Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 099

Tuesday, February 4 2003

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:45:35 -0500
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Q&A Regarding Honesty

Torah.org has a "class" in which they present le-ma'aseh questions about
acting honestly and R' Yisroel Belsky gives answers. It's worth looking
through them.


Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:57:12 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: HaShavas Aveidah

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:17:40PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Chaim Markowitz wrote <<< in this case there is a chiyuv lifnim
: mishuras hadin >>>

: R' Gil Student wrote <<< According to Mar Shmuel the finder must give it
: back as a "lifnim mi-shuras ha-din". >>>

: I don't understand the terminology here. I thought that "lifnim mishuras
: hadin" means that the action is a good idea but *not* required. Isn't a
: "chiyuv lifnim mishuras hadin" a contradiction in terms?

I too had this question until I saw the following.

On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:36:12AM -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
: I believe I have a ra'yah to my side.
: Al kol panim what you see from here is that both Rashi and Ran agree that
: in a situation where lifnim mishuras hadin does not apply there is still
: an additional element of being a Yarei Shamayim that would motivate a
: person to return an object.

RCM's ra'ayah convinced me that the category "lifnim mishuras hadin"
(LMhD) is more limited than the strict translation of being beyond the
call of duty. Since it indicates that some things a yarei shamayim
does are beyond LMhD as well.

So the question is which acts are chayav despite not being required by
the letter of the din, and which aren't.

This question is paradoxical. RAM's original problem remains, so far,
even though I reframed it. It reminds me of the paradox of having an
issur called "neveilus birshus haTorah". If one can't do it because it's
neveilus, then how is it "birshus"?

Which lead me to the following thought... What if hainu hakh?

Perhaps the difference between "lifnim mishuras hadin" and acting on
"yir'as shamayim" is that of social norm and common expectation.

Acts that show society's expected level of yir'as Shamayim, while still
beyond the line of baseline din, are expected lehalachah. After all,
behaving in a way beneath most people expect borders in being menuval.
However, acting beyond that baseline that we expect of society is the
rarified air of yarei Shamayim.

Totally sans maqor, of course.


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' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:49:42 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Bitachon and Hishstadlus

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:09:54AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: 1) My problem is that it seems obvious from Shaar HaBitachon chapter
: 3 that Chovas HaLevavos would agree with the Ramban that there is no
: hishstadlus at the highest levels of bitachon. Yet this is not mentioned
: by either R' Yisroel or R' Yaakov.

Friday night, RCMarkowitz showed me a vort on "verapo yerapei" that
seems to suggest that people with access to nevu'ah shouldn't be
going to doctors. I invite him to post it.

After you see that, reread the following.

It would seem, at least according to the IE (IIRC), that the level of
bitachon for which zero hishtadlus is required is limited to nevi'im.

Perhaps the difference is that the Ramban is being descriptive, while
the RYS and RYK speak prescriptively. In describing the universe,
the Ramban's spectrum of bitachon will include even nevi'im. In giving
advice and directions to a target audience that does not include nevi'im,
however, this is a moot point. The people they're advising will never
reach this madreigah until nevu'ah is restored.


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' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 11:08:14 +0200
From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannyschoemann@hotmail.com>
Mishenich'nas Adar is not in SA

In anticipation for my turn to speak (in Hebrew) after Kabolas Shabbos
at the 'American Minyan' -- Agudas Achim of Ramat Shlomo next week,
I was looking at the most famous "halocho" of Adar.

Strangely enough it seems that even though it's in the gemora, (Taanis
29a/b) "just as we decrease simcha as Av begins, so we increase it when
Adar begins" and the Rosh, Ran and Tur bring it, I couldn't find it in
Shulchan Oruch.

The Mishna Berura brings it at the end of Siman 686 -- which reinforces
my suspicion that it's not in the SA. The Kitzur and Oruch Hashulchon
also bring it.


1. Any ideas why it's not brought down in the SA?

2. What practical application does this "halocho" have? (Maybe this is
the answer to the 1st question.). Ideas:

- On a mussar level we can say that you have to increase Torah learning
(ein simcha ela Torah) which matches up nicely with Av -- where we start
feeling sad in anticipation of the missed day of learning on "9-B'Av".

- Rashi brings in Taanis that it's the start of the Geula season: Purim
& Pessach. In which case it would mean anticipation of the upcoming
Yomim Tovim.

- The gemora there actually ties it in to yes/no going to court with a
goy, as Yisroel's mazel is good/bad. Tosefos, in response to his question
that Yisroel is not bound by mazel ties it to the cyclic nature of our
year -- it's a "(un)lucky time for the Yidden." This would then indicate a
(pseudo) Choshen Mishpot kind of din.

Any "real" ideas? :-)

Gut Chodesh,
- Danny

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:07:42 -0600
From: "Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com>
RE: Malachim singing shira by yam suf

>>>I heard an explanation on HKBH reprimanding the malachim..."ma'asei
>>>yadai tav'u vayam v'atem omrim shira?" Why does it say "tav'u" (drowned)
instead of "tov'im" (are drowning),<<<
>>>The malachim thought to kill the Mitzrim by singing shira, just as they
>>>would do hundreds of years later to Sancherev's army at midnight. HKBH
said no, just as ma'asei yadai (the Jewish male >>>>>>babies, not Paro's
army) were drowned in the yam (actually thrown into the Nile), so too the
Mitzrim must die by water.<<<

I believe this is brought by the Maor V'Shemesh.

I saw it in the Chanukas HaTorah from R' Heshel of Cracow.

KT and Gut Shabbos,

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:59:30 -0600 (CST)
From: sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org

1. No one is hiding the Gr"a lauding of the acquisition of secular
knowledge and one need not acquire rare books to find it. His statement
is in the introduction to the Pe'as HaShulchan, talmid ha'Gr"a, which
is a common book that is almost constantly in print. I do not happen to
own one because mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz has not been one of my major
foci until recently. R' D. Eliach devotes an entire chapter to the Gr"a's
stance pro-secular studies vs. his stance against the Haskala movement
and quotes from the PE's brother, R' Boruch, a briefer version of the
Gr"a statement in vol. 2, Chap. 20.

2. Thanks to RMF for his post on MM vs. RSRH. There is nothing I
(nor Dr. Isaac Breuer) would take exception with there. The main area
of difference lay in the understanding of the mission (if any) of the
Jewish nation (as opposed to religion) and the holistic integration of
all aspects of life into a gestalt that reflected the mission.

I am being over brief, but am happy to fax the relevant pages from DIB
upon request.

[Actually, they're at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/dib.pdf> -mi]


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:02:36 +0200
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
RE: Sefardi sefer torah

> This is, however, a matter of debate because of the way yuds are written.
> According to Ashkenazi pesak, Sephardi yuds are passul. 

HaAri k'sav is possul too, because of the Tzaddi.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:23:27 -0600 (CST)
From: gil@aishdas.org
Rav Zevin on Army Service

This tends to come up every once in a while. The following is from the
Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XXIV (Fall 1992) pp. 153-154.
The editor, R' Alfred Cohen, wrote a letter about an article he had
previously written regarding yeshiva students serving in the army:

In the Pesach 1992 issue, the Journal printed an article concerning
drafting Yeshiva men into the army, which cited the position of Rav
Shlomo Yosef Zevin, as being strongly opposed to the practice of deferring
Yeshiva men from army duty, and strongly in favor of the Hesder program
of dividing the time between learning and army service.

A reader sent in the following excerpt from the Israeli paper Erev Shabbat
(or Yom Hashishi), dated July 22, 1988, featuring an interview with the
grandson of Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, who denies that his gradnfather ever
took such a negative position or that he even authored the anti-Yeshiva
deferment tract. His grandson claims:

"It is frightening to hear things that never happened. On the contrary,
aside from what I, as his grandson, know that his opinion was identical
with that of all /gedolei Yisrael/, that one should defer the army service
of the Yeshiva students, in addition to that, when the Mifdal decided in
1973 to draft Yeshiva students, he [Rav Zevin] published a strong article
in /Hazofeh/ and in /Panim el Panim/... from which one can clearly see his
position... Here is a typical paragraph:... We have nothing, G-d forbid,
against the local Hesder yeshivot, (which worked out a special arrangement
with the army.) On the contrary, let them be strengthened. They have saved
a large segment of the oyuth who, were it not for the Hesder yeshivot,
would mostly have gone 'to pasture in altogether different fields.' But a
mitzvah cannot extinguish an aveira. This has nothing to do with the great
yeshivot in which students devote all their time and effort to the study
of Torah on a very high level. As far as the high yeshivot are concerned,
we say, 'Do not touch My anointed, and do no evil to My prophets!'

"My grandfather of blessed memory, in whose house I grew up and with whom
I learned, published in his lifetime tens of books and hundreds of essays,
none of which appeared anonymously... If he were hiding behind [the name]
'one of the rabbis' [the author of the anti-yeshiva deferment essay],
why did no one mention this to him at the time of the great controversy
which was aroused when he published his essay 'Do not touch MY anointed',
an essay which is well known?"

I thank the reader for sending this article to my attention. However,
let me point out that the article in Tradition (Fall, 1985), which I
cited as the source for various remarks by R. Zevin, is prefaced with
an Editorial note which reports that the views ocntained in the article
appeared "as a monograph in 1948,... under the pseudonym of 'One of the
Rabbis.' It /was republished under his name in Talmud Torah verSherut
Tzeva'i/ (1980, HaKibbuts haDati - Ne'emanei Torah va'Avodah.)" (emphasis
added). Quite clearly, they were aware of the history of this opinion.

Rav Zevin's grandson's passionate disclaimer is difficult if not
impossible to verify. His colleagues, who knew Rav Zevin well, felt
confident that he had penned those words; his grandson, who loved him
well, cannot believe that he could have held such a position. Obviously,
the best way to determine the truth would be to examine Rav Zevin's
other writings. But there's the rub - in his definitive work on war, Or
Hahalacha, Rav Zevin does not discuss the topic /at all/. The omission
of this highly volatile question in a comprehensive study of war is,
in itself, a most puzzling circumstance which cannot be adduced as proof
for either a pro- or anti-deferment position...

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:36:57 -0500
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Correction re: Sefardi sefer torah

I wrote:
<<Let me add to the confusion. Can a Jew who holds by what we called
shteshe zan (a.k.a. Geonim) zman accept an 'aliyah in a 'hassidische
minyan, holding by Rabbenu Tam's zman>>

I meant shtetishe. Sorry for the misspelling.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 04:31:47 EST
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
visiting friends of parents - kiyyum of kibbud av ?

I recently was in a house when some (relatively recent) aveilim for their
mother, (whose father had passed away perhaps a year before), entered
to visit an older couple who were longtime friends with their parents.

One of the aveilim, who was visiting from EY to clear up some business
left by the niftarim, stated something like 'I thought to myself -
what would give my parents nachas ruach - what would they want from me
(when I am visiting in their old neighborhood) - to visit their friends
(so here I am....) !

I was quite impressed by what he said.

Later on, I thought to myself - is this possibly a kiyyum for him of
'michabdom bimosom' ?

Comments ?


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:09:56 +0200
From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
Re: Sefardi sefer torah

RJR wrote:
 > Can a ben ashkenaz be yotzeh lchatchilah (or bdeieved) kriat hatorah
 > from a sefardi sefer? Can he get an aliyah and make a bracha?

Without stating sources, Harav Ovadya Yosef pasqened on Motza'ei Shabbat
Hayyei Sara 5760 as follows:

Me`iqar hadin, it is permissible for a Sefardi to have an `aliya to
a sefer tora written with Ashkenazi script, and vice versa, sine the
difference between the Sefardi and Ashkenazi letters is not cause
for pesila. However, lekhathila it is best to be mehader and to have
an `aliya with a sefer tora written in accordance with his ancestors'
tradition. But if he is called to an `aliya he is permitted to do so and
recite the blessings with no hashsah. V'eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim hayyim.

He goes on, regarding Yemenite sifrei tora, with differences such as
"vayihyu kol yemei No'ah," as well as Ashkenazi sifrei tora where
"patzua` daka" is written with a he rather than an alef are kosher for
public reading.

Regarding tefillin, Harav Ovadya holds that the Ashkenazi form of
writing is kosher for Sefardim and vice versa, as for the sefer tora,
but the order of the parshi'ot is critical, since the order used by some
Ashkenazim is absolutely passul. He doesn't relate to the passivity of
putting on two sets of tefillin.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:40:46 -0500
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <cmarkowitz@scor.com>
RE: Bitachon and Hishstadlus

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>Friday night, RCMarkowitz showed me a vort on "verapo yerapei" that
>seems to suggest that people with access to nevu'ah shouldn't be
>going to doctors. I invite him to post it.
>After you see that, reread the following.

Michah, thanks for putting me on the spot.

>It would seem, at least according to the IE (IIRC), that the level of
>bitachon for which zero hishtadlus is required is limited to nevi'im.

The Ramban (I forget where but it is in Chumash) says that during the days
of the Neviim, the Tzaddikkim were not allowed to consult doctors. They
were only allowed to go to Neviim. This is what Chizkiyahu did when he
was sick and this is also why Asa was punished.

Interestingly, the Ibn Ezra in Mishpatim has a different explanation why Asa
was punished.

He says that the hetter to go to a doctor is only for a sickness that is on
the outside-that one can see. If it is on the inside you can't go to a
doctor. This was Asa's mistake.

Question on the Ibn Ezra.

1) what does he mean?

2) If he means what the pashut pshat is then is this a moving target.
Nowadays with x-rays and cat scans most sickness' are not hidden anymore.
Acc. to Ibn Ezra would one be allowed to go to a doctor in such a case?

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:29:49 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
Se'ir Rosh Chodesh as a Kapara for Shrinking the Moon

I don't recall whom I had the exchange with, but a couple of weeks ago we
were discussing whether it can ever be said that HKB"H made a mistake,
and someone raised the sugya of HKB"H telling Klal Yisrael to bring a
korban to be m'chaper on Him for shrinking the moon.

At the time, I did not have an answer. But this morning I learned
yesterday's blatt (okay, so I'm a little behind) and the Magid Shiur
explained it as follows (if I understood correctly): sometimes, someone
has to punish someone else in life - a parent has to punish a child,
a Rebbe has to punish a talmid and so on. Even though that punishment
is the right thing, nevertheless, one has to do tshuva for having been
brought to the situation in the first place.

Based on that explanation, I think it's fair to say that HKB"H didn't do
anything 'wrong' when He shrank the moon, and that the korban is being
brought every month as HKB"H's introspection on the need to punish the
moon in the first place.

Agav, the Magid Shiur (R. Fishel Shechter) also said that the lesson that
the moon teaches us is to be m'kabel tochacha and punishment properly
when we have to be the recipients of the same.

Ayein in the Tosfos HaRosh and the Ben Yehoyada there (Shavuos 9a).

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      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.

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:41:55 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Se'ir Rosh Chodesh as a Kapara for Shrinking the Moon

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: Based on that explanation, I think it's fair to say that HKB"H didn't do
: anything 'wrong' when He shrank the moon, and that the korban is being
: brought every month as HKB"H's introspection on the need to punish the
: moon in the first place.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pinchas.html>.

In part:
   Reish Lakish points out that this korban is indicated in the Torah
   in this week's parshah [Pinchas]. The pasuk says, "And one sa'ir,
   he-goat, for a chatos Lashem, an expiation-offering unto G-d" (Bamidbar
   38:15). No other holidays' chatos offering include this last word,
   that the korban is for G-d. Rosh Chodesh, when the moon isn't visible,
   the korban chatos is to "atone" for G-d "wronging" the moon.


   The Maharshah explains that the moon symbolizes the Jewish people
   who appear small in this world. The medrash is a discussion about
   the need for Israel to be oppressed in this world, so that they may
   shine brighter in the next.

   He identifies the sa'ir, the he-goat of the Rosh Chodesh chatos
   offering, with Rome the children of Yaacov's brother Esav. The
   connection between the goat and Rome is that both the word "sa'ir"
   and Rome's anscestor's name "Esav", indicates hairiness.

   Surely of all of the nations of the world, history is dominated by
   Rome and the western civilization it spawned. And, like the moon,
   Israel's fortunes rise, fall and rise again under its shadow.


   The sun-moon relationship between Israel and the West is described
   again by Yitzchak, when he blesses Esav. (27:39, 40)

     So Yitzchak his father answered, and said to him, "Behold, the fat
     of the land is your dwelling, and the dew from the sky above. By
     your sword shall you live, but your brother you must serve. However,
     when you feel wronged, you will cast off his yoke."

   Again, we see Esav described as a creature of the earth, who lives by
   physical might. He is subservient to Yaacov, but only up to a point.
   Esav has the power to remove the yoke, and take his turn at leading.

   This can help us understand the meaning of the gemara, and the words
   of the Maharshah. Not only is the Maharshah talking on the political
   level, but also inside each man. Edom only has ascendancy now because
   what it represents, that might makes right, that man is merely a
   physical animal (a "Material Girl"?) has ascendancy within the mind
   of the common man.

   The moon's complaint about two rulers sharing the same crown, is
   an observation about human nature. Man is incapable of having two
   primary goals. Each person most choose between tum'ah and becoming
   a slave to his body, or taharah and purposeful existence.

   G-d diminishes the moon. This seems like a mistake. Is the proper
   response to this problem to give the Israel principle the lower hand,
   to place man in a universe where the physical seems to reign supreme?
   To which G-d replies that even in the midst of the physical world,
   the higher man is what truly reigns - it shines both in the day,
   and in the night.

   But, the moon continues, the higher man's say in this world is like
   "a candle at noontime." It is so hard to perceive that voice within
   ourselves. Externally, the political arena is dominated by the mislead,
   who oppress us. To which G-d replies it is only through the modesty
   of a Yaacov, David, or Shmuel, that true greatness comes. Only then,
   by not pursuing physical power, do you here the real strength in being
   more than animal. It is only in the crucible of oppression can Israel
   become great.

   When Hashem asks us in this week's parshah to sacrifice a korban
   chatos for Him, it is not an admission of a mistake, for G-d does
   not make mistakes. G-d put us in the physical world, where we need
   to work toward hearing that voice for a purpose. The monthly chatos
   is for Him, because he put us in the world, but it is an atonement
   for those times when we refuse to put in that effort, when we refuse
   to listen to the "the voice of Yaacov".


Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:01:30 -0500
From: "Brown, Charles.F" <charlesf.brown@gs.com>
Re: Malachim singing shira by yam suf

: Perhaps the "regular" cycle of daily shira as commemoration
: must be initiated by BN"Y - since no new break from teva occurred, man
: must initiate the movement toward greater ruchniyus. However, by shira
: on a nes as it occurs, by definition there already has been an impetus
: to break teva, so this would bring malachim to sing as well.

Mi: Are you suggesting that one is IdT, the other IdE?

Lav davka. Man must usually initiate singing shira - exactly what
motivates man, whether IdT or IdE, is immaterial (for this).

On a nother topic, I never noticed that p' beshalach juxtoposes
two paradigms for war - 1) yam suf, where hashem does the fighting
(Hashem yilachem lachem, Hashem ish milchama) 2) amalek, where moshe
commands "tzey hilachem b'amalek" very much through human means.
And interestingly, by yam suf moshe is told his prayer is unnecessary
and klal yisrael need just jump into the river; by milchemes amalek,
moshe ahron and chur daven together (model for ta'anis tzibbur) and
moshe's raised hands are the makor for looking to shamayim for a help.

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:26:53 EST
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
Rachmonus - paternal and maternal

Re my recent posting 

"I seem to remember Hirsch somewhere taking the word "rechem" as being
related to the word "rachem" but don't remember where. (-T613K)>>

I recall encountering the vort of Rav Hirsch z"l, alluded to above. IIRC,
Rabbi Dr. Leo (Eliyohu) Jung z"l used to translate rachmonus as 'motherly
love' or similar (based on that etymology, I believe).

However, what about this -

We say in certain tefillos (e.g. selichos) 'kiracheim av al bonim, kein
tiracheim Hashem oleinu' (as a father has mercy on children, so should
Hashem have mercy on us). Note the depiction of a father's mercy as the
paradigm - and not a mother's. Does that perhaps imply that the father's
mercy is greater than / superior to the mother's ? "

An interesting vort on the inyan from Rav Pinchos Teitz z"l of Elizabeth,
NJ, was brought to my attention, as follows -

Rav Pinchos Teitz z"l used to explain that sometimes true rachmonus may,
on the surface, be the opposite ; e.g., waking a child early to go to
minyan, when the child wants to sleep. A mother's rachmonus often tends
to the olam hazeh aspect, at the expense of the olam haba component ;
the father's is the reverse, more often than the mother's is. Hence,
k'racheim av.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:03:14 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
V'chol h'om royim es hakolos

A bit late - but 'ein mukdom ume'uchor baTorah...'

On "V'chol ho'om royim es hakolos" -
Rashi writes "...Royin es hanishma - sh'ee efshar liros bemokom acher..."

This is to explain the use of 'royim' rather than 'shoymim'.

However, if we look at the Targum Yonoson on 'Onochi' and 'LoYihyeh lecho'
- we can get an idea of what Bnei Yisroel actually SAW during the first
2 dibros.

I'll transcribe the TY - as it is translated into LHK - in the new Keser
Yonoson Chumash:

"Dibur rishono [shniyo] kasher hoyo yotze min Peh HKBH k'moy zikin
[nitzotzos eish] ukemoy b'rokim uk'moy shalhevos lapid shel eish min
Yemino, velapid shel eish min S'moylo pore'ach vetass be'avir hashomayim
vechozar venireh al machanoseihem shel yisroel, vechozar venechkak al
luchos habris shehoyu nesunim bekaf yodoy shel Moshe, umis'hapeich bohem
min tzad letzad ubekach tzovach [koro] ve'omar: 'Ami Bnei Yisroel ani
hu Elokeichem asher podisi vehoytzesi eschem................vegomer..."

And talking of the TY on the Aseres Hadibros - let me transcribe the
LHK version of LoSirtzach/Signov/Sinof/Saaneh/Sachmod..

">>>Ami Bnei Yisroel, Lo tsihyu rotzchim, lo chaverim velo shutfim im
rotzchim, velo yeroeh be'adosom [biknesiyoseihem] shel Yisroel rotzchim,
velo yokum bneichem min achreichemelo yilmedo gam hem lihyos im rotzchim.
Ki b'avon rotzchim cherev yotze al ho'olom..."

The loshon is similar - but with different punishments - for the other 4
'los'.(death, hunger, no rain, poverty, and golus).

IIANM the VM uses this TY to show how far one must dissociate from baalei
aveiro ..


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:48:45 -0500
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
RE: Rambam and Yissachar Zvulun

R D Riceman, in response to my post that the rambam was unalterably
opposed to yissachar zvulun type arrangements, suggested that while that
may have been the rambam's ideal position, halacha lemaase he didn't
always - bringing tshuva 210.

I don't think tshuva 210 is proof at all - it proves something else The
case in tshuva 210 was a store whose profits were dedicted to support of
talmide chachamim (not enough details given to know how). The current
manager was not the legal heir (by Muslim law), so by Muslim law,
the sultan could confiscate it - the question was whether the manager
could lie (even under oath) - the rambam permits him to lie, as under
Jewish law he was entitled to run the store - the purpose of the store
is irrelevant to the psak, so the rambam does not raise it.

It is hard to extrapolate more than that the rambam didn't feel it
necessary to raise the issue of supporting talmide chachamim in every
context. He realized it was the common practice (see his perush on
masechet avot, where he says that he was going to keep quiet, until he
heard people saying it was an obligation to support talmide chachamim -
which he felt was too much).

Meir Shinnar 

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:02:08 -0500
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
RE: Avodah V10 #98

I enjoyed the creative interpretation of ma'ase yadav in t.t.3 :11 as
physical labor; however, see Igros Moshe helek 8, YD 36:4 who supports
my reading of the Rambam. Furthermore, see ibid regarding Rav Moshe's
interpretation of the Rambam based on other sources in Yad. Essentially,
Rav Moshe proves that when the Rambam criticezed a person who relies
on tzedaka, he was not refering to someone whose learning would suffer
qualitatively by diverting time to making a living. If his learning
would suffer, the Rambam would also agree that he should accept tzedaka.

WADR, RMF's creative interpretation is one of many attempts to understand
the rambam in light of what has been standard practice - see the kesef
mishne, who in the end concedes that the rambam meant what he said. RMF's
pshat is difficult both in place and in view of the rambam's perush on
pirke avot. Isn't is simple that for most of us, our learning suffers
qualitatively if we have to divert time to make a living?? Isn't the
rambam aware of this fact?? Yet, he paskens as he does.

WR to physical labor - this isn't creative interpretation, but simple
pshat. Again look at the perush hamishnayot, and try to reconcile your
pshat with the perush hamishnayot. the tannaim are not praised for an
act of hasidut for working and learning - it is viewed that it would have
been wrong for them and for anyone else to accept money. The rambam is
quite against current standards, but he is exquisitely clear.

Meir Shinnar

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:20:28 +0200
From: Simi and David Peters <familyp2@netvision.net.il>
[Areivim] navi/nasi

A colleague of mine and I were trying to figure out what the shoresh of
"navi" is. My initial guess was that the word is built on the hif'il
of bo (bet-vav-aleph), i.e. that a navi is someone who "brings" the word
of Hashem. My second guess was that the word is perhaps related to "niv"
as in "niv sefatayim." My colleague (whose grammar is better than mine)
tried to think of a word with a similar shnitt and came up with "nasi."
We checked the BDB and the concordance, neither of which was helpful.

Can someone help us with this? ("Nasi" is less problematic in terms of
the shoresh, but we'd still like to know how the word evolved that shnitt.
And can anyone think of more examples of words like "navi" and "nasi"?)

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

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 >