Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 063

Wednesday, July 17 2002

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:30:38 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Mogen Dovid

 From a correspondent, "the Torah she'b'Ksav" on Mogen David
>...the RMF is OC 3:15 which if compared to the Munktacher in Divray Torah 
>Munkatch learns out an amazing lesson in the different hashkafas...

I do not have the Munkatcher, curious what he said, although it probably 
would not leave me pleased...

[Quotes from Avodah repeated for the benefit of other recipients
deleted. -mi]

Personally, somewhat emotionally, I feel that if it was good enough
for the Nazis, it's good enough for me! I.e., even if hashgocho on
yechidim is limited, hashgocho on the ummah is axiomatic and direct,
and if HKB"H was mesavev that we are identified by a six pointed star,
ha'lo davar hu. As I think I mentioned, Dovid is the seventh (malchus)
that is me'ached the six, like Torah is the 7th me'ached 6 hundred
thousand, Hashem the 7 me'ached the six words in the first pasuk of Shma,
Shabbos the 7 me'ached the 6 days of the week, and Dovid is described
with six adjectives (admoni, yefeh eynayim etc.) by the Novi. Maharal
has 6 representing the sides of the cube and 7 the point in the middle
that unites them all. Hence, Dovid is the mogen.

V'yesh l'hosif.

Kol Tuv,
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:32:06 +0300
From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannys@atomica.com>
Re: The MB and psaq & Tzitzis

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> 3) He noted that wearing tzitzis out is probably more relevant today to
> protect people in the corrosive moral environment of college and business
> and less relevant for those who remain full time in yeshiva.

If you think about it - the only way men in college and business would
wear their tzitzis out is if it becomes "fashionable" in the Yeshivish
world. Hence, the logical conclusion to the above is to have "everybody"
wear them out.

> 3)Regarding the Mishna Berura as source of psak. He said that the
> change to regard it as source of psak was initiated by Rav Elchonon
>  Wasserman. After the War the need for a common basis for halacha for the
> Orthodox world resulted in a campaign of gedolim that it be accepted as
> such - resulting in its current status.

I'm confused - I know that REW did not survive the WW2 (to say the
least). It can't be the WW1 - as the CC was still alive. Can we get the
name of a more credible source for this. please. :-)

- Danny, who will only be around on Avoda as long as my ex-employer
allows me use of my desk.

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 07:45:58 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Ramchal and Chabad Cont'd

Responses from  correspondent on the original Ramchal and Chabad e-mail:
>     "Ramchal stresses Avodah on Sheleimus Ha'Adam, Chassidus stresses Avodah
>on Dirah B'Tachtonim and Bittul."
>     To my mind Sheleimus is "merely" what's required for Dirah B'Tachtonim,
>and Bittul is true and thorough-going anavah.
>     "Ramchal seems to contain many chiddushim arrived at without a teacher
>(although perhaps from his own angelic Maggid), but, in general his
>innovations did not come from a teacher."
>     The Ba'al Shem Tov's Torah-- which Chabad is said to be the true 
> exponent
>of-- can also be said "to contain many chiddushim arrived at without a

And, from other correspondents, responses to yesterday's correspondent,
somewhat condensed and edited:

Not being an expert on Ramchal I don't really know what to this refers:
"Ramchal has his own "Zohar", his own "Tehillim" etc...".

>Like I was told.... I have read amazing things about him from very good 
>sources all over.

The fact that Ramchal is ignored in Chasidus could simply be attributed to
the fact that he was a contemporary and also accused of being a follower
of Shabsai Tzvi, and since Chasidim were on the defensive at the time for
the same reasons (Kabbalah, ST, etc...) they didn't need some one else
causing them more grief. 2nd of all, Ramchal was pretty much an unknown
figure in the popular circles until R. Yisroel Salanter made him into
a musar classic. Which brings out my point, that since Chasidim were
opposed to musar, etc... That did away with Ramchal also. And by the
way, the Pshischa Chasidim were students of Ramchal. R. Simcha Bunim
was very in favor of his teachings. By the way, ever noticed how come
in the Mesilas Yesharim the last 2 parts of the last chapter on kedusha
are missing, where as every other chapter has them? They were omitted
and made sure that they were lost (the manuscripts are available, See
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Meditation and Kabbala) so that people wouldn't
try to practice what he says there.

>I obviously meant chabad chassidus davka...my typo...

With respect to Shalah Hakadosh, (why is it that: "Real Chabadniks do
not write HaKodesh"?).

>Misunderstood....same reason as not saying Ari or Or Hachaim hakodesh even 
>though like the Shelah they are an ikar source for chabad....they are not 
>separate/kodesh and no one gets an extra title...
CORRESPONDENT #3 (RYS from Avodah):
>I remember atFarbrengens of the Lubavitcher Rebbe that everytime he
>mentioned the Shela he would say Hakodesh, and the same when he would
>mention the Or Hachayim Hakodesh.

R' Nachman has multitudes of ideas from the Shalah mentions as well. See,
for example, Likutei Moharan 23 and Shalah Vaeschanan Torah Ohr 1 about
the mezuzah protecting against desire for money.

In any case, is it a fact that the Arizal's kabbalah must come from
R. Chaim Vital? Much of Rav Chaim Vital's stuff come from R. Yosef
Gikatalia who intern got it from R Avraham Abulafia. And since Abulafia
was put into cherim by the Rashba and many others, his seforim were not
available in print until 1998 (yeah 4 years ago). And this is why the last
section of Shaar Hakavanos of R Chaim Vital is also missing, because it
as a lot of practical stuff from Abulafia. I don't know where the Chida
says that kabbala must come from RCV. I do know though that the Chida
was the 1st one to justify Abulafia and his methods in Sheim HaGedolim,
and let the world know that he is "all right". Rav Chaim Vital himself
at the end of his life began to follow the methods of Abulafia and left
the Arizal's teachings in terms of practice (See abbi Aryeh Kaplan again
for a list of sources on this).

>I do not wish to discuss Abulafia on email....too controversial...and i do 
>not know enough to say yet

>I am far from a mumcha in these inyonim, but I'm confused: vos iz di
>stirah? kabalas ARIZAL must (according to them) come through R' Chaim
>Vital, but R. Yosef Gikatalia predates the Arizal! See also Shem Hagdolim
>(erech RACHAV) that Ari said only Rachav should write.
>(I recently saw in NY in my FIL's house a whole sefer (put out by some
>mekubolim in EY about this topic).

This statement: "We quote our sources reasons for minhagim: Alter Rebbe's
Shulchan Aruch" is inaccurate.

I have been told by multiple Chabadniks that they don't follow the
Shulchan Arukh which generally follows the Beis Yosef and instead follow
the Siddur of the Alter Rebbe (which, by the way, was put out of print
by Kehot in 1960s (why?) and is no where to be found) which follows the
Ari. The Kuntres Acharon in the Shulchan Aruch also has some innovative
material in it as well (and we don't know who wrote it either) (see
Rav Moshe's Teshuva to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe about Tefilin of
Rabeinu Tam).

This statement: "Ramchal stresses Avodah on Sheleimus Ha'Adam, Chassidus
stresses Avodah on Dirah B'Tachtonim and Bittul." is also inaccurate.

>see above... I mistyped and meant Chabad davka.

>The tshuva by RMF applies to ONE KA in hil. Tfillin, and even that is
>from the AR, notwithstanding RMF's tshuva .
>Concerning the Siddur, I don't know what he's talking about: The nussach
>has always been around, if he's talking about the siddur with "Da"ch"
>it's been reprinted numerous times, maybe he's talking about Siddur
>"Torah Ohr" which was takeh out of print for a long time (probably
>because it wasn't very practical), but was reprinted in 5747 and several
>times afterward.
>Concerning the SA following the BY etc: are you talking about nussach
>tfilla, or psak? In psak, the AR follows the Ramo (in SA) MA etc., there
>is some psokim in the siddur that are different than the psak in SA but I
>don't see the kesher to Ari davka.
>In nussach, he followed to a large extent the Ari.
>Agav, the psokim where he changes his psak from SA ("piskei siddur") are
>printed in the back of the AR's SA. But I doubt that most of those
>changes have anything to do with kabolo, rather changes in psak as he got
>In addition there are minhogim that are mekubal medor ledor.
>VAKML in all this (even though there's more).

CORRESPONDENT #3 (RYS from Avodah):
>Fact #1 Lubavitchers follow the Siddur vs. the SA only in cases where the
>Alter Rebbe changed his mind because the Siddur is his Mishnah Achronah.
>It's tottaly incorrect to say they don't follow the SA.
>Fact #2 All the Dinnim found in the Siddur were/are printed in the back of
>his SA - Kehot did not put it out of print. The Siddur Torah Or which is the
>one you are referring to was back in print in the 1980s and is currently
>available at Kehot. And the Seder Tefiloth Lechol Hashonah which has all the
>Alter Rebbes Dinnim (from his Siddur) was always in print.

>The Teshuva from RM is concerning ONE Kuntres Achron in Hilchos Teffilin
>which says itself its not written by the AR himself, but all the other
>Kuntresim Achron we DO know they were written by the AR.

R' Nachman, Pshischa, Ger, Mei HaShiloach, all stress Shleimus HaAdam,
and at least R' Nachman says (somewhere in the 1st 20 chapters of Likutei,
can't find the exact spot now) that Bittul cannot be achieved without
achieving Shleimus HaAdam first. And in terms of Dirrah Betachtonim there
may be an irony in that Chabad focus on learning Tanya and Chassidus
the whole day instead of Gemora, because they are interested in Dirah
BeElyonim and not Betachtonim.

>See new book in english on topic... misses the point...

>I find this last sentence ridiculous...

CORRESPONDENT #3 (RYS from Avodah):
>In actuality in the Seder Hayeshivoth in Chabbad schools they learn more
>Gemarah & Niglah than Chassidus

No idea wher he got that Ramchal holds of its [Mogen Dovid]
significance. I just searched through all of his writings and it doesn't
come up anywhere.

>See RMD Vali's collections 9talmid of Ramchal).

Kol Tuv,
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:13:06 -0400
From: "Brown, Charles.F" <charlesf.brown@gs.com>
Interesting Yerushalmi on the meragalim

Interesting machlokes in Yerushalmi (brought in Tos. Sotah 34) between R'
Akiva and R' Yishmael.  Acc. to R' Yishmael there were 12 meraglim, but R'
Akiva darshens the double lashon "ish echad ish echad" to double the number
- there were 24 meraglim!  (P' Devarim just has "ish echad" - see Chasam
Sofer, which is why this caught my eye to begin with).

Question: don't we derive from the # of meraglim that an eidah=10?  If there
were 24 meraglim, the limud is difficult?

Here is a mehalaich (not my own, other than finding the K.O.): 
Keren Orah in Sotah 34 asks: 1) how could such tzadikim as the meraglim have
been led astray when tova lo havei bisha (berachos 29)?  2) why was Moshe
mispallel only for Yehoshua if there was a danger to all the meraglim?  (My
wife suggests that to be mispallel for someone you need a hiskahrus to them
in some way.  Moshe's tefillos were effective only for Yehoshua because he
served as his talmid.)

The name of a person=his atzmiyus.  That quality can be modified through
bechira, but represents the base level of a person's neshoma.  The gemara
darshens the names of the meraglim to be evil, e.g. Stur ben Michael wanted
to be soter the words of Hashem.  Despite being born with an evil nature,
through their koach habechira each of the meraglim was able to attain
tzidkus (kulam anashim).  However, because of the tremendous nisayon of
spying, the bechira was overcome and the spies returned to their neshamo's
"natural" state - it was not tova havei bisha, but a repressed bisha
exerting itself.

The Ariz"l writes that to try to meet the challenge ahead of them each spy
had with him the neshama of his shevet, i.e. "l'mateh Reuvan...." means with
the neshama of Reuvan went the following spy, etc.  Yosef's neshama was
paired with Menashe's spy, leaving no one to go with Yehoshua.  That is why
Moshe davka was mispallel for Yehoshua and not the others.  Kalev as well
remained a tzadik "eikev hayeta ruach acheret imo" - he carried with his the
extra ruach/neshoma of Yehudah, harbinger of geulah.      -----Ad kan the
Keren Orah.

Based on this, perhaps everyone agrees that 12 physical spies went, and
hence the limud of eidah=10. 

The machlokes between R' Yishmael and R' Akiva is how to count - do you
count 12 meraglim because of the bodies, or 24 because of the

One kashe to work on - acc. to this approach, R' Akiva's count should be 23,
not 24 ???  

-Chaim B.

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:40:55 +0200
From: Jessel <jessel@softhome.net>
Property stolen from goy

Could someone please tell me where the MB brings the Be'er HaGolah that
someone who steals from a non-Jew won't see a bracha from the stolen

Shlomo Zalman

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 02:25:06 +0200
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Re: The MB and psaq & Tzitzis

>> 3)Regarding the Mishna Berura as source of psak. He said that the
>> change to regard it as source of psak was initiated by Rav Elchonon
>>  Wasserman. After the War the need for a common basis for halacha for the
>> Orthodox world resulted in a campaign of gedolim that it be accepted as
>> such - resulting in its current status.

> I'm confused - I know that REW did not survive the WW2 (to say the
> least). It can't be the WW1 - as the CC was still alive. Can we get the
> name of a more credible source for this. please. :-)

Rav Elchonon initiated the process  - however MB did not achieve its present
status until after the war when others got involved.

                Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:42:39 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
RE: The MB and psaq

From: R' Moshe Feldman:
>> 1. Could you give some examples where the CC did not follow the MB's
>> supposed psakim?

From: Stein, Aryeh <AStein@wtplaw.com>
> While the MB "paskens" that one must make a separate brachah on dessert,
> according to R' Mendel Zaks, the CC himself did not make a separate
> brachah. (FWIW, R' Ruderman, z"l, did not make a separate brachah
> on dessert.)

I was told by someone a different version of the story--that R Ruderman said
that the CC changed his practice towards the end of his life.  (This version
would then not be a proof to the assertion that the CC did not follow the
MB's "psakim.")  Has anyone else heard this version of the story?

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:07:09 +0200
From: "reuven koss" <rmkoss@moreshet.co.il>

In the siddur OTZAR HATFILLOS in the perush of Eyun Teffilla he says: yesh
gorsim hagedusha m'lshon hatalmud limchok lo yigdosh ligdosh lo yimachek
(bb 88 b) upirush b'aruch... aval lo matzasi  girsa zu bshum siddur kadmon


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:24:52 +0300
From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannys@atomica.com>
Shir Shel Yom

Reb Gershon Dubin queried:
> The shaliach tzibur said the wrong shir shel yom. Should I correct him
> privately afterward?

My gut feeling is that it depends on who it is - if it's a youngster /
newbie then he won't mind it been pointed out, and it will help him be
more careful in the future.
If it's a veteran, you will simply be embarrassing him, and he's unlikely
to repeat the mistake until the next time he doesn't get a good night's
sleep. :-)

- Danny

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:36:32 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Who *wrote* the mishnah?

On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 01:46:45PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
:> Judging from the number of machlokesin between beis Shammai and beis
:> Hillel that survived for generations (there were still Shammutim a
:> generation before Rebbe, if not his generation as well), I don't think
:> Sanhedrin worked that way. At least not after the fall of the lishkas
:> hagazis.

: Please elaborate. Do you mean that Sanhedrin did not legislate away
: disagreements, or that they did not legislate away *all* disagreements?

I don't know how its authority changed, just that there is strong indication
it did.

I think the first thing I need to address is the question you ask later:
:> The change of Sanhedrin's power to pasken when they left the lishkas
:> hagazis could explain why we needed a bas qol to tell us to hold like
:> beis Hillel. As Tosafos ad loc point out, even without Shamayim's
:> intervention, the halachah would be like beis Hillel because they
:> were the rabbim.

: Mah 'inyan shmitah etzel har Sinai?

Let's look at the timing. The exile from the LhG was 40 years before
the churban. Hillel and Shammai were of the last generation before that
exile. Probably no coincidence that they were also the last of the zugos.

When their students need a machloqes resolved, they didn't go to the
Sanhedrin. They themselves hold a vote in the upstairs room of Chananiah
ben Chizqiyah ben Gurion's mansion. (This was before the ben Gurion
family lost their wealth in the war for Y'laim.) At that time, Beis
Shammai had the majority, and halachah kemosam on the things they voted.

In general, we follow the bas qol that halachah keBeis Hillel. Except,
as Tosafos point out ad loc, we learn from the story of the tanur shel
achna'i that we don't pasqen according to benos qol. (Is that the proper
plural?) Tosafos answer that here the bas qol "merely" confirms what the
halachah would be even in its absence, since BH was the greater in number.

Again, it's not resolved by the Sanhedrin's vote. But rather, the majority
of the ba'alei pelugta.

:>: Getting backto the gemara in Bava Metzi'ah, even with a mishnah the TSBP
:>: could be forgotten. Learning mishnah, as Rebbi refers to it, meant likely
:>: more than just the text, also the commentary/working out of the sugya.

:> Rebbe in BM 33b probably meant memorizing beraisos...

: Good point. May be Rebbi *was* refering to Mishnah, or may be to Beraita,
: or may be even when they had a written Mishnah it was still considered
: better to know them by heart, as it is an index to TSBP. FYI, the Agudah
: still promotes that through siyum mishnayot, where a large number of
: boys compete showing who can memorize more mishnayot.

My argument stands as long as "mishnah" refers to halachah pesuqah,
not the whole thought process leading to the pesaq. The kind of material
found in the mishnayos Rebbe compiled. As opposed to your claim that it
means "more than just the text".


Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:25:16 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
A comparison of Z and SZ

Micha wrote:
>Lefum tza'ara agra. I presume the same is true r"l lehefech.

That lefum tza'ara agra works both ways is a major theme in the writings of
R' Yisrael Salanter (and therefore shows up in his talmidim's writings as
well, e.g. R' Itzele Blaser).

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:17:40 -0400
From: Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org>
hilchos ta'anis 5:7

the last sentence (in reference to the last meal on erev tisha ba'av)
says: "v'lo yochal shnei tavshilin."

But don't we eat bread and an egg? Isn't that two tavshilin?

-- Sholom

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:55:28 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Re: Interesting Yerushalmi on the meragalim

At 12:13 PM 7/15/02 -0400, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
>Interesting machlokes in Yerushalmi (brought in Tos. Sotah 34) between R'
>Akiva and R' Yishmael.  Acc. to R' Yishmael there were 12 meraglim, but R'
>Akiva darshens the double lashon "ish echad ish echad" to double the number
>- there were 24 meraglim! ...

>Question: don't we derive from the # of meraglim that an eidah=10?  If there
>were 24 meraglim, the limud is difficult?

I believe the Y-mi says they were the avadim of the other meraglim.

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:27:15 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Re: CH in front of non-Jews

This morning I came across the Semag, lavin 2 which is very clear that
there is a CH in front of Non-Jews.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:02:19 -0400
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Milk and Fish together--prohibited?

Someone told me last night (or le-erev Tish'a Be-Av) that he refrains from
eating milk/milk products ("milchilks" bela'az) together with fish.  This
has nothing to do with the 9 days--just a separate minhag.  If  someone has
mar-ei mekomos for this custom, please "cc" me along with your

Noach Witty

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 >