Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 089

Monday, August 20 2001

• Minhag was Re: The SR's views on yishuv EY
• RE: The Gmara and SA as binding
• Re: knowledge and proof
• Stem cell research
• Re: The Gmara and SA as binding
• RE: The Gmara and SA as binding
• Re: The Gmara and SA as binding
• Re: Fasting depending on will of the people
• Ai vs Yericho (was Re: Yerushalayim)
• Re: shiva denechemta
• Shabbos m'vorkhim
• Re: Forgetting and remembering
• removing tefillin
• Re: hilchot waiting-in-line
• RE: calling up an adopted child to the Torah
• Kant, Kuzari & Wittgenstein
• RE: knowledge and proof
• RE: calling up an adopted child to the Torah
• tree / plant cutting in beis olam
• Apology and Query
• Re: Dor Revi'i on lo tokhlu kol n'veilah

In a message dated 8/17/2001 1:42:25pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> One had to be meyasheiv the minhag with the mekoros. Occasionaly one will
> fail -- and then the practice is considered keneged halachah.

The pre-supposition that a Minhag has validity is paritally based upon the 
fact that many rabbonim and Talmidei Chachamim over time were comfortable 
with a set minhag and that if one raises a question many years later we can 
presume there was a justification - albeit it might not exist in a text 
anymore.

That is why very old minhaggim are qualitatively more weighty than newer 
ones.  It's almost like Chezkas habbattim.  Therefore when Gedolim DO protest 
minhaggim, then of course this Chazzakah is not valid.

And then it is IMHO essential and critical to note whether the matter is in 
flux or settled.

AIUI Micha's essential point is valid, that is minhag and text form a tension 
- a dialectic - with each other.

FWIW, Most early Minhaggim and Mesorros have been moved to text by now.  For 
example the Maharil recorded many Minhagei Ashkenaz. The Zohar preserves many 
esoteric and old Sephardic customs.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com [mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com]
> 2) Similarly, Talmud Bavli was not accepted wholesale by Ashkenaz until 
> modifed by Tosafos to include Ashkenazic practice - sort of a grandfather 
> clause saying: "we accept the Bavli EXCEPT when it conflicts with our bona 
> fide Minhaggim"   

Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik disagreed with this.  He said that while in the time
of Rabbeinu Gershom the TB was not necessarily accepted and was treated as
just another source, Rashi considered the TB to be binding and therefore
disagreed with his rebbeim when they "misinterpreted" the TB (probably based
on their mesorah from E"Y); of course, he too essentially believed that bona
fide minhagim overcame the TB.  The chiddush of Tosfos is that they reworked
the gemara so that the text itself would "justify" their minhagim.

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> I'm not denying this idea -- I'm saying it has limits.

Agreed.

> For similar reasons, I don't think Chassidei Ashkenaz shared the approach
> you described. They, unlike the ba'alei Tosafos, couldn't work with the
> assumption that minhag Yisrael is ideal until proven otherwise.

Which is one reason that Dr. Soloveitchik skewers them in his article (see
my discussion in Avodah archives) and claims that they were a fringe group
during the period that they were active (and only afterwards did their
minhagim become more influential).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 8/17/2001 12:28:16pm EDT, Rena <free@actcom.co.il> writes:
> Proofs are
> this help. They are not for those who already understand that Hashem exists,
> they are for those that still need to be shown.

How many people do you know have come close to HKBH via proof?
How many because they felt an emptiness or a longing or a yearning? 

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> From: Stuart Klagsbrun [mailto:SKlagsbrun@agtnet.com]

> > If the fertilized eggs may be destroyed I would think they 
> > can be destroyed in a way which allows for medical research.
 
> There is an article in Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society on
> multi-fetal cell reduction by Yitzchak Mehlman (a couple of years ago).

No, I read that article, and it doesn't bear on the question of 
reuse or destruction of fertilized ova.  That was talking about
multi-fetal *pregnancy* reduction.  That is where several fertilized
eggs are implanted in the womb, and many of them take root and grow
into real fetuses.  If there are too many, one or more may die during
the pregnancy or delivery.  The article concluded that upon consultation
with the doctor and the rav to determine how many need to be killed,
each fetus can be considered a rodef of all the others, and therefore
some can be killed to save the lives of the others.  But that has no
bearing on the question of disposition of fertilized ova that are sitting
in a freezer, not harming anyone.

FWIW, when we were involved in that, we asked our then rav, R' Simcha
Weinberg, who said to destroy them if any were left over.  I don't
know what his basis was; we just asked him spur of the moment at the
doctor's office as we were filling out the forms.  This was probably
about 1995 or 1996.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:30:39PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik disagreed with this.  He said that while in the time
: of Rabbeinu Gershom the TB was not necessarily accepted and was treated as
: just another source, Rashi considered the TB to be binding and therefore
: disagreed with his rebbeim when they "misinterpreted" the TB (probably based
: on their mesorah from E"Y); of course, he too essentially believed that bona
: fide minhagim overcame the TB.  The chiddush of Tosfos is that they reworked
: the gemara so that the text itself would "justify" their minhagim.

I'm not sure one can generalize from this shift that Shas underwent from
being /a/ makor to being /the/ makor to say anything about a shift to
dependency on mekoros in general.

I don't know too many examples of this, but those I do know of, there is
a makor for the minhag. Just not Shas. For example, while the gemara
seems to require 8 two 13 knots per corner of tzitzis, our minhag is
supported by the Sifri.

:> For similar reasons, I don't think Chassidei Ashkenaz shared the approach
:> you described. They, unlike the ba'alei Tosafos, couldn't work with the
:> assumption that minhag Yisrael is ideal until proven otherwise.

: Which is one reason that Dr. Soloveitchik skewers them in his article (see
: my discussion in Avodah archives) and claims that they were a fringe group
: during the period that they were active (and only afterwards did their
: minhagim become more influential).

Which may be of interest to historians, but not significant to understanding
halachah. After all, their authority was accepted -- even if it took a
while to happen.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> : Which is one reason that Dr. Soloveitchik skewers them in his article (see
> : my discussion in Avodah archives) and claims that they were a fringe group
> : during the period that they were active (and only afterwards did their
> : minhagim become more influential).

> Which may be of interest to historians, but not significant to understanding
> halachah. After all, their authority was accepted -- even if it took a
> while to happen.

I think that it is significant.  Their authority was accepted (i.e., their
specific minhagim), but not their approach to halacha.  Essentially, their
minhagim were accepted only at the point that their methodology was obscured
by the passage of time.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 8/17/2001 5:05:28pm EDT, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:

RRW:
>> 2) Similarly, Talmud Bavli was not accepted wholesale by Ashkenaz until 
>> modifed by Tosafos to include Ashkenazic practice - sort of a grandfather 
>> clause saying: "we accept the Bavli EXCEPT when it conflicts with our bona 
>> fide Minhaggim"   

> RMF:
> << Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik disagreed with this. He said that while in the time
> of Rabbeinu Gershom the TB was not necessarily accepted and was treated as
> just another source, Rashi considered the TB to be binding and therefore
> disagreed with his rebbeim when they "misinterpreted" the TB (probably based
> on their mesorah from E"Y); of course, he too essentially believed that bona
> fide minhagim overcame the TB.  The chiddush of Tosfos is that they reworked
> the gemara so that the text itself would "justify" their minhagim.>>

RRW:
I'm not sure I understand how R. Chaim S and I disagree.  Except for a few 
details we both agree that the vanilla TB was not accepted in Ashkenaz until 
it was either reworked and/or the existing Minhaggim preserved.  

No one disputes the TB was accepted, the point is that it was accepted with 
strings attached, quite similar to the way the Shulchan Aruch was accepted. 

I also subscribe to the hypothesis that the TB reworked some mishnayos the 
way Tosafos reworked some TB. That is why the TB does not change the Girsa of 
the Mishnah but re-interprets it to conform with the TB's understanding of 
how the Halachah should be.

On the right-left spectrum it works like this:
Right: The TB KNEW the real peshat in the Mishnah and that it is presenting 
THE authoritative interpretation.  

Left: If the TB thinks that its peshat in the Mishnah is the correct Peshat 
then the TB simply did not understand the Mishnah. <smile>

A moderate alternative: The Mishnah was redacted in EY around 220 CE and the 
TB had to reconcile it to "Minhag Bavli" from 1 up to 300 years later.  They 
are somewhat arguing based upon presuppositions in each respective community. 
But the TB out of deference to the Mishnah reworks it instead of disputing it.

The historical pattern goes as follows:
The TB reworks the Mishnah at times to fit the lamdus in Bavel. (This can be  
supported IF the Yerushalmi works the Mishnah a lot less frequently than does 
the Bavli. Perhaps RYGB can verify this)
Tosafos works the Bavli at times to fit the lamdus/Minhag in Franco-Germany,
The Rema glosses the SA to include the Minhaggim of Ashkenaz/Poland

{Although time is a factor, location and community are bigger factors.}

Today we can acknowledge Hypothetically R. Yoseph Karo as THE poseik hador at 
his time and we can still follow the Rema.  Similarly, R. Moshe Feinstein 
could have been THE poseik hador in his day, but Sephardim might follow ROY 
and Hassidim their poskim.  

So it is not the greatness of the Bavli or the Gadol that is "rejected" or 
modified -  rather it is the right of each community to preserve its own rite 
despite the greatness of the Bavli or the Gadol, etc.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

There are different shitot on the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b:
RASHI: defines "she'yesh shalom" as even when the bet hamikdash isn't built
if the hand of the goyim is not *tekefa* (held) over Israel, then the taaniyot
are days of rejoicing (sasson v'simcha) [but there is no *active* celebration].
By definition: if the bet hamikdash *is* built, even if the goyim have rule
over Israel, these fast days are days of simcha.

RABBENU CHANNANEL: all the tzomot are a zecher of the bet hamikdash. Thus in
time of peace (e.g. bet hamikdash is built), these fast days become days of
simcha. There is only a chovat tzom when there is a gezera (goyim rule). The
middle path: no bet hamikdash but no gezera: it's up to the decision of the
people as a whole.

RAMBAN: shalom = bet hamikdash is built and thus fast days become days of
simcha; no shalom but no days of gezera (rule of goyim over Israel): "ratzu
rov yisrael v'nismichu shelo l'hitanot EIN MATRICHIM ALEYHEM L'HITANOT".

RABBENU TAM: if there is no gezera against the Jews anywhere, the period is
NOT considered one that there is a chovat tzom.

RAMBAM (Peyrush Hamishnayot Rosh Hashana 1:3): if yad ha'umot eino tekefa,
this is equivalent to shalom and thus the tzomot are yemei simcha; if there
is any gezera against Jews anywhere in the world, the tzomot revert back to
the will of the people.

RITVA: if there is no gezera, the people can abolish "rechitza, sika, u'neilat
ha'sandal" but not "achila". Thus so long as the bet hamikdash isn't rebuilt
we have to fast.

Josh

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Micha Berger wrote:
> I assumed that land not divided as nachalah was among the shelalah
> divided, just like metaltelim. (Except for Ai. BTW, was Ai an example
> of quasi-bechorah or bikkurim?)

I don't think Ai had any special status but Yericho was consif\dred like a
bechor/ truma as the first city in E"Y captured.
I discussed this in an article in Tradition about Yericho about 5 or 6
years ago.

In a message dated 8/16/2001 9:42:16pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>> We discussed tlasa depur'anusa being pushed off for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh.
>> How about shiva denechemta and machar chodesh (i.e. this Shabbos)?

On 16 Aug 2001, at 23:27, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> See KSA 128:4 - no Machar Chodesh
> OTOH I believe KAJ does do Machar Chodesh.

FWIW, we read only Aneya So'ara today. The luach brings a 
minhag of adding the first and last psukim of Machar Chodesh, but 
we did not follow that minhag. 

-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459
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.

This is a discussion I have been having with some parties off-list, and I 
thought it is appropriate to post it here:

From: Seth Mandel:
<Since nowadays whenever someone mentions a rov it is not only hrh'g (as it 
was in many cases in Europe), but also an obligatory shlita, I decided that 
upcoming days should also have their honorary suffix.  So from now on we 
must all be careful not to say "next Shabbos," but rather Shabbos habel't 
(habbo 'oleinu l'tova).]>
Seth

From: Lawrence Teitelman
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Dear HRHG SHLITAs,
I once heard a Ba'al Tefilla say in "Rosh Hodesh Bentchen" - "ha-ba'IM alenu 
le-tova". I asked him about this nusah, and he claimed that it referred not 
to Rosh Hodesh, but to the (two) days on which Rosh Hodesh fell. Is this 
correct? If yes, then Sunday would be "habelt" as well. But even if not, 
since this Sunday is Rosh Hodesh, maybe it is "habelt" anyway.
Larry

From: Gary Gruber
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:38:01 EDT
Since "Shlita" has become an independent Hebrew word shouldn't the plural be 
"Shlitos" or possibly "Shlitim"?
Also, in Baltimore and DC will they be celebrating Shabbos haBeltway?
Gary

I once heard a Ba'al Tefilla say in "Rosh Hodesh Bentchen" -- "ha-ba'IM
alenu le-tova". I asked him about this nusah, and he claimed that it
referred not to Rosh Hodesh, but to the (two) days on which Rosh Hodesh
fell. Is this correct? If yes, then Sunday would be "habelt" as well. But
even if not, since this Sunday is Rosh Hodesh, maybe it is "habelt"
anyway.> This is not a "nusah," but something he invented himself, and
therefore it may be a bit below the belt to change a nusah because you
think it should be something else. It is true that it is hard to see
what habbo 'oleinu l'tova in nusach Ashk'naz could be referring to,
except to the days of the week, since to have it refer back to Rosh
Hodesh would be syntactically almost impossible.

However, I note that nusah Teiman went tbusly this past shabbos: "B'simon
tov y'he lonu rosh hodesh Elul habbo liqrothenu l'sholom b'yom rishon
uvyom sheni." So it is clear there that the equivalent of habelt does
refer to the month, except it is not "habelt" but "hablalash."

It is also true that Nusah Ashk'naz/S'farad is not grammatically
incorrect; in it the habelt just refers to the second of the two days rosh
hodesh. I understand that this is not it should be, but we are talking
about ancient nusha'os here, and I will not change a nusah in t'fillo
(which, presumably, go back to Anshei K'nesses HaG'dolo) unless I find a
source in the rishonim for such a change. So if your friend were really
bothered by it, let him use nusah Teiman.

Seth

R. Shalom Berger wrote:
>Megilla 3a - Which letters belong in the middle of
>words and which at the end (Sofiyot)

According to most shitos, this happened centuries after kesav ashuris had 
stopped being used.  See the Hakosev in Ein Ya'akov to that gemara and Shu"t 
Radbaz vol. 3 #442.

>Megilla 18a - 18 Berachot

According to Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah on Berachos 28, the Anshei Kenesses 
HaGedolah established the shemoneh esrei which immediately became the 
standard tefillah.  However, the internal order (presumably within each of 
the three sections) did not become standard and people followed whatever 
order they chose.  R. Shimon HaPakoli (in the time of Yavneh) re-established 
the original order which was then followed as standard.  This seems to be 
accepted by historians as well.  See Lawrence Schiffman's Who Was A Jew? p. 
95 n. 14.

>Succa 44a

I think you answered this with Rashi.

Gil Student

Eli Turkel wrote:
>SA makes clear that it is prohibited to remove tefillin
>in the presenceof one's rebbe before he removes his
>tefillin. I have never seen this done in either a shul or
>a yeshiva.

See Mishnah Berurah 38:36 that the whole problem is that he is baring his 
head to his rebbe.  If you turn to the side, stand behind your rebbe, or 
manage to keep your yarmulka on the whole time then there is no problem.

Gil Student

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Thanks to Stuart for faxing me the cite from R' Sternbuch. Interestingly
> he makes the point that the R"Y gets the deference if it's ikrai baalma
> but if he goes regularly (and doesn't send his wife) so as to take
> advantage of his priority, it's "nireh kposea al roshei am kadosh"(baruch
> shekivanti).

I recall hearing that Rav Yonoson Steif z'l, first Rov of the Vienner
Kehilla in Williamsburg, would not jump the queue when he went to the
grocery. 
Of course, besides being a Gaon and tzadik also renowned for
his anivus and humbleness.

SBA

I'm at work, so I don't have the sources in front of me but..

I remember a chazal based on the possuk " Shem bas Asher Sarach" that Sarach
wasn't Asher's daughter, but his wife's daughter - showing that an adopted
child can be referred to as the child of the adopted parent.

> Kant's chiddush was that synthetic a priori statements exist. This is the
> "transcentalist" stance.

Transcendental deduction, for Kant= deducing that certain propositions are
necessary in order for others to be true. E.g. scientific statements (the
table is longer than the chair; the chair fell because someone kicked it)
cannot be true unless we accept certain judgments about time, causality
and so forth.

One may accept the principle of causality (whatever that means) without
any direct experience of causality because without it science is
impossible.

For Kant himself, existence of G-d, immortality and free will are 
necessary for moral judgment, though (according to the new scholarly
biography by Manfred Kuehn) he himself did not believe the first two.


Two notes on this:
1. It is logically possible for someone to regard a belief as necessary
and yet, at a psychological level, not to believe it. But this is hardly
what being a maamin is about. (Whether such a position has any value in
terms of mi-tokh she-lo lishmah is another question. See R. Lamm's Faith
and Doubt.)

2. This kind of transcendental deduction can be utilized in a Jewish
context if one is convinced of Torah miSinai and then infers that there
cannot be a Torah without a G-d who commands it. Such a situation is
logically possible, but I'm not sure how much use these ideas have for
anyone who is at sea respecting G-d.

> Emunah peshutah is an example. However, "complicated" emunah can be
> founded on such ideas as well. Only the person who rests his emunah
> on proving the Borei's existance entirely because of the nature of the
> beri'ah -- such as an argument by design, or by the miraculous permanence
> of the Jewish people -- who seems to say that only empirical propositions
> can be posited a priori.

Empirical propositions are NOT a priori. They are derived from sense
experience (that's the meaning of the word "empirical") not prior to
experience.

> Ma'amad har Sinai allows the dor hamidbor a synthetic empirical
> proposition that G-d exists. They experienced Him directly.

For Kant, this is dubious. If G-d is not an object of sensual
manifestations there is no direct experience of Him.


>                                                    To the Kuzari,
> this gives us the right to also accept Hashem's existance a priori.

No. If the dor ha-midbar has sense experience of G-d, that does not mean
that people not at Sinai have a priori knowledge. If, based on experience,
I tell you that Yogi Berra is shorter than Mickey Mantle, your belief is
not a priori. You believe the same empirical proposition that I do, based
on a posteriori experience. But you believe it because you trust my
report.

> The Rihal made it clear he was NOT attempting a philosophical argument.
> Yet modern popularizations of the idea turn the notion of mesorah about
> a public revelation into the subject of analysis (which I mean in
> the sense given above). Proving that such traditions can't be forged.
> The Rihal himself would not have us turn this into a proof. We believe
> our mesorah and not someone else's legends for the same reason that
> one believes their own perceptions over someone else's. If a ball
> is clearly visible to me, and it looks red, I'm not likely to
> accept someone else's claim that it's blue. I don't need to prove
> why.

Why does Rihal then assume that Christians and Moslems accept testimony of
mattan Torah? Why bring the number of people who stood at Sinai into the
picture? Why does he state explicitly that the relative privacy
characterizing Christian and Moslem claims to revelation weaken those
claims insofar as they conflict with Torah?

It's the other way around. It's the modern people who have difficulty
adducing an argument that will convince an audience that lacks prior
commitment or faith in the Biblical witness, who then argue that everyone
ought to stick to the religion they were brought up in, because you may
as well stick to your own traditions rather than change.

This modern move may be a rational one for people in a certain situation.
(A couple of months I spent an evening with a brilliant Protestant
theologian who used a version of it to defend his unwillingness to convert
to Catholicism.) but it's not what the Kuzari is about.

> Current "western society" is an atheistic one, and most Jews without any
> [Jewish] education must have help to rip down the heavy silk curtain of
> atheism and doubt that surrounding society instilled in them. Proofs are
> this help. They are not for those who already understand that Hashem exists,
> they are for those that still need to be shown.

The miasma of secularism affects many Jews with a Jewish education too.
But I don't believe that "proving" things is of much help. It is as if one
were to attempt a proof that Beethoven's string quartets are musically
better than the noise made by the garbage truck. The important thing, for
a musically impoverished person, is to facilitate a sensitivity to music.

Hazal speak of the maor she-ba-Torah (or s'or she-ba-Torah) leading to
repentance. This is not a matter of straight argumentation. It involves
seeing the world with different eyes.

To paraphrase Wittgenstein again, on the chance that his understanding of
the current philosophical situation is as good as that of the rabbi with
the web site: The difference between the religionist and the atheist is
less about their scientific beliefs about what happens after death than
about the perspective from which they view what's happening right now.

(The above should not be taken to imply that Judaism requires only
"attitudes" and not belief in historical events etc.)

> Lima'aseh, it's experience, typically experiencing Shabbos, that is
> the cornerstone of kiruv. Codes are a hook to get people curious
> enough to walk into Aish's real programs. Whether or not one accepts
> all the logical or philosophical arguments in the world boils down
> to whether one is brought to the point where they want to.

> Also, I wouldn't assume that being observant makes G-d a presence in
> your life. It's a tool: mitoch shelo lishmah... -- not a guarantee.
> The line under discussion isn't identical to that between O and non-O.
> To quote R' MM Weiss, one needs "Passionate Judaism".

You and I are both correct and there is no chiluk dayah here. It is true
that the proofs are a "hook" to grab someone's attention and make him think
a bit. Then, once he/she has opened a hole the size of a needle, Hashem [by
way of a Shabbos experience, etc.] can make an opening big enough for a
whole herd of camels. But without that something to make the person stop and
reflect for that half-second, they may never get to your Shabbos table or
mine.

I think that unless you are brain dead and/or illiterate, just davening
brachot or shmoneh esray makes Hashem a huge presence in your life for the
observant. I admit that there may be many people out there who are a bit
brain-dead when they daven, which is a big problem.

My solution is proper modeling. Show your children by example what it means
to read each word slowly and carefully and think about what you are really
saying to Hashem and yourself. Really read each word instead of zooming it
out in motor-mouth fashion so you don't even have any idea what you said. My
kids tease me now about the fact that I take at least an hour and a half to
daven shacharit at home [meaning w/out kriat haTorah and hazarat hashat"z,
but with everything else contained in brachot and shacharit] on Shabbos
morning even though I could race through davening, but they will know when
they get older what davening is supposed to look like if they don't see it
anywhere else.

---Rena

On 19 Aug 01, at 10:44, Menachem Burack wrote:
> I remember a chazal based on the possuk " Shem bas Asher Sarach" that Sarach
> wasn't Asher's daughter, but his wife's daughter - showing that an adopted
> child can be referred to as the child of the adopted parent.

The Targum on that pasuk says "v'shoom bras itas Asher Sarach." 

-- 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.

Someone (an older man around retirement age - American Jew of Litvish'er 
stock) recently told me there is some type of minhog not to cut any plants 
(only bushes / trees?) in a beis hakvoros / beis olam.

I was under the impression that one only is not allowed to have hanaah from 
plants in the cemetery, but to cut them to keep things orderly and neat 
looking is okay, if one will not use the cut plants.

Can anyone shed any light?

Mordechai

[This post belongs on Mesorah, but since RYGB isn't on that list, I
approved it for here. -mi]

I apologize for my total lack of capacity to participate in - even read - 
all Areivim and most Avodah postings during this transition period. B"H 
things are progressing, slowly but surely, and I very much enjoyed being 
able to give shiur in Rabbi Haber's shul, Cong. Bais Torah, this past 
Shabbos. This coming Shabbos we will BE"H be in Far Rockaway.

Something that came up in a discussion over Shabbos fazed me: In the 
Roedelheim Siddur, the grammar for Barchu is Ba-rachu (chataf pasach 
instead of shva). I have heard Barchu done as a shva-nacha, and, based on 
the nusach, as a shva-na, but never as a chataf pasach.

What am I missing?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From the Dor Revi'i website www.dorrevii.org

Lo tokhlu kol n'veilah la-geir bi-sh'arekha titnenah o makhor l'nokhri:

In the Talmud (Hulin 16b-17a) there is a dispute between R. Yishmael and
R. Akiva. The opinion of R. Yishmael is that in the desert the Israelites
were forbidden to eat the meat of an animal not brought as a sacrifice
(b'sar ta'avah), and the opinion of R. Akiva is that even the meat of an
animal slaughtered through stabbing (nehirah) not just through shehitah
was permissible. And the halakha accords with the opinion of R. Akiva.

But both agreed that the meat of an animal that was not slaughtered
(either through shehitah or nehirah) was forbidden in the desert, because
even nehirah required that the windpipe and the gullet be severed as
the Tosafot write in many places in Hulin. So the question arises why
the Scripture did not record a commandment not to eat neveilah until
here in the Mishneh Torah (Devarim) with no prior mention at all in the
first four books? And although there are several other commandments
that are mentioned only in the Mishneh Torah, the Ramban writes at
the beginning of Devarim, that perhaps because these commandments,
like leverite marriage (yibum), divorce, slander (motzi sheim ra), and
conspiring witnesses (eidim zom'min) were never (or only infrequently)
performed in the desert and therefore were not explicitly recorded until
here. But since the commandment of neveilah was in effect and occurred
routinely in the desert, it is amazing that it was not mentioned until
this point. Moreover, the prohibition of tereifah is written in the book
of Vayikra, and neveilah and tereifah really are aspects of a single
prohibition, inasmuch as half an olive of neveilah and half an olive
of tereifah are combined to constitute the minimum amount required for
punishment to be administered for consuming neveilah or tereifah. So
if the prohibition of tereifah was written in the first four books,
then why was the prohibition of neveilah not mentioned until the Mishneh
Torah? Not only that, but the Scripture writes here concerning neveilah
"you may give it to the alien who is within your towns (sh'arekha) that
he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner" which suggests that
the prohibition of neveilah became effective only after they entered the
land of Israel since they had no towns (sh'arim) and no resident aliens
[ger toshav] in the desert.

And our master explains that this is a clear and valid proof to the second
opinion in Rashi (Hulin 92b) that an animal that died of natural causes is
forbidden even to the Noahides. That is why neveilah was not prohibited
in the desert, because it really was not a frequent occurrence, inasmuch
as the meat of an animal slaughtered through nehirah was permissible and
was not considered neveilah, while an animal that died of natural causes
was prohibited even to the Noahides, so there was no need for a specific
prohibition. However, upon their entry into the Land of Israel, they
were commanded to slaughter only through shehitah (subject to the five
further halakhot l'Moshe mi-Sinai governing shehitah). At that point,
we found a new category of neveilah that had not previously existed,
which is the meat of an animal slaughtered through nehirah or through
a defective shehitah (i.e., in violation of any of the five halakhot
l'Moshe mi-Sinai).

Thus, it was concerning this new type of neveilah that they are admonished
in Devarim and they were commanded to give the new category of neveilah
to the resident alien within their towns or to sell to a foreigner. But
if an animal had died of natural causes, it was prohibited even to a
Noahide. (See the petihah to Dor Revi'i on Hulin sections I-III where
this insight into the dispute between R. Ishmael and R. Akiva and the
interpretation of the prohibition of eating neveilah is elaborated at
length and provides the foundation for understanding the entire tractate.)

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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         ]