Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 051

Sunday, August 10 2003

• Someich Noflim
• re: Birthday Candles
• chazal and science
• Sitting low
• Midos on Tisha B'Av
• Re: Someich Noflim
• Non Bitachon - legitimate Avodas HaShem?
• Ahavas Chinam
• Re: For the German Jew, TIDE was more than a way of life
• Molad
• Re: Molad
• Somech Noflim
• keruvim
• Re: keruvim
• Re: Someich Noflim
• pets on shabbos are muktza?
• Woman as temptress
• Re: keruvim
• re: TIDE
• Re: kollel and PhD
• Re: TuM and TIDE
• RSRH
• idle speculation
• technique to allow Kohanim to visit kever - legitimate ?
• Re: mussar vs psak

Came up with an intersting idea while giving shiur this past Wed. morning.

"Someich Hashem l'kol ha'noflim v'zokef l'kol ha'kefufim."

The questions are obvious:

1. Why "someich" and not "meikim"

2. "L'kol" is a pretty powerful statement!

3, What is the chilluk between "semichas noflim" and "zekifas kefufim."

We discussed several answers, viz., that the pasuk means that Hashem
interrupts your fall on the way down and then straightens you up again -
but it is only support and not a complete prevention, so you may fall
further on your own volition. Alternatively, that Hashem assists those
who have already fallen - but it only b'geder "Ha'bo l'hitaher mesayin
b'yado," etc.

Then the following analogy and pshat (perhaps only a "pshetel") occurred
to me.

In one of our counseling courses, there was a trust building exercise
in which you had to intentionally fall backwards into the arms of
someone standing behind you. Needless to say, it takes a lot of trust to
"free-fall" into the arms of someone you may barely know who you cannot
see! Of course, after you fall and are (hopefully!) successfully caught,
you are inclined, held up in the other person's arms, who then rights
you to the standing position.

Here too, Dovid HaMelech is referring to such a nefilah. As he says
elsewhere, and as we say in Tachanun: "niplah nah b'yad Hashem ki rabbim
rachamav." If one has sufficient trust - bitachon - he will fall into
the "arms" of HKB"H. For such an individual, who is botei'ach ba'Hashem
b'emes, there is a havtochoh: Hashem will support him. Moreover, sometimes
the fall requires a certain sacrifice or surrender - which leaves a person
kafuf - but Hashem then is zokeif that individual and ma'amido al tilo.

We know that nun is left out of the Aleph Bais in Ashrei's Tehillah
l'David because it represents the nefilah we mourned earlier today. May
we be zocheh to the nefilah b'yad Hashem that is the tikkum for nafla
besulas Yisroel.

YGB

R'n Katz quoted the paragraph from Rabbi Blumenkrantz's book: 
<<<The blowing out of candles is also not Jewish. A Jew should never
blow out a candle. The reason is...>>>

Although I appreciate the reason that he gives, I am disturbed by his
wording: "A Jew should never..." Why must he be so absolutist? Is it
assur? AIUI, it isn't. Yes, it's recommended to put it out in other ways,
but not required.

Avi Burstein

If the following question has been discussed in the past, I apologize.
Please point me to where I can find it.

In <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html>, R' Gil Student
discusses the various approaches that are taken to reconcile seemingly
mistaken ideas on scientific reality proposed by the Tanaim. One of the
suggestions is that science changed and while it's true that nowadays
a specific case might not be like what chazal seem to be talking about,
it did apply back in their day. I was wondering if this line of thinking
ever extends to non-scientific notions too.

Specifically, what comes to mind is R' Soloveitchik's statement that when
chazal said that women preferred any husband (tav l'meitav...) over
no husband, it was an absolute unchanging reality. (I might be
misunderstanding that idea, but I seem to recall hearing that.) If it
can be suggested that the scientific reality has changed so much from the
times of chazal (quite an improbable scenario) that halachic principles
based on it no longer apply, can't it also be suggested that halachic
principles based on social realities which have changed (a much more
realistic proposition) should likewise not apply?

To clarify, this wasn't the only perspective offered. However, I am
asking *according* to this shita.

Avi Burstein

My impression from the way the halacha is stated is that one sits low for
kinos, and then continues
until chatzos the next day.

Meaning, that one need not sit low for Ma'ariv. Is this correct, and if
so why is it not done, and if not,
can anyone cite a source?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I asked R' Yisroel Hirsch whether it is mutar to learn Maseches Midos
on Tisha B'Av. It seems like learning about the structure of the Beis
HaMikdash is entirely appropriate for the day, yet I have never seen it
listed as something proper for Tisha B'Av. He cleverly responded that the
Tosafos Yom Tov (and, I think, the Rambam) in his introduction to Midos
writes that the tachlis for Maseches Midos is that it will help us build
the third Beis HaMikdash. Thus, R' Hirsch concluded, Maseches Midos
is somewhat of a nechamah and therefore inappropriate for Tisha B'Av.
I liked that answer (although I really wanted to learn Midos yesterday).

Gil Student

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu> wrote:
<<but it is only support and not a complete prevention, so you may fall
further on your own volition>>

This, together with
<<We know that nun is left out of the Aleph Bais in Ashrei's Tehillah
l'David because it represents the nefilah>>

indicates to me that just as we are commanded to help someone *before*
he falls because it's easier to help him that way, in the same way HKB"H
does not allow us to fall, but supports us so we don't.

Easier? In the sense that we are not in need of using up our zechuyos
as much.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I am trying to understand the first perek of Emuna and Bitachon which
has been ascribed to the Ramban. [see R' Chavell's analysis]

Ramban says that not everyone with emuna has bitachon but everyone who has
bitachon has emuna. He states that there are two legitimate reasons for
not having bitachon. 1) fear that sin will make you undeserving of G-d's
help as we find by Yaakov. It is the second case that I am stuck on. He
cites the gemora (Shabbos 89a) where Moshe Rabbeinu ascends and sees that
G-d is fashioning the crowns for the letters. G-d asks him why he doesn't
say hello and Moshe responds how can a student greet his master. Then G-d
states "you should help me". 2) The Ramban learns out from not wanting
to bother G-d is a legitimate reason for not having bitachon.

I have not found such a assertion anywhere else in the Ramban's
writings. The closest is that Noah built the Ark because it is necessary
to try an minimize the need for miracle. Furthermore I haven't been
able to find anyone else who views that not bothering G-d with our petty
needs is considered an absence of bitachon.

Additionally it would appear that R' Elchonon Wasserman was unaware
of this Ramban when he tried to assert that great people don't have
bitachon because they want to have a relation of din not rachim. He
finally rejects this hypothesis. His question can readily be answered
by the Ramban's assertion.

Any comments or sources allowing non bitachon as a legitimate path in
Avodas HaShem would be greatly appreciated.

> At 01:22 PM 8/6/2003 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>>... [L]et me translate ahavas chinam as unearned love. ...

>>Ahavah she'einah teluyah bedavar is similar, but broader. ...

> A very dakusdike chilluk if you ask me...

> Zohl zein "unearned." But much love is "unearned." Almost all love is
> "unearned." So what is the tosefes of "chinam" then?

My understanding of "ahava she'ena teluya bedavar" is that there is
nothing in it for YOU, no ulterior motive, but that the person is just
loveable and you love him. Like Dovid and Yonasan, they loved each other
because both were special, loveable people.

"Ahavas chinam" is loving someone [or at least trying to act in a
loving manner] who is actually annoying and irritating. Not evil. I do
not believe there is any mitzva to love an evil person. But we all know
annoying people, and 99% of our loshon hora concerns those very people.
Trying very hard to overcome one's distaste and irritation surely is a
zechus and can counteract the tendency towards sinas chinam that caused
the churban.

And sinas chinam, BTW, does not mean hatred for "NO reason." It means
for inadequate reason--dislike of a person just because he has some
irritating mannerisms or is a dim bulb. So ahavas chinam is loving him
despite the fact that there is nothing particularly loveable about him.

Toby Katz

>Will someone put me out of my misery and confirm that the extract from
>G.Frankel's pamphlet, quoted on this list & reproduced below, is written
>as a parody.

>>>Once I have begun citing Mr. George D. Frankel's pamphlet, I cannot
>>>forbear from citing what he writes on pp. 48-49. I cite without comment:

>"For the German Jew, TIDE was more than a way of life. It was the

deleted

Curious: Why does the "author" feel this must be a parody?

YGB

In Rosh Hashana 25a, Rabban Gamliel says in his grandfather's name that
the molad is __not less than__ 29 days, 12 hours, 793 chalakim.

I was always bothered by the phrase "is not less than", as if 793 chalakim
was not exact. Now that you mention that the true molad is 792 and a
fraction chalakim, I am even more perplexed by the language of the gemara.
Can anyone offer some help?

Kol tuv,
Moshe Esral

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:25:56AM -0400, M Esral wrote:
: In Rosh Hashana 25a, Rabban Gamliel says in his grandfather's name that
: the molad is __not less than__ 29 days, 12 hours, 793 chalakim.
: 
: I was always bothered by the phrase "is not less than", as if 793 chalakim
: was not exact. Now that you mention that the true molad is 792 and a
: fraction chalakim, I am even more perplexed by the language of the gemara.

R' Shim'on ben Gamli'el (if Rebbe was Rabban Gamli'el's father) could have
been giving pesaq. Evben though bemetzi'us, one lunation takes 29d 12h
792.8ch, lehalachah we only need to be accurate to the nearest cheileq,
and therefore we needn't use less than the whole number of 29d 12h 793ch.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org            and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org       
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From a correspondent, and my response:

At 09:32 AM 8/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Beautiful vort!
>I had this question too,
>i thought about somthing, maybe somech, comes from the lashon smicha( 
>blanket), wich gives the image of protection, like the father who comes 
>after his child fell asleep and put the blanket on him to protect his 
>child as much as possible...No?

Very possible - had not thought of somech as covering, and have not given 
thought to the link between somech as support and somech as covering... 
Needs more consideration!

YGB  

we know that in good times, the two keruvim faced each other lovingly, and
that in not-so-good times, they didn't. as i recall, in the not-so-good
times, they both turned around and had their backs to each other. that
sounds pretty harsh. i'd like to think that throughout all the tochachas
and punishments, HaShem never really gets angry at us, and is only doing
what's necessary to bring us home.

is it possible, does anyone suggest, might we interpet it, that although
our keruv turned its back on HaShem, *His* keruv kept facing ours? if
His turned around as well, that's a picture that i really don't want to
think about.

akiva miller

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> we know that in good times, the two keruvim faced each other lovingly, and 
> that in not-so-good times, they didn't....
> 
> is it possible, does anyone suggest, might we interpet it, that although our 
> keruv turned its back on HaShem, *His* keruv kept facing ours? 

His keruv turned away as well. See Sefer Hatoda'ah re Tisha B'Av. But the
famous end of the story is that when things were at their worst--when He
poured anger out on us and destroyed the BHM'K--the keruvim were found
locked in tight embrace. A beautiful and moving image. Love most intense
when we thought we were rejected.

Toby Katz

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:57:51PM -0400, YGB wrote:
: "Someich Hashem l'kol ha'noflim v'zokef l'kol ha'kefufim."

: The questions are obvious:
: 1. Why "someich" and not "meikim"

: 2. "L'kol" is a pretty powerful statement!

: 3, What is the chilluk between "semichas noflim" and "zekifas kefufim."

We say this numerous times a day, oy lanu that we're first noticing the
issue now!

The "kol" doesn't bother me, although I don't see who to be meyasheiv it
with the position of incomplete or meriting hashgachah peratis found in
the rishonim. When davening, however, my kavanos involve my own post-Besht
and mussar stance on the subject.

One of our CI vs REED on bitachon debates became the underpinning to my
kavanos for this pasuq. Following RALichtenstein, I personally believe
that there is a role for both. Therefore, I can think of each during
part of the paruq.

Someich H' lekhol hanofelim -- I have [CI-style] bitachon that HQBH
is there supporting someone who is nofeil vezokeif lekhol hakefufim --
and [mussar/chassidus style] bitachon that every kefifah is temporary,
that in the end He is the Zokeif Kefufum.

That explains someich vs zokeif. Kefifah, as is clear from Be'iqvos
haYir'ah (a referance that serves my nefarious design of getting RYGB
to switch to my mehalakh; see <http://www.aishdas.org/raek/yirah.pdf>),
is an overdose of psuedo-anivus. Not the ideal, but perhaps the
"switching to the other extreme" that the Rambam teaches us (Dei'os 2)
is a necessary part of the cure.

So, while nefilah is a true setback, kefifah is a setback for the purpose
of growth. Focussing on the notion that deep down, no setback is real.

: Then the following analogy and pshat (perhaps only a "pshetel") occurred
: to me.
:
: In one of our counseling courses, there was a trust building exercise
: in which you had to intentionally fall backwards into the arms of
: someone standing behind you. Needless to say, it takes a lot of trust to
: "free-fall" into the arms of someone you may barely know who you cannot
: see! Of course, after you fall and are (hopefully!) successfully caught,
: you are inclined, held up in the other person's arms, who then rights
: you to the standing position.
:
: Here too, Dovid HaMelech is referring to such a nefilah...

Li nir'eh the point of the 2nd half of the pasuq is that while we truly
experience nefilos, and respond to them as nefilos, EVERY nefilah is that
kind of nefilah. We can know intellectually and perhaps with sufficient
hindsight emotionally as well that they were truly opportunities for
zekifas kefufim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org            and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org       
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

good morning.

It seems that although recent poskim have reviewed whether our concept
of a pet should cause a change in the application of hilchos muktza,
they maintain the opinion that pets are muktza.

In one muktza sefer the author (R' Bodner I believe) expressed the idea
that animals as pets are functionless, and so planning to play with one
does not remove its muktza status.

My father-in-law showed me that in the 8th volume of IG'M, oh'c 5, siman
22, s'k 21, a question was asked about songbirds. The response written is
that all animals are muktza. The small print which I believe means "not
from R' Moshe" adds *except for those that are meyuchadim as shaashuim
(Pets [written in hebrew])*. This would be the only place I have seen so
far that permits it. Incidentally, for those of you who use the bar-ilan
cd, the small print words do NOT appear any differently than the rest
of the type!

This assumption may be at odds with R' Moshe as quoted elsewhere, and
other acharonim who reject the basis for a kula, which originated with a
discussion regarding songbirds in particular; the mekilim did not bring
the entire original source, which began with a heter, and ended saying
it was assur - see shmira shabbas, 27, footnote 96. In that foot note is
mentioned this idea that we do not "use" these animals, so there are asur
(i.e. muktza)

First, can anyone point me to specific teshuvos regarding pets,
particularly interactive ones (dogs, cats, not fish or birds)?

Second, I do not understand how it can be that if playing with an animal
will involve tiltul, that designating an animal for play would not be
enough to make in non muktza? That is, why isn't that called using from
the standpoint of muktza, since I will be m'taltel it? I understand the
reasoning that you can't just assume an animal to be available for play
without being m'yached it somehow, but wouldn't this be different?

I am also looking at the primary sources (tosafos shabbos 45b for one);
I am just focusing on the p'sak here.

thanks
elly

-- 
Elly Bachrach
Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

RML Wrote:
>This is why the languages are similar but they express the 
>identity of the processes of fragmentationa and reabsorbtion 
>and not some kind of facile reading of a woman as the evil 
>impulse. 

How, on this basis, do you read a good portion of Mishlei (ie all the
stuff before eshet chayil)?

>Externalization of yetser Hara and its replacement on to 
>another human (Jew, woman, heretic) is a very 
>characteristic Christian mode of thought. 

And yet the halacha clearly acknowledges that men do find women a
temptation against which they must guard themselves. Or how are you to
understand the references in all the discussions about handshaking and
dancing and tznius to the concept of lifnei iver?

Shabbat Shalom
Chana

PS Just for Toby, a feminist analysis, - would be to state that this
encapsulates the problematic relations between men and women (where the
man relates to the woman either as madonna/mother (as demonstrated by
Chava's name) or as whore/temptress - all this being post pri eitz hadaas,
whereas the pasuk quoted earlier in RTK's analysis regarding husband
and wife is pre eitz hadaas - and encapsulates the ideal relationship.

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:40:39PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: His keruv turned away as well. See Sefer Hatoda'ah re Tisha B'Av. But the
: famous end of the story is that when things were at their worst--when He
: poured anger out on us and destroyed the BHM'K--the keruvim were found
: locked in tight embrace. A beautiful and moving image. Love most intense
: when we thought we were rejected.

Along similar lines, we thank HQBH for not letting harugei Beitar decay
and spread disease. Surely a major tovah from the RSO. However, this
show that we were not abandoned even when we are at the depths is why
the berakhah was included in bentching and why it's "haTov vehaMeitiv".

Which gets me back to the discussion of "someich nofelim"...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org            and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (413) 403-9905

In Avodah V11 #50, ABurstein wrote:
> Little know fact: RSRH's name was not R' Shamshon (or Shimshon) Rephael.
> It was R' Shamshon BEN Rephael.

True: RSRH took his father's name (in his father's lifetime, according
to biographer R' Klugman). I only found this out myself some months ago
via a listmember on another group (who persisted in stating such despite
my stubborness in not believing him -- after dialogue with Daniel Levy
[grandson of Isaac Levy and accordingly a direct descendant of RSRH]
and Meta Bechhofer [great-grandaughter of RSRH], I apologized to him).
For those interested in details, write me offline (but if Micha thinks
it's appropriate to post those details, I will).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Micha wrote:
>I am totally unsurprised, but I still want to note how Brisker
>this definition is. Leshitaso, "kol haTorah kulah" only includes
>that aggadita in Tanakh and the Bavli. This is not supposed
>to be lilmod al menas la'asos.

It actually is. R' Yisrael Salanter says that the chiyuv of learning
kol ha-Torah kulah means to learn it aliba de-hilchasa. The chiyuv to
learn all the time, however, includes stam learning and dreying kop on
the same sugya for years at a time. However, in his unique way (and
there is a story behind this), RYS considered pilpul to be the way to
get to halacha le-ma'aseh. Or Yisrael no. 27.

Gil Student

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> Unfortunately, RIETS is largely giving up on the pragmatic aspects of
> having well-rounded poskim, And even when we learned Shulchan Aruch,
> we rarely connected it to Shas. And we never studied Tshuvos - except
> in grad school...

> Now, OTOH, Rabbi Chaim Kohn's Yeshiva Gdolah in Teaneck is teaching
> traditional Shas in the mroning and Tur and Beis Yoseph on the same
> suga in the afternoon. They finisished hilchos Ribbis a few months ago
> and are now doing hilchos nidah. This is IMHO a superior apporach for
> a semirnay to trace Halachah from theory to practice via the classic
> texts in such a way that one becomes a competent poseik, lamdan, and
> potentially a Talmid Chaham, too, Kudos to the Yeshiva Gdolah's method.

That, I understand, was the derech halimud in most Hungarian pre-war
yeshivos and the reason how they produced so many poskim.

Punkt this Shabbos I heard that the 1st Rav of the Satmar Kehilla in
Montreal Rav Shmaya [?], a nephew and talmid of the famous Posek the
Szemihaly rav - the Maharshag - related that his rebbe did exactly
that..in the morning Shas eg Shnayim Ochzin and in the afternoon SA
Hilchos Toyen venitan.

Azoi, BTW, one can produce poskim. Learning 20 minutes of MB a day -
while learning a few nominated mesechtes be'iyun @ the rate of 5-10
blatt a zman - won't..

SBA

From: "Avi" <>
> Little know fact: RSRH's name was not R' Shamshon (or Shimshon) Rephael.
> It was R' Shamshon BEN Rephael.

You sure his shem kodesh  wasn't Shimshon ?
- with Shamshon or Samson being the chol kreish or indeed
 his 'official' registered shem nochri?

SBA

1. The older sources (Megillas Taanis, Tosefta, and Josephus) all think
of Tu B'Av as the say of public donation of wood, and Josephus adds that
people flocked to the Beis HaMikdash to make the donations.

2. The story about Hanina b. Dosa at the beginning of Kohelleth Raba
implies that there were people too poor to offer even a minchath nedava.
Back when EY was forested a donation of wood would cost time, not cash.

3. During normal Yamim Tovim people needed to consume a lot of meat
(so the shlamim would not become nosar). Normally Chazal associate
consumption of meat with consumption of wine.

4. During normal Yamim Tovim Chazal were concerned about pritzuth, e.g. on
Pesach "ein Osim Chavurath Nashim" and on Sukkoth "metaknim tikkun gadol".

Hence we can speculate that Tu B'Av was unusual because the primary donors
were poor people, and therefore sober. So that what Tu B'Av and Yom Kippur
had in common was precisely sobriety, and hence lack of fear of pritzuth.

David Riceman
(who had been planning a Tu B'Av Barbecue and now wonders if he should serve
nothing but charcoal).

I was recently reading a new book about Lubavitch / Lubavitcher shluchim
by one Sue Fishkoff.

In one of the chapters (IIRC the chapter is called 'The Rebbe' or
something like that and the piece is near the end of the chapter), it
mentions that Kohanim who wish to visit the (late Lubavitcher) rebbe's
ohel, don some type of contraption (something like boxes on their feet
[and hands ?]) to enable them to do so without transgressing.

I was wondering -

1) what is this based on (presumably something related to making the
Kohen visitor be in a separate ohel than in that of the niftar ?) ?

2) Does everyone accept the idea / logic ?

3) Has it been utilized in the past or is it a recent innovation ?

4) Anyone hear of such a technique used at other kevorim ?

Mordechai

R' Akiva Atwood asked <<< When a Gadol gives mussar, quite often he
phrases it in terms of psak (i.e. "It's assur to do X"). When should
one take that as a psak? Always? Sometimes? Never? >>>

To answer this question, it is absolutely critical that we define the word
"p'sak".

My definition of "p'sak" is "If you go against what he told you to do,
then you've have violated a mitzvah d'oraisa or d'rabanan, whether that
person was correct or not". If that is the definition which you use,
then I believe that only the directives of a real Sanhedrin (or possibly
a person with Real Semicha, i.e., uninterrupted since Moshe Rabenu)
count as a "p'sak".

(Of course, if a gadol advised you not to do X, then doing it probably
would put you in violation of the halacha which prohibits X. But your
sin would be in doing X, *not* in "straying right or left" from what
the gadol told you. If one is convinced that X is actually allowed,
or that the halacha does not apply to this specific case, and he is
willing to take his chances when he gives a Din V'Cheshbon to HaShem on
this incident, then I say that what the gadol said does *not* count as a
"p'sak". This is in sharp contrast to the case where it was a Sanhedrin
which said not to do X. In that case, violating their p'sak is assur,
even if that Sanhedrin was mistaken.)

My source is Yoreh Deah 242, which talks all about whether or not going
to a second rav for his opinion might violate your mitzvah to honor the
first rav that you had asked, but says nothing about your requirement
to follow that first rav's "p'sak" --- Except in the case of a ruling
on a specific object. In that case alone, if the rav said it was assur,
then the halacha of "shavya alav chaticha d'issura" renders that object
assur even if the rav was wrong. But this is only for objects; where
the question is about a verb (can I do this? how do I do that?) this
does not apply.

If you have a different definition, let us know what you mean.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]