Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 038

Thursday, November 24 2005

• Re: m'dameh davar l'davar
• Re: m'dameh davar l'davar
• Makdim Shalom
• Lashon Hara about Eretz Yisrael
• Pikuach nefesh
• Re: Geirut
• RE: Ramban and science/observation
• "Es" lerabos
• shnayim mikra
• Going to shul during Shiva
• re: Another Phantom Chazal?
• shnayim mikra
• Re: transgression for its own sake
• Re: Greeting Women
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Eliyahu not a kohein?
• Rising Torah Star

From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Some corrections:
> The classical case of borer would be to take a mixture of tea + leaves,
> pour the mixture through a strainer, and end up with tea. Even that
> is not entirely clearly assur d'oraysa. See Hayyei Adam H. Shabbos
> 16:7 where he distinguishes between potable liquid [tzlulim] with
> contaminants and non-potable liquid [akurim].

The simple understanding of this din is that there's no issur d'orraysa
in straining a potable liquid. Incidentally, the Arukh HaShulhan claims
that liquid can be akurim and potable, thus implying I've translated
imprecisely. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the
precipitate!

> I think removing the strainer would be assur drabbanan,

This turns out to be a machloketh between the Rashba and the Rambam;
the Shulhan Arukh cites both opinions.

Now I'll have to go reread SSK to figure out why he thinks it might
be assur.

 David Riceman 

In Avodah V16 #37, RYZ replied to Micha:
>> When drinking from a cup with an embedded filter...since the act
>> of drinking is the same act as the birur, my LOR considers it akhilah
>> le'alter (unsurprisingly IMHO).

> The clearer heter is Derech Achila....

I thought that was what Micha meant. What I'm unsure of, considering
his words again via RYZ's reply, is how Micha's case doesn't present a
problem of using a kli hamyuchad -- Micha?

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

RSBA just mentioned on Areivim R' Yochanan ben Zakai's habit of being
maqdim shalom lekhol adam, and how it earned him arichas yamim.

Here's a balebatisher take:

When RYbZ was smuggled out of Y-m, a key part of that succeeding was that
the Romans wouldn't dare defile what they thought was his remains. Which
in turn could be due to his being the kind of person who made a point of
respecting non-Jews, thereby having a very positive reputation in their
community...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Is it an aveira to speak lashon hara (i.e., the truth) about Eretz
Yisrael, or just to speak falsehood about EY? The gemara Arachin
15a states: "Come and see how great the power of lashon hara is.
We learn this from the case of the meraglim: if one who is motzi shem
ra on trees and rocks is [punished] thus, one who is motzi shem ra on
his fellow man, how much more so [will he be punished]." Similarly,
Onkelos on Bamidbar 13:32 translates "va'yotzi'u dibas ha'aretz" as
"va'afiku shum bish"-i.e., this is shem ra (as noted by Rabbi Willig
at <http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2000/parsha/rwil_teitsei.html>).

Nevertheless, a computer search on midrashim shows that most of them
talk about lashon hara on EY, without saying motzi shem ra; however,
I do understand that sometimes midrashim use "lashon hara" in a general
sense to include both lashon hara and motzi shem ra. Also, Rashi at the
beginning of Parshas Shlach says that the meraglim should have learned a
lesson from Miriam-who spoke lashon hara about Moshe (and was not motzi
shem ra).

With respect to the word "diba," used in the case of the meraglim, we
find this word used in the case of Yosef: "dibasam ra'a." Rashi there
says that Yosef would tell his father anything bad he saw his brothers
do (which sounds like the truth), and then Rashi gives the examples
that Yosef told his father that they ate aiver min ha'chai, that they
were mezalzel in the children of the maidservants (Bilha and Zilpa) and
called these brothers servants, and that they were chashud on arayos;
it is not clear whether these things actually happened. Most of the
Midrashim use the term "lashon hara" but one uses the term "shem ra."

In terms of what the meraglim actually said: "eretz ocheles yoshve'ha"
is probably an exaggeration (i.e., not true) based on pshat, but the
Midrashim say that the meraglim say many funerals going on (i.e., true).
Rashi notes (on 13:23) that the meraglim brought back with them very
large fruit in order to be "motzi dibah" and say "just as the fruit is
unusual (meshuneh), so are the people meshuneh"-this could have been a
true statement.

Does anyone have any sources directly discussing this issue?

Also, assuming that there is an issur of lashon hara about EY, to what
extent does it apply to speaking negatively about Israeli society (as
opposed to just the land)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> Piqua'h nefesh depends on someone still being alive. 

Does it?  Why?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:04:00PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>: "Gito veyado ba'in ke'echad", so to speak. As he immerses himself he
>: becomes obligated in all the mitzvot, including the mitzvah that a ger
>: must immerse himself; so he must make a bracha.

> See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n121.shtml#07> by R' Ralph
> Frankel (here's a teaser):
>> According to Rav Amiel...   The klal of gito ve-yado teaches us
>> that the removal of the davar ha-moneah CAN occur simultaneously to the
>> event that removes it....

But I omitted my point!

In order to use ba'in ke'echad, one would have to claim that being
a nachri is a monei'ah. I could wax poetic about milah and hasaras
hamonei'ah, perhaps, but I think we'll all agree that "lehachniso
bivriso shel Avraham avinu" is the creation of a sibah, not the removal
of a monei'ah.

-mi

On November 23, 2005 Eli Turkel wrote:
> From an article I recently saw.
> Ramban in several places disagrees with other rishonim and sometimes
> chazal based on scientific and personal observations.
> 1. We have quoted many times the Ramban on the origin of the rainbow
...

This is the second time this week that someone posted the idea that the
Ramban is disagreeing with Chazal about the rainbow. Can someone kindly
supply a mareh makom for this assertion? AFAIK, Chazal do not discuss
precisely when the phenomenon of the rainbow began and thus the Ramban
is merely making a scientific observation which is not contradicted
anywhere by Chazal (or other Rishonim that I am aware of...I know of a
Chassidishe Rebbe that strongly contests this pirush of the Ramban).

Simcha Coffer

We were discussing "es" vs "eis" on Mesorah, when the topic rapidly
drifted to "es" vs nothing.

The general take, supported by REMT, is that "es" is (or is usually)
a superfluous word, and superfluous words are lerabos.

I seem to have uniquely understood it. R' Aqiva gives 19 middos of
derashah, paralleling R' Yishma'el's. The rules of ribui umi'ut are
syntactic variants of kelal uperat -- ribui umi'ut are about particular
key words, and kelal uperat is whether the meaning of the phrase has an
enlarging or narrowing meaning. Kelal uperat does not require that the
words be redundant, why would ribui umi'ut?

The notion of es, gam, akh and raq serving special roles fits devei R'
Aqiva's notion of ribui umi'ut. The story of Shim'on / Nechemiah haAmsoni
on "es H' E-lokekha tira" (Bechoros 6b) is well known. And note that
it's R' Aqiva who saves the day.

The subject of extra words, prefixes or a malei spelling being lerbos,
while unique chaseir spellings are lema'eit, is different.

The point of this? From the way I see it, "es" need not be redundant
in order to be a marbeh. To my mind, "es" is a necessary article
used to separate object from subject in a language which doesn't
use limited word order schemes to do so.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
micha@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

<<I don't know about shmo"t specifically, but Bruria says at the bottom
of Eruvin 53b that one should always learn out loud.>>

True, but I don't think that is stated in S"A. I think it's in the realm
of aitzah tova, the right thing to do, good for you...

I'm looking for something that is cited in the S"A, or poskim that
specifically defines this chiyuv. The mechaber (siman 285 IIRC) says one
in obligated "Likros Latzmo". This can be translated as read to oneself,
or read aloud to oneself... hence the question.

The M"B does talk about saying it out loud if one of your two readings
will be as it is read in shul. But that might just be in order to
distinguish it from the laining of the Baal Koreh and to relate the
reading to you. Otherwise perhaps just a reading without pronouncing
the words at all might suffice.

It feels wrong, but why is this wrong?

This morning I did the strangest thing: I drove 2 brothers to shul -
on the 3rd day of them sitting shiva for their late mother.

Background:
Last night one of them called me up, as I am known as the nut who
never misses vasikin. His story was as follows:

 - He has been having trouble getting a minyan for shachris (more about
this on Areivim.)

 - There's a Halachic issue bringing a Sefer Torah to an Oveil house -
all the more so if there's a doubt if there will be a minyan.

 - They were told by somebody who claims to be close to Rav Eliyashiv
shlyt"a that the Rov paskens that it would be best for them to go to
shul with the following conditions:

1. Get there before daylight
2. Keep a low profile
3. Leave before the crowds

I left the car unlocked, and after the mishnayos shiur they were waiting
for me in the car.

Questions:

1. Can anybody find a mekor for aveilim going to shul (besides for 9 B'Av)
in the SA?

2. Would it be OK to bring a private ST to their home - or do they have
the same restrictions on mobility as public ones?

3. What happened to the age-old practise of davening Shabbes Mincha in
the Ovel house to have 3 times Krias HaTorah?

Puzzled,
 - Danny

R'SBA asked <<< Eso einay el hahorim - "Al tikri horim elo
hoyrim..." Anyone know a source for this much-used quote? >>>

I don't recall ever hearing this much-used quote before, and I'm curious
how it ends. (I'm guessing it has something to do with the help which
Hashem gives to parents.)

Can someone post the whole thing? Thanks.

Akiva Miller

(I'd consider looking up the midrash that a few people mentioned, except
that they also said it wasn't an exact match, so my lookup would probably
be fruitless.)

> Question for you all.... is there a source that says one is obligated
> to say/read shnayim mikra v'echad targum out loud? perhaps just reading
> would suffice. A chaver of mine just asked me about this and I assumed
> it would be a slam dunk that there's a chiyuv to say it out loud, but
> I haven't found a ra'aya just yet.

I believe that there are 3 ways of 'learning' Shnaim mikra in rishonim
and poskim and the answer to your question will depend on it. I quote
some of the different machlokasim that hsoe who learned htese halachos
will recognize as belonging to different poskim.

1. Shanim mikra is individual krais hatorah, jsut as the public reading
is for the public, shanim mikra is for the individual. Thus it should be
posuk by posuk, on Shabbos, targum following mikra, from Sefer Torah etc.

2. It is preparation for KRias Hatorah, in case there is no Shats or
they ask you to read. SO it should be davka before krias hatorah 3.it
is Talmud Torah of the parsha, so other commentries and targumim are
also acceptable.

If 1 or 2, it should be out loud. If 3, it may need to be out loud or
may not, depending on whether hirhur is a kium of talmud torah.

M. Levin

R' Rael Levinsohn wrote <<< Surely a person is bound to following
the ruling of the beis din in a situation where a psak has been
giving[?]. How can it be that this man has fulfilled a mitzvah by killing
the perpetrator, but yet if he had stopped to ask the beis din the
question, his act would have been forbidden[?], possibly a sin[?]" I was
wondering if anyone agreed / disagreed with this contention, or perhaps
I have misunderstood the entire issue. >>>

I suspect that your question results from a faulty supposition, and your
use of the word "Surely" betrays you on this.

The whole point of this topic, as I understand it, is that different
halachos apply to the zealot and the non-zealot -- as you clearly pointed
out in your post. Thus it is only the non-zealot who is bound to following
the ruling of the beis din. Different rulings apply to the zealot.

(Lest any self-proclaimed zealots get the wrong idea, it is always
important to point out that a zealot does NOT have carte blanche to
do as is right in his eyes. There are only certain cases where beis
din will sanction his actions, and even then it will only be after
the fact, because (as you noted) asking beforehand will take him out
of the category of zealot, and render the ruling inapplicable. Thus,
any self-appointed zealots had better pray that their judgement of the
situation is vindicated, because if they are mistaken,... well, let's
not go there.)

Akiva Miller

Yitzchok Levine wrote on Areivim:
> I once asked Rav Avigdor Miller, ZT"L, the following. It says, "Greet
> every person cheerfully." (Pirkei Avos 1:15). The terminology used is
> Kol Adom, every person, not Kol Ish, every man. Doesn't this mean that
> one is also supposed to greet women? He replied (after what seemed to
> me to be a moment of hesitation), "Yes."

I don't understand. The Gemara (Kiddushin 70b) is explicit "Ein sho'alin
bi-shlom ishah KELAL" and that's how the Shulchan Aruch paskens (EH
21:6). Are there leniencies? According to some, yes. But I don't think
you can bring a proof from anywhere in Shas.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
<Gil@YasharBooks.com>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:18:35AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
:> since even amora'im did not make their own derashos

: Is that so obvious?

That does seem to be the masqanah of previous iterations (vol 6, 12,
13) of this discussion, yes.

If nothing else, you need a Sanhedrin. Particularly leshitas haRambam
(in our overtrod Hil Mamrim 2), the one whose definition of "talmud"
we're exploring.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:07:33PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Piqua'h nefesh depends on someone still being alive. Put differently, if
: the boy were married, would his wife still be married after the revival,
: or not? If his wife would still be married to him, was he really dead,
: or was the nes one of quasi resurrection, with the real thing reserved
: for HQBH directly? If the wife would be free, having become a widow
: before the revival, why would the act of revival qualify for piqua'h
: nefesh in the first place? (this is a bit analogous to the question of
: whether the wife of Eliyahu, and of Pin'has, ever became widowed)

Let's look at a more lema'aseh case... someone whose heart and breath
stopped and was resuscuated.

    - Is he still married?
    - During the time he had no pulse, was he metamai?
    - Can someone use a defibrillator to save him on Shabbos?

Isn't this far closer to our case than Eliyahu's own ascent? For that
matter, is there any reason to rule out the possibility that the boy
was revived by his prophetic knowledge of CPR?

-mi

-- 
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: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Keep your eyes and ears open for a new rising star in the American Torah
world. [Remember, you read it here first.]
His name is Reb Binyomin Eisenberger - a young man in early 30s [IIRC]
- who happens to be my ex-step-nephew. [His late grandmother was my late
father's zivug sheni (if u must know...)]

A BP boy, Ob. baalebattish family background, Yeshiva Chasan Sofer
educated, followed by Lucerne and Mir. He is still in Kollel [Mir,
Flatbush - AFAIK].

A few years ago he began giving shiurim to individuals - mainly
yungeleit who were [lo aleinu...] working. This has built itself up to
a crowd of approx 80-100 young men - with whom he is extremely popular
and who eventually had to find a suitable premises for the shiurim.
They originally hired an unused side BHMD of a BP rebbe [who only had
use for the main - large - BHMD, but they were kicked out after 2 weeks,
the the powers that be realised that RBE's shalosh-seudos attracted much
larger crowds than did the Admor himself.. So they rented the basement
of the Munkatch Talmud Tora on 13th Avenue and named themselves "Heichal
Hatefilah" - where they also have Shabbos minyonim etc. They have now
purchased a large lot 16 & 61 - where they plan to build a large BHMD.

AFAIK he now gives close to a dozen shiurim on a variety of topics
throughout the week - Shabbos veChol.

BTW a big chiddush here is, that whilst nearly all his 'baalei-battim'
are beshtreimeled and gebeketched types, Reb Binyomin wears a normal
suit and bent-down hat..

His shiurim are extremely popular and he has also become an address for
people needing help and advice. [He is a very smart young man and very
practical.] Many shiurim [in Yiddish, BTW]are taped and available -
where better cassettes are sold.

Why I am mentioning this now?
Because his [proud] mum sent me a few of those tapes - Shiurim on the
Agadeta of Meschte Brochos and I listened to one of the them - about
Billom's kelelos etc and the ability of tzaddkim to turn around klolos
to brochos - al pi "Veyehapoch HE es haklolo livrocho etc".
Very interesting stuff indeed based on Chazal, Zohar, Chassidus, Mussar -
the whole gamut.

All this is just a short introduction to a question which has since
listening to the above tape been nagging me.

The above posuk about Hashem transforming Billom's kelolo livrocho
[also, also BTW, mentioned in the RBSO that we say during duchening] is
puzzling. After all Billom did NOT curse the Yidden - much to Balak's
displeasure. So how and why did Hashem 'convert' his 'non-klelos'
into brochos?

I checked the usual meforshim and the only one who asks this is the
Tosefes Brocho [from the baal TT]. WADR ubemichlas kevodo, IMHO,the
kashe is stronger than his teirutz.

So it's over to you chaps [and chappettes...]
SBA

PS.  Meanwhile, RBE has already been zoche to a thread on the
Yiddish HP forum Chadashos Anash..
<http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=1654070>

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


[ 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         ]