the bracha of Bareich Aleinu, he says that if anyone
has personal requests to make regarding Parnasah etc.., he should make
them just prior to saying Baruch Atah Hashem Mevarech HaShanim. I always
understood that one must put personal requests further back in the bracha
so that one ends it off (prior to Baruch Atah) with something Ma-Ay'n
HaChatimah. ArtScroll in fact, states some sort of Nusach in Refa-Einu
for personal Refuah requests and inserts it before Ki Kail Melech Rofeh
Neeman ... Any thoughts ?

Stuart Goldstein

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:59:55 -0400
From: "yosef stern" <avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com>

Eli Linas writes:
>But check out the story in the introduction to the Bostoner Rebbe's book,
>"And the Angels Laughed," where, as I recall (read it a few years ago) he
>says he checked with some astronomers, and they said that from the
>scientific pov, nightfall corresponds with shitas RT

According to astronomy there are 3 'end of twilight's': at 6, 12 and 18
degrees respectively. The 6 deg. agrees fully with Shitas Hageonim. Shitas
RT if you calculate it according to degrees its either 16.1 deg. or 19.8
deg. neither of them concurring with astronomy. And if you calculate it
according to xx minutes after sunset, it definitely doesn't agree with

kol tuv
yosef stern

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:04:02 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Kamtza and Bar Kamtza

Joel Rich wrote:
>I came across a somewhat different version of this story in eicha rabbah.

Yasher koach for pointing this out. For those looking for it, it is in
Eicha Rabbah 4:3.

The way the story is told there, R. Zechariah ben Avkulus only comes
into play at the part, being unsure whether or not to give tochachah.
When the korban with a mum is brought from the emperor (or proconsul),
RZbA is not involved. Rather, one of the kohanim notices the mum and
tries to switch animals overnight. The Romans, being on the lookout for
something like this, notice the switch and...

This might give a better explanation of why RZbA is called an "anav".
In the gemara's context, it seems odd and much Torah has been said trying
to explain it. According to the midrash, he was too much of an anav to
give tochachah (presumably because he did not think he could do it well
enough) which led to the whole episode. If only he had said, "Be a mentsch
and let him stay." perhaps things would have turned out differently.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:17:20 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Re: mitzva kiyumis again

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> I very much like the chilluk, but am unsure as to the "sachar"
> implications. If the mattir is done l'shem shomayim, and, to use the
> kabbalistic model, is ma'leh nitzotzos, why no sachar?

See Tshuvoth Tashbetz I:140 for a compelling midrashic source (though
not an explanation).

David Riceman

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:24:18 -0400
From: Stuart Klagsbrun <SKlagsbrun@agtnet.com>
Responsibilities to Adopted Children

What are the responsibilities (halachicly) of an adult who adopts a child?

Just a few of the questions which come to mind:

Can a bais din in the case of divorce order the divorcing husband to pay
to support children he and his wife had adopted together? Does he still have
a chiyuv of chinuch? If she re-marries, does he have parental rights which take
priority over the step-father who is raising the child? Can one parent simply 
walk away from the relationship to the child when the marriage terminates?

Does one say kaddish, or sit shiva, lo alainu, for an adopted child?
Is a man m'chuyav to teach his adopted son a job skill?

What are the earliest sources for shailos regarding comparable cases?
I doubt there was a concept of formal adoption in the times of the gemara,
but there must have been people who took in yisomim. Did other cultures 
have the concept of adoption? It seems unlikely that the Greeks or Romans
did, but apparantly the Mitzri'im did have the idea. 

Any thoughts? 

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:45:26 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Responsibilities to Adopted Children

On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 11:24:18AM -0400, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
: Can a bais din in the case of divorce order the divorcing husband to pay
: to support children he and his wife had adopted together? Does he still have
: a chiyuv of chinuch?

The following is based on discussions with our poskim at the time of
adoption. Not primary sources.

If the child is a geir katan, then they both were appointed by the beis
din who did the geirus to be apotropusin for chinuch. The obligation on
the mother ends up stronger than if the child was born to her! But in
either case, I would opine that his appointment doesn't end just because
the marriage does.

If the child was born Jewish, then I don't think the family has any
halachic obligations to him that any other family doesn't share. They
may be the ones within the community actually providing for the child
including chinuch, but it's the community's chiyuv. I'm not sure how B"D
can force him to be the particular ba'al tzedakah. However, because of
their relationship, he may be effectively more obligated because he's the
most member of the kehillah who could most effectively assume the role.

: Does one say kaddish, or sit shiva, lo alainu, for an adopted child?

It is not considered an ayin hara to do so, but there is no chiyuv.

: Is a man m'chuyav to teach his adopted son a job skill?

Same as for chinuch: For a geir katan, he was formally appointed to
that task by beis din. For a born Jewish adoptee, I don't think his
technical chiyuv is more extreme than anyone else's -- but who else is
better placed to do so.

: I doubt there was a concept of formal adoption in the times of the gemara,
: but there must have been people who took in yisomim. Did other cultures 
: have the concept of adoption? It seems unlikely that the Greeks or Romans
: did, but apparantly the Mitzri'im did have the idea. 

There was such an idea in Avraham's Aram Naharaim. Hertz notes that
legal adoption of a ben bayis for the purposes of including them as
inheritors was mentioned by Hamurabi. As was the notion of adopting a
child-in-law so that she too could inherit. Based on the latter, Hertz
suggested that if Terach really approved of her, Sarah could well have
been Avraham's legal sister. "Imri na achosi at."

(The Caesars did adopt children. But that's getting off topic.)


Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905            - R' Zelig Pliskin, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:16:27 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Beis She'an

Isn't Beis She'an outside of halachic Israel?  In Chullin 6b-7a, Rebbe 
permitted Beis She'an with regard to not requiring terumos and ma'asros to 
be taken.

Is this the same Beis She'an?  Are there different boundaries with regard to 
terumos and ma'asros than shemitah?  Am I missing something obvious?

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:49:14 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: The Rambam on use of the middos

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 07:46:20AM -0400, I quoted R' Steinberger as writing:
: 	The Rambam states that those laws, which are based on one of the
: thirteen "middot" ...
: require the approval of the Supreme Rabbinical Court.  This implies three
: things: a) That even a layman has the authority to apply the "middot". All
: he needs is the approval of the authorities.  b) That any "middah" - even
: a "kal vachomer", which is usually based on simple logic, needs the
: approval of the Beit Din HaGadol, c) That even the greatest Sage of the
: teh generation has to get the official stamp of Beit Din....

To my mind an important implication that may be a chidush to many of
the hamon am is that it means that middos are constructive, not just
demonstrative. In English: that one can make new halachos using the
middos, not just prove one shitah over another.


: 	It is possible, that according to the Rambam the insistence on a
: "Mesorah" from previous generations, in the case of "Gzeirah Shava", all
: the way back from Sinai, is telling us the Beit Din's method of approval.

(As opposed to the crafter's criterion for using it.)

Li nir'eh a simpler solution, one that doesn't make gezeirah shavah (GS)
different in kind than the other middos. More importantly, one that
doesn't ignore the fact that Bo'az's "Amoni velo Amonis, Mo'avi velo
Mo'avis" requires a GS between Amon (for which there's a reason to assume
men only) to Moav. And his derashah is described as constructive.

What if in theory a GS doesn't require a mesorah, if one knew all the
details of how to make one. However, some details were lost some time
between Bo'az and the tanna'im. Therefore, the tanna'im said that one
can't make a new GS, only rely on those made by people who knew how.

Note how much more smoothly it fits with the author's observation:
: 	[It is important to note that the Rambam himself (in "Sefer
: HaMitzvot" Shoresh 13) according to the commentary of "Kinat Sofrim" (page
: 49 n the common prints of Sefer HaMitzvot) gives a different meaning to
: the rule in Pesachim (ibid.).  He says that a layman needs to consult the
: Beit Din HaGadol (The Sanhedrin) because especially in the case of
: "Gzeirah Shava" there is a risk of making a mistake....

: b)  The Rambam, unlike Rashi (in Sanhedrin 73a "Hekesha Hu"), holds that
: every "middah", even a "Kal Vachomer", needs the approval of Beit Din
: HaGadol.  This implies that one, even a great scholar cannot trust his own
: logic, concerning issues that do not appear in Scripture....

I do not agree that "kal vachomer" is a rule of logic. If it were, it would
be "sevarah" not "derashah". The Rambam consistantly lists both, they're
different things. I would suggest that without KV, we could not assume that
some din isn't the exception to the rule, the one way in which X is more
chamur (or kal) than Y. After all, when else do we base a din di'Oraisa
on some shitah about how things "ought to" work? The validity of KV is
the statement that every choq and choq-like perat is listed.

Alternatively, the Rambam could be using "sevarah" to refer to formal
logic, as in Aristotle's Logic. In which case, it refers to how various
clauses are connected by syllogism, and by the concepts of "and" and "or".
Not the meaning of the clauses.

In eihter case, the inductive step, that if Shabbos is more chamur WRT
oneshim, WRT bishul, etc... we can sddeduce that it's always more chamur
is NOT a necessary implication, and is what is being refered to by KB
being called a "derashah".

Which is why:
: 	The explanation for mistrusting one's logic is based on the
: suspicion that there might emerge an argument which will negate the "Kal
: Vachomer"...

To continue:
: 	Yet, according to the Rambam here, we see that no Middah should be
: used without a supreme approval.  Indeed, this constitutes a problem: if
: always, the posek or the Dayan can trust what he sees and even to use his
: judgment to render a criminal guilty, to the extent of ordering his
: execution - why cannot, even a great scholar, make a simple "Kal
: Vachomer"?!

Simply -- being right doesn't imply that one identified halachah. If his
deduction is correct then it's Divrei E-lokim Chaim. But in order for DEC
to be halachah, there are procedural requirements.


Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905            - R' Zelig Pliskin, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:46:37 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
RE: Waiting for a minyan to finish

> Accordiing to KSA the Chazan need wait until only 6 are done for Maariv  to 
> cotinue to say Kaddish (iow when there is no Chazaras Hashatz) and 9 to 
> listen when there is chazaras haShatz.

> Perhaps lechatichillah the Shatz should wait longer...

(I believe we discussed this before; check the archives.)

The Mateh Ephraim says the same thing (that, for kaddish, the chazan need
wait until only 6 are done.)  I remember seeing in Halichos Shlomo that the
chazan should preferably wait until the majority of the tzibbur is done
before starting chazaras hashatz, but waiting for ten (9+1) is fine (and
"b'shas hadchak" (however that is defined) one can include those still
davening their silent shemona esrei.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:25:02 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
RE: mitzva kiyumis again

At 08:46 AM 7/30/01 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>> My own position was that of my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz...
>> R' Dovid divided the Rambam's second category, noting that some mitzvos
>> are "mitzvos matirim" -- such as shechitah and eiruv chatzeiros. I assume
>> eishes yefas to'ar is similar. R' Dovid holds that such matirim carry no
>> sechar; they exist to allow you to do some desired thing beheter.

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> I very much like the chilluk, but am unsure as to the "sachar" 
> implications. If the mattir is done l'shem shomayim, and, to use the 
> kabbalistic model, is ma'leh nitzotzos, why no sachar?

Presumably, there is sachar when a person is ma'aleh nitzotzos.  But OTOH,
there are better ways to bring kedusha into the world.  Reminds me of the
concept (said in the name of [Reb Chaim]) that for talmid chacham who can
learn more complicated things, it is bittul torah to say tehillim.

Why not say that these are mitzvos matirim--there is no particular reason to
do them--but if you do them you do bring nitzotzos into the world because
you did them b'heter rather than b'issur.  Just like there is no particular
reason for you to eat an apple now, but if you eat the apple and make a
bracha, you have brought nitzotzos into the world.

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:32:00 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
RE: mitzva kiyumis again

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Well, the first step to cleairing up the confusion is to realize that
> RMF and I do not agree.
> My own position was that of my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz, although I have
> an uncertain memory that the chiddush is actually R' Shimon Shkop's.

I just wanted to state that I don't necessarily agree with RMB that he and I
don't agree.  (Read that again.)  While I hadn't heard R. Shimon Shkop's
chiddush before, I intuitively thought like that.  

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:47:43 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Re: Responsibilities to Adopted Children

On 31 Jul 01, at 11:24, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
> I doubt there was a concept of formal adoption in the times of the gemara,
> but there must have been people who took in yisomim. 


-- 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.

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:41:58 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Einah zevuchah (was: mitzva kiyumis again)

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:46:05AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: If there is interest, I have notes that I didn't get to yet about
: the impact of this chiluk on einah zevuchah, neveilah and eiver
: min hachai. I recall three shitos, but I'm not prepared to present
: them yet.

No one expressed interest, frankly, but putting together together this
email was good motivation to return to my notes.

The Ra'avad holds that shechitah is a mitzvah materes, and suggested
that "ulai lav haba miklal asei asei". We didn't yet identify the lav,
but "einah zevuchah" is the obvious candidate.

R' Shim'on says in a braisa on Shavuos 24a that there is no violation of
Y"K in eating neveilah, presumably because "ein issur chal al issur" (EICAI).
Rashi sham indicates that this is even if the animal dies on Y"K. Tosafos
wonder how, since the issur of Y"K comes first in that case.

Here are the three shitos in my notes:

1- Tosafos answer that the pre-existing issur is ours, "einah zevuchah".
Which coexists with eiver min hachai before death, and with neveilah
afterward. In their explanation, as well as in Chulin 37a, Tosafos call
"einah zevuchah" an "issur asei", since the lashon in the pasuk is

Rav Huna (Beitzah 25a) says that a living beheimah is bechezkas issur
until is is known with what (and how) it was shechted. Rashi indentifies
this as chezkas eiver min hachai. To which Tosafos ask how, given that
the chazakah is said to last not only until it dies, but beyond that
-- until we know that it died through a valid shechitah? They therefore
argue with Rashi and say it's the chezkas einah zevuchah.

R' Dovid therefore suggested that could be the "lav haba miklal asei"
of the Ra'avad.

At this point I asked R' Dovid how then neveilah could ever apply, since
EICAI and "einah zevuchah pre-existed"? I guess it was a silly question,
because for some reason I wasn't motivated enough to record his teiretz.
I could use help in finding what obvious thing I overlooked.

2- In that same Tosafos in Shavuos another answer is given besheim the
Ritzva. (If anyone has biographical info, I'd appreciate it.)

The Ritzva argues, based on the Rashi in Beitzah, that there is no
issur of "einah zevuchah". He avoids the EICAI problem by saying that
we're only talking about an animal that died /before/ Y"K -- the
issur is simply that of neveilah.

3- R' Avraham ben haRambam says that "einah zevuchah" is only chal by
nishchetah shelo kehalachah. If the animal dies on its own he holds
that only issur neveilah applies. A number of acharonim take this to
imply that there is an issur on shechting shelo kehalachah. (Possibly
due to tza'ar ba'alei chaim, see the Chinuch.)

All of this stuck in my memory as extrapolable to the whole notion of
mitzvah kiyumis. Particularly since shechitah is the Ramban's example
of it. Of course, none of the people above necessarily hold like
the Ramban.


Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 11:26:09 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Weekly Halacha - Parshas Vaeschanan

> By Rabbi Doniel Neustadt
> Rav of Young Israel of Cleveland Heights

> A discussion of Halachic topics. For final rulings, consult your Rav.


> Several Biblical injunctions are derived from the warning in this week's
> parashah to "beware for your souls", including the Biblical prohibition of
> placing oneself in any type of life-threatening situation(1), e.g., walking
> dangerously near the edge of a roof, exposing oneself to a disease, etc. In
> addition to such obviously dangerous acts, our Sages warned against other
> dangers which are not understood today, such as the well-known injunction
> against eating meat and fish together. Although we cannot define the
> resultant danger in terms of medical science, we accept and adhere
> faithfully to our Sages' warning that eating fish and meat together is a
> danger(2).

> Another practice involving food which our Sages considered dangerous is
> eating a shelled egg, peeled onion, or peeled garlic clove(3) that was left
> overnight. Although this practice is less widespread than the universally
> accepted restriction against eating meat and fish together, the Talmud(4)
> maintains that a ruach ra'ah, literally a bad spirit or a "spirit of
> impurity", rests upon these three foods when peeled and left overnight,
> similar to the "spirit of impurity" that rests on one's hands during
> nighttime sleep. One who eats these foods after they were left overnight,
> states the Talmud, endangers his life. Moreover, he will be judged by the
> Heavenly Court as a person who took his own life(5). In view of the severity
> of both the offense and the punishment, it is difficult to understand why
> certain communities do not comply with this restriction. How can they ignore
> such frightening consequences?

> There is a basic difference, however, between the two prohibitions
> mentioned above. The prohibition against eating meat and fish together is
> quoted by the Shulchan Aruch as practical Halachah(6). All Jews ??without
> exception ??are obligated to follow the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch,
> whether scientifically understood or not. The prohibition against eating the
> three peeled foods, however, is omitted by many of the Rishonim(7) and the
> Shulchan Aruch, probably because they held that the particular "spirit of
> impurity" in question was no longer prevalent in their times(8). Thus, in
> many communities this practice is not followed, and, indeed, many people
> have never heard of it.

Isn't a more basic question why the S"A chose to codify one and not the
other? Any ideas on why?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 11:51:13 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
good guys

Eli Turkel wrote:
>I think it is less clear than that. Amoraim argue if Achashverosh was
>a good or bad guy.

All I saw was an argument over whether he was an idiot or a rasha.  Either 
way he was a bad guy.

>Even people like Yishmael send mixed messages.

How so?

>It seems that different amoraim had differing attitudes toward King
>David and his possible sins.

Maybe we are talking about different ma'amarim, but what I saw was that 
either he did not sin at all or he sinned in order to teach teshuvah.  Both 
are fairly pro-David.

>Certainly the same applies to King Solomon.

It's the navi that says bad things about King Solomon.  The ba'alei midrash 
try their give those pesukim a positive spin.

>Even stranger is the gemaras difense of some of the later Judaen kings
>like Menassheh whom one would be hard pressed to call a good guy.

I'm not sure if that was a defense of Menasheh or an attack on what was then 
contemporary arrogance.

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 >