Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 110

Wednesday, March 3 2004

• Re: FW: Matanot La'evyonim to be distributed in EY
• Delaying a brit until Sunday
• Re: Minhag EY, Minhag America
• RE: FW: Matanot La'evyonim to be distributed in EY
• RE: FW: Matanot La'evyonim to be distributed in EY
• Re: Delaying a brit until Sunday
• Re: Delaying a Seudas Bris until Sunday
• Re: Delaying a Seudas Bris until Sunday
• Re: Delaying a Seudas Bris until Sunday
• Subject: Women Reading Megillah - R' Yehuda Henkin's Response to Shlomo Aviner's Position
• RE: assur to see Passion?
• Re: what makes a posek
• Re: G-d's existence
• Re: AIDS & Brit mila

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:09:10PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: Then how are you appointing a shaliach? 

Reading this exchange while cleaning up the posts for transmission,
I'm reminded of the difference in gittin between a shali'ach leholakhah
vs the shali'ach leqabalah. Or perhaps the kohanim as sheluchei tzibbur
and/or sheluchei Maqom.

RAS assumes, as I did, that the shali'ach for matanos la'evyonim is a
shali'ach leholakhah, and therefore regardless of when he was appointed,
the matanah is chal on Purim and the giving is therefore on Purim.

RCS assumes that the shali'ach is a shali'ach leqabalah. Or perhaps
that the date of the person's pe'ulah is relevent, not the date of his
shali'ach's. I don't follow either stance.

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:09:10PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:> Why not?  Why is this different than any other mitzva (aside from
:> those mitzvas haguf, like shofar, lulav, etc, that shlichus does not
:> help)?

: It's exactly like those mitzvos because it's time-dependent. But for
: "af hein hayu b'oso ha'neis," women would be patur. The idea is to give
: matanos la'evyonim ON PURIM....

Which you are, shelucho shel adam kemoso. And the shali'ach gives it
on Purim. (Assuming he's a shali'ach leholakhah.)

But RCS, you're mistaken on one point, the reason why shelichus doesn't
work for those mitzvos is because they're (as RAS writes) mitzvos haguf,
I never saw any explanation based on zeman.

One might argue that matanos la'evyonim, as opposed to tzedakah, is a
mitzvah haguf. I could probably argue it, based on RDRoth's favorite
Rambams, that the ikkar is the happiness of giving. But then appointing
a shali'ach on Purim wouldn't help either.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

"Carl M. Sherer" wrote:
> Why isn't it different? There's a specific mitzvas aseh in the Torah
> to make a bris "bayom ha'shmini." We're even m'challel Shabbos to do
> it if it's b'zmano. And it's the one mitzva in the entire Shulchan
> Aruch where the m'chabeir says zrizin makdimin. So why isn't pushing
> a bris off the eighth day any different from pushing it off any other
> day?

You are right, it is different in these ways, though I don't recall
seeing anywhere that when the bris was not done one the 8th day, one
violated a separate aseh of doing it on the 8th day.

Does the heter chilul shabbos elevate the bris of the 8th day to being
more special halachically than a nidcheh? Even on the 8th day we are not
mechallel shabbos for the bris of a yotzei dofen, so it isn't a blanket
8th day din.

Still, I think what I was saying was backwards, that is, delaying a
nidcheh is just as bad as delaying a regular bris, since once a baby is
heathy that is no less the zman bris than the 8th day is for a healthy
baby, even though we are not mechallel shabbos for it.

w/regard to the original issue of what R. Mintz, I guess I didn't really
add to what R' Micha had already noted [on Areivim]:
> It could very well be that he has to pick his battles. When you're glad
> you just convinced a couple to use a frum mohel, you don't go nuts over
> the date.

elly

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

In a message dated 3/3/2004 1:09:26 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Which means that while it could be true that RMF, RSZA, RYBS, etc...
> lived in countries that lack a true minhag hamqom, our children,
> grandchildren, and their poseqim may very well will.

> And where are we on the scale of transition?

I see in many places in the US a bilbul of chasidish, misnagdish
practices. My assumption has always been that where there was not a strong
minhag hamakom(or a large group of baala batim from a place with string
minhag) the Rabbinic leaders allowed these practices to flourish as long
as they did not violate halacha. My question is even if these practices
have evolved over 30 years(EG), when (and if?) more of the bala batim
become learned and realize (with or without rabbinical guidance)that
they have a mishmash, will they care and pressure for change or just
say it's fine and live with the philisophic contradictions? What will
the Rabbinic leadership say?

KT
Joel Rich

On 3 Mar 2004 at 12:53, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
> RCS:
>>>>Which means that Matanos la'Evyonim has to be different than stam 
> tzedaka money (something which would also appear to be the case from
> SA OH 694:2. If you're designating a shaliach way before Purim, how do
> you ensure that the money doesn't get mixed up with other tzedaka
> money? 

> Me:  
> Most of these organizations have matanos l'evyonim appeals - I assume
> that if one sends them a check with "matanos l'evyonim" written in the
> memo section, the organization won't mix it up with other tzedaka
> money.

And what makes you so confident that they won't mix them up if you 
send them the money the previous Pesach (since, after all, you argued 
that it would not make a difference if it was a day before Purim or a 
year before Purim :-).

> Old Me:
>> Where do you see that the mitzva is to appoint the shaliach on that 
>> day?

> RCS:
>>>>In the Biur Halacha that I quoted. 

> Me:

> I don't think the Biur Halacha says anything like that.

He says either appoint a shaliach on that day or give two evyonim who 
come to your door that day. How else do you understand the part that 
I highlighted? 

>> Me:
>> Why can't I give my shaliach an apple and a can of soda today and
>> ask him to deliver it to a friend of mine on Purim day?

> RCS:
>>>>You can. But are you m'kayeim the mitzva like that? 

> Me:

> Yes.

How are you m'kayeim the mitzva? The mitzva is to give mishloach 
manos on Purim - not to arrange it in advance (this is one of the 
reasons you are not m'kayeim the mitzva by sending through your 
shul). 

> RCS: 
>>>>The mitzva is to do it on Purim. You make a bracha on it on Purim
>>>>when you read the 
> megillah in the morning. If you've already designated a shaliach to
> take care of the entire mitzva for you, on what are you making (or
> hearing) a bracha on Purim morning? 

> Me:

> First of all, I think this is one of the reasons that we *don't* make
> a specific bracha on matanos l'evyonim.  

I think you don't make a bracha because we don't make a bracha on 
giving tzedaka generally (and I think we even talked about why once 
but I don't remember why). 

Second,  "shliach adam
> k'moso" - this allows me to make a bracha on Purim morning on the
> money that my shliach will give to the ani later that day.

And you make brachos without having any idea in mind when the mitzva 
might be performed? And to go back to the subject line: you make a 
bracha when the money is to be distributed in Yerushalayim the next 
day when it's not even Purim for you?

> RCS:

>>>>But [the Biur Halacha is] saying that (a) you can't be yotzei with
>>>>giving money  to 
> the evyon before Purim dilma achlei and (b) that the minhag is to
> designate a shaliach in advance but you can't be yotzei that way
> either and therefore (c) you'd better find an evyon on Purim day to
> give money (or find a shaliach on Purim day who will give it to the
> evyon on Purim day) or you're not yotzei. 

> Me:

> I don't know where you see (b) in the BH that you quoted.

Tzarich lomar d'al korchacha nosein shtei matanos la'evyonim gam 
b'yom Purim. 

> Old me:
>> I think we assume that a person's stam daas is that it is working
>> through shlichus; IOW, there is no specific requirement that the
>> person have the shlichus in mind or that he makes a declaration to
>> that effect.

> RCS:
>>>>You can designate a shaliach without da'as? 

> Me:

> Yes, when the mitzva is normally done that way, we presume that there
> was such da'as.  When you give $$$ to the matanos l'evyonim collection
> on Purim morning, do you have specific da'as to designate a shaliach? 
> I don't think most people do.

Sure do. I even tell them I'm appointing them on behalf of myself, my 
wife and all my children who are over gil mitzvos (four this year, 
bli ayin hara). 

And some of the people I give to even ask me for whom I am giving 
them (meaning for whose zchus is the money to go). 

> RCS:
>>>>But there's a difference between what every shaliach has in mind
>>>>the 
> entire year and having in mind specifically to make a shaliach for
> matanos la'evyonim, which is different from other tzedaka money in
> that (a) it cannot come from ma'aser ksafim money, (b) it has to be
> delivered specifically on Purim and (c) it is designated as matanos
> la'evyonim and not as tzedaka. 

> Me:

> I don't see why these factors should make a difference when it comes
> to the din of sh'lichus

Because what are you designating the shaliach to do? To give tzedaka 
or to give matanos la'evyonim, which, as you admit, cannot come from 
kesef ma'aser (which is why I designate a small amount as matanos 
la'evyonim and give a much larger amount as tzedaka). 

-- Carl

RCS:
>>>And what makes you so confident that they won't mix them up if you 
send them the money the previous Pesach (since, after all, you argued 
that it would not make a difference if it was a day before Purim or a 
year before Purim :-).

Anytime one uses a shaliach, one should make sure that the shaliach is
competent. I never recommended that people send their matanos la'evyonim
ten months early; I just stated that it would be halachicly effective
(assuming that the shaliach did his sh'lichus).

Old Me:
> I don't think the Biur Halacha says anything like that.

RCS:
>>>He says either appoint a shaliach on that day or give two evyonim who 
come to your door that day. How else do you understand the part that 
I highlighted? 

The BH does not use the word "shaliach" at all (at least in the part
you quoted). I understand the part you highlighted to mean that a person
should be careful that he gives matanos la'evyonim on Purim day.

This means that, if a person happens to bump into two aniyim a couple of
days before Purim, and says to himself "Hey, this is pretty convenient -
I'll just give them each five bucks, tell them to use the money for their
Purim Seudah, and I'll be done!" The BH is telling us that we shouldn't
do this because it is possible that these aniyim are hungry right now
and will use the five bucks to buy that evening's dinner.

Older Me:
>> Why can't I give my shaliach an apple and a can of soda today and 
>> ask him to deliver it to a friend of mine on Purim day?

> RCS:
>>>>You can. But are you m'kayeim the mitzva like that?

Old Me:
>>Yes.

RCS:
>>>How are you m'kayeim the mitzva? The mitzva is to give mishloach 
manos on Purim - not to arrange it in advance (this is one of the 
reasons you are not m'kayeim the mitzva by sending through your 
shul). 

I *am* giving mishloach manos on Purim - through a shaliach. As for the
group shul mishloach manos, if there are two manos for each of the people
who have paid for that mishloach manos to be delivered to that person,
I think they are yotzei.

Old Me:
> First of all, I think this is one of the reasons that we *don't* make 
> a specific bracha on matanos l'evyonim.

RCS:
I think you don't make a bracha because we don't make a bracha on 
giving tzedaka generally (and I think we even talked about why once 
but I don't remember why). 

That is certainly one reason - but there are other reasons as well.

Old me:
>Second,  "shliach adam
> k'moso" - this allows me to make a bracha on Purim morning on the 
> money that my shliach will give to the ani later that day.

RCS:
>>>And you make brachos without having any idea in mind when the mitzva 
might be performed? And to go back to the subject line: you make a 
bracha when the money is to be distributed in Yerushalayim the next 
day when it's not even Purim for you?

No - and that may be one reason why we don't make a bracha on Matanot
La'evyonim.

Old me:
>>I don't know where you see (b) in the BH that you quoted.

RCS:
>>>Tzarich lomar d'al korchacha nosein shtei matanos la'evyonim gam 
b'yom Purim. 

Right - and this can be accomplished through a shliach appointed prior
to Purim day.

Old Me:
>>  When you give $$$ to the matanos l'evyonim collection 
>> on Purim morning, do you have specific da'as to designate a shaliach? 
> I don't think most people do.

RCS:
>>> Sure do. I even tell them I'm appointing them on behalf of myself, my 
wife and all my children who are over gil mitzvos (four this year, 
bli ayin hara). 

So do I, but I am not sure if most people do that.

Old me:
> I don't see why these factors should make a difference when it comes 
> to the din of sh'lichus

RCS:
>>>Because what are you designating the shaliach to do? To give tzedaka 
or to give matanos la'evyonim....>>>

To give matanos La'evyonim.

KT
Aryeh

On 3 Mar 2004 at 12:00, Elly Bachrach wrote:

> You are right, it is different in these ways, though I don't recall
> seeing anywhere that when the bris was not done one the 8th day, one
> violated a separate aseh of doing it on the 8th day.

I'd need sforim to check that.... 

> Does the heter chilul shabbos elevate the bris of the 8th day to being
> more special halachically than a nidcheh? Even on the 8th day we are
> not mechallel shabbos for the bris of a yotzei dofen, so it isn't a
> blanket 8th day din.

That's because a yotzei dofen could be "timed" to come out whenever 
you want (assuming, of course, that the fetus is viable). 

-- Carl

Regarding a seudah for a Bar Mitzva, R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Mitzva -
not chiyuv. And not even a seudas mitzva unless there's a drasha...>>>

Magen Avraham 225:4 - "... that it is a mitzvah on a person to make a
seudah on the day that his son becomes a Bar Mitzvah, like the day he
enters the chuppah ... If the boy gives a drasha, then it is a Seudas
Mitzvah even if not that same day."

Mashma that if it *is* bo bayom, then it is a Seudas Mitzvah even without
a drasha. Exactly the opposite of what RCS wrote.

As far as being chiyuv, mitzvah, minhag, whatever, the exact level is
not so important. The real question which started this thread is: Is
it more important for a Seudas Bris to be on the same day as the Bris,
than it is for a Seudas Bar Mitzvah to be on the same day that the boy
becomes a Bar Mitzvah? And if so, why?

My experience is that almost no one (in chu"l, at least) is makpid to
make a Seudas Bar Mitzvah on the exact day. Yes, people are happy when
the calendar works out so that Bo Bayom happens to fall on a day of
laining, and if that happens to be on a Sunday too - like Rosh Chodesh
or Chanukah - then they're *very* happy about it. But it is viewed as a
plus. No one feels that delaying a Seudas Bar Mitzvah to something past
Bo Bayom is in any way regrettable. People *would* feel bad if they had
to delay the Seudas Bris Milah, and that strikes me as odd, especially
in light of the MA's comparison of the Bar Mitzvah to a Chuppah (which
is *never* on another day than the event). Why make the distinction?

Akiva Miller

On 3 Mar 2004 at 11:48, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> I see that I didn't explain my point well. A Siyum does not depend on
> the calendar, and neither does a Bris. Both are Mitzvos which are
> celebrated with a Seudas Mitzva, and so shouldn't both the Mitzvah and
> the Seudah be on the same day?

Ain hachi nami. 

> A person learns the last few lines of the masechta, does the Rashis
> and whatever other perushim he's learning, researches a couple of
> points that were unclear, and resolves them. *That* is when he gets
> the feeling of completion. *That* is when he has his simcha. And
> *that* is when he ought to say his hadran and make a seudah to thank
> HaShem for this opportunity.

I think that you're actually supposed to leave something over. I 
usually leave the last Rashi in the mesechta to learn right before 
the siyum. 

> But what usually happens is that he spends the next few days writing
> and rehearsing a Dvar Torah about that final portion, and finally
> makes his Siyum and Seudah a while later. My question is why we can't
> act similarly after a bris.

See above. 

By the way, in my experience, most siyumim here are much quicker 
affairs than what you're positing. 

-- Carl

On 3 Mar 2004 at 13:53, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> Regarding a seudah for a Bar Mitzva, R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Mitzva -
> not chiyuv. And not even a seudas mitzva unless there's a drasha...

> Magen Avraham 225:4 - "... that it is a mitzvah on a person to make a
> seudah on the day that his son becomes a Bar Mitzvah, like the day he
> enters the chuppah ... If the boy gives a drasha, then it is a Seudas
> Mitzvah even if not that same day."

> Mashma that if it *is* bo bayom, then it is a Seudas Mitzvah even
> without a drasha. Exactly the opposite of what RCS wrote.

Sorry. I don't have a full SA in the office....

> As far as being chiyuv, mitzvah, minhag, whatever, the exact level is
> not so important. The real question which started this thread is: Is
> it more important for a Seudas Bris to be on the same day as the Bris,
> than it is for a Seudas Bar Mitzvah to be on the same day that the boy
> becomes a Bar Mitzvah? And if so, why?

> My experience is that almost no one (in chu"l, at least) is makpid to
> make a Seudas Bar Mitzvah on the exact day. 

And here people are makpid to make some kind of seuda....

-- Carl

The issue of women reading megillah is not at all simple. The halachic
issue has already been discussed. But there is a social/halachic issue
that apparently is being ignored.

The best situation is if the whole family goes to shul together and
hear the Megillah -- women and men together. But this isn't the reality.
Women with younger children or babies many times do not go to the official
reading (or they are forced to leave in the middle). They too have to
hear the Megillah. So what can be done?

In many communities, there is a second reading for women. In others,
husbands read for their wives when they get home. But what about
communities who can't provide "women's reading" (with a male reader)?
Sometimes, it's simply b/c the reader can't read a 4th time (the problem
is more prevalent with the morning reading).

For this kind of situation, I would certainly love to have the possibility
of a women's reading, with a woman/women who read the megillah.

So, to summarize, as long as the women's reading did not impact on the
togetherness of the families at shul, I would love to know that there was
such a group in my area (driving distance). I would recommend that young
women looking for Shidduchim avail themselves of the regular shul minyan
(or better yet local Yeshiva minyan) -- but that's a seaprate issue <g>.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Akiva Atwood wrote:
>In discussions I've had about New Age Cults/beliefs with 
>Poskim here, some of the New age "beliefs" are classified 
>as "shtussim" (i.e. ridiculous). My question is: would it 
>make a difference if the persons professing those beliefs 
>are/were frum or not.

IMHO it should not make a difference.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

In v12n106, Rn Ilana Sober writes:
: Could it be that a great deal of Torah sheBa'al Peh is still ba'al peh?
: Drachim in psak are transmitted from Rav to talmid.

I would propose a much stronger form of this statement:

A great deal of TSBP is inherently ba'al peh. There are things about it
that simply don't map to words and explaining some kind of algorithm.
That kind of knowledge we can't describe, so we call it things like
intuition. Thus the need for shimush.

Recall what a lack of shimush on the part of batei Hillel veShammai
did to the art of pesaq.

And pesaq is just that: an art, not a science.

Thus I see nesqatnu hadoros as a loss of culture -- we might know
as much, in fact, the gemara concludes we know more. (Like the
midgets atop giants metaphore.) But Torah must be Orach Chaim, a
lifestyle felt in the bones; not simply an increase of the kind of
material you could record in a book.

Yes, that's akin to the thesis of Rupture and Reconstruction, or to
R' Moshe Koppel's "Meta-Halakhah". But it's also a statement made by
the Alter of Novorodok. He writes that the need for mussar arose when
one could no longer absorb the right attitude from the culture, and
one needs to consciously construct attitude. What he calls a split
between the yeshiva (which holds Torah as formally studied) and the
street (which should hold Torah as innate culture).

I didn't read RAL's "Leaves of Faith", but as RGS writes there:
> 3. Total commitment to Torah AND ITS VALUES (emphasis mine, cf. recent
> Edah journal article criticizing mv"r R' Mayer Twersky)

Values, Toras imekha, are conveyed non-verbally, heart-to-heart,
not brain-to-word-to-brain.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:08:21PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Its like throwing the dice a thousand times and then claiming that the 
: a priori chance of whatever happened is so small that it was a 
: miracle. If the outcome was the same digit 1000 times we convince 
: ourselves that that is unusual and so something special happened. 
: However, mathematically that outcome is no more unusual then any other 
: outcome.

There are three versions of the anthropic principle:

1- ... so you see, the universe was created for people. This assumes
purposive creation, and therefore a Borei. I don't think that's what
we're discussing.

2- If you throw enough dice enough times, eventually you'll get a run of
thousands of sixes in a row. This dismisses evolution as being likely,
given the number of possible sites in the universe where evolution could
have occured.

For the fine tuning of the laws of physics, it requires believing that
there are many existing universes. Or, that the universe expands,
collapses, and undergoes another big bang yeilding another set of
laws of physics. IOW, many universe at once, sequentially in time,
or a combination.

The irony of this position is that eliminates one Infinite Being that
is outside the scope of science with another infinity that could never
be scientifically verified. It's just as religious as theism.

3- Yes, the evolution of sentient beings is unlikely. However, had the
unlikely not happened, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. So, one
can't ask why people are thus and not otherwise? Or why did we evolve on
this particular planet and not elsewhere? Because however we turned out,
that's the "thus" and "here" we would ask about.

In fact, if we didn't evolve at all, there'd be no one to ask the
question. Supposed A & B played a game in which A gives B $1 if B rolls
a six. The odds of rolling a 6 are quite low. But the odds that B had
rolled a 6 given that we know A paid B is much higher. The odds of our
existance is quite low. The odds that we exist given that we're wondering
about the odds is 100%.

I think RET is speaking to this variant in particular. But, rather than
picking an obvious "special case" to our pattern seeking minds, there
is an added bit: The only thing that makes the way things turned out
similar to a run of sixes, ie something to wonder over, is the result
that we're here to wonder.

Frankly I think this one just avoids the question. It doesn't justify
the a priori improbability, it simply asks you to ignore it by looking
at the a postoriori likelihood instead.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

In c12n104, R Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> quoted me and wrote:
:> Sechar mitzvos behai alma leiqa.
:> Tzadiq vera lo.

: I find it ironic yet, I suppose, necessary in order to give us Bechira
: Chafshis, that the above two statements effectively relegate exitence
: to what appears to be randomness...

The irony, as well as those dialectics RYBS discusses so often, can be
explained in terms of a single cause.

HQBH created beings to receive His hatavah. However, the greatest tov
is the opportunity lalekhes biderakhav. The ultimate gift Hashem could
give us is the ability to be givers rather than passive recipients.
Recieving the ability to give.

Total receiving is a paradox, because to only receive would be to not
get the greatest gift.

This then creates a tension between giving and receiving.

Hashem would give us sechar mitzvos (or even sechar without mitzvos)
but that would quash bechirah and therefore our ability to be givers.

RYBS examples:

Adam I only exists because he recieves the gift of being able to create
and apply mastery to the world -- the gift of giving.

We need to balance progress (giving) and retreat (recieving).

Man as nosei (creative giver) and nisa (passive recipient).

Vechulu...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

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


[ 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         ]