Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 130

Mon, 04 Jun 2007

• 1. Re: determining G-d's actions (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Kiddush of an Avaryan (Michael Elzufon)
• 3. Re: yishuv EY (SBA)
• 4. Re: shelo osani ... (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Torah study vs.other contributions to society (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: shemitta (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: yishuv EY (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Hebrew and Aramaic (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 9. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 129 -- OFF LIST (Arie Folger)
• 11. Re: Studying Daf Yomi and complex Gmarot (Arie Folger)

 
 
On 5/25/2007 RET wrote: 
 
>>I saw a nice vort from the Brisker Rav over Shavuot.
He  mentions that according to the Medrash Tanchuma Boaz dies the very night
that  he married Ruth after she was pregnant. The Griz said that he imagined
the  wags of the day stating that it was obvious that Boaz was punished  for
marrying Ruth the Moabite. After all both Machlon and Boaz died and Boaz  
immediately
after the marriage. The "obvious" conclusion is that G-d was  announcing that 
it
was prohibited to marry a Moabite and Boaz was a  sinner.<<
 

>>>>>
My father said in a shiur (and I think there is something similar in the  
introduction to the ArtScroll Megillas Rus) that the Hashgacha didn't want a  
wave of Moabite women coming into Klal Yisrael -- but only this one tzadekes,  
Rus.  When Boaz died, people thought that maybe the Sanhedrin had erred in  
permitting Ruth's gerus, and indeed the issue remained clouded for years.   Thus, 
no more Moabite women were permitted to convert.



--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/db672501/attachment.htm 

From: "Daniel Israel" <dmi1@hushmail.com>

>>>Should one who knows he may not be able to keep shabbos day
>>>perfectly not make kiddush at night?

SBA wrote:  >Maybe your question should be:
>"Should (or can) one who knows he may not be able to keep shabbos
>day perfectly - be motzi others with kiddush at night?"

DI: Do you have a source to say he can't (or shouldn't)?

SBA: Seeing that a mechalel Shabbos has a din Akum lechol davar,
I doubt there is a posek who says one be be yotze with an Akum's
kiddush.

[[MJE]] This sounds logical enough, but I found two tshuvoth that would
suggest a different result.  Binyan Tzion (Hadashoth) 23 considers the
question of wine handled by someone who makes Kiddush and goes to shul
and then goes to work on Shabbat.  He concludes that the mahmir tavo
alav bracha, but the mekilim have on what to rely.  Simmilarly, the
Igroth Moshe OH 1:23 rules that mi-dina such a person can be nosei
kapaim, though as a matter of migdar milta, it would be a good idea not
to ask him to do so.  These are not sources to say that such a man
should be motzi others, but they do raise the possibility that he could.

 
SBA continues: And, BTW, by know about Shabbos and making Kiddush, it
eliminates any likelihood of depicting him as a Tinok Shenishba [for
those who are normally inclined to argue on behalf of mechalelei
shabbos.]

[[MJE]] Actually, the Binyan Tzion cited above describes the child of
the fellow who makes Kiddush and then goes to work as a tinok shenishba.


DI: but I have wondered about it.  Does anyone know a source that
discusses
this issue?  Do we say that since ta'amim for the gezeriah are not
relevant
 (is he really choshesh that he  himself did AZ) he can drink it?

SBA: Taam? Gezeirah?
AFAIK, no one claims that a mechalel Shabbos is an oved AZ.
The halocho is simply  that 'dinoy keAkum lechol davar'.

[[MJE]] The Igroth Moshe cited above and in Even HaEzer 2:20 (at the
end, rejecting the tinok shenishba argument in the Binyan Tzion cited
above) argues that such an individual should not be considered Akum
l'chol davar.

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil"
> So, how do they explain the posuk 'vatovou vatetamu es artzi' ?
--
Last I heard, many rabbis used this pasuk to refer to those who live their
lives in Chutz La'aretz, but when they are dead (Avi Avot HaTum'ah) - that's
when they remember Israel and come to be buried here.
>>>>>>>>>>>..

Zev Sero wrote: >Who would those rabbis be, and what gives
>  them the right to use thepasuk in such a way?

From: menucha:     See Yerushalmi kilaim 9,3
----------------------


Verabi, the world renowned posek HaRav Betzalel Stern zt'l (Baal mechaber
Shu't Betzeil haChochmo) regularly asked us young talmidim at the farher -
whenever Rashi or Tosfos mentioned another mesechta - "Hostu nachgeshaut?"
Which is Oberlenderish Yiddish for "Did you look it up?"

Thus I thank Menucha for the source - which I indeed 'nachgeshaut'.

And, as I expected, there are no 'many rabbis' using this pasuk, just a
comment of a single one (Reb Elazer) - to which his colleague replied and
explained the advantage of being buried in EY. End of story.

(Why 'as expected'?
Because if there REALLY was some concern of "many rabbis using
this pasuk to refer to those who live in Chutz La'aretz, but when they
 are dead (Avi Avot HaTum'ah) they remember Israel and come to
be buried here", then we have some major problems not only with the
thousands of good fine Jews who have elected to be buried in EY,
but going back as far as Yaakov Ovinu and Yosef Hatzadik.
And seeing that many gedolei yisroel from ChuL have requested that they
be interred in EY (eg, RAK, RMF, etc etc), I was pretty confident that it
was a - kaveyochul - a 'throwaway' line by Reb Lazar, and definitely not
meant in any way halocho lemaaseh.)

And, BTW, I did a Bar Ilan search for the quote (which also comes up a
couple of time in Midrashim) and can report that  there are FAR more
results using this pasuk against baalei aveireh coming to EY...

But back to the pasuk itself. It seems that some of the posters have
forgotten that 'ein hamikra yotze midei pshutoy'.  Pshutoy being
(Yirmiyeh 2:5)  "Ko omar Hashem ma motzu avoseichem be avel ki
rochaku me'olay..vo'ovi es'chem el eretz hakarmel le'echol piryoh vetuvah
- vatovo'u vetetamu es artzi..."

Besides this pasuk, it would be interesting to hear explanations for
"Umipnei chato'einu galinu miartzeinu".

And of course, the pesukim we say twice a day in Krias Shema "Hishomru
lochem pen yifteh levavcham....ve'avadtem mehera me'al ha'aretz hatovoh.."

SBA











If there was any kind of source and truth to the idea that fearing sins
would exempt one from coming to Israel, rabbis, from Rambam to the GR"A,
including Sh"A and others, wouldn't state categorically that a woman/man can
force their spouse to make Aliyah.

BTW, Rav Zeira that was quoted has an interesting tale connected to him and
Israel.

His rabbi, Rav Yehuda, was concerned with going to Israel.  Despite this R'
Zeira made Aliyah from Bavel.

In fact, it was about him that it was said "Ama Peziza".  The story is that
when R' Zeira reached the river, the ferry had just left, and he had to wait
for it to return to carry him across.

Rav Zeira didn't wait.  He jumped in the river and swam across.

When asked why, he said: Moshe Rabeinu wasn't Zocheh to come to Israel b/c
of a sin he did.  Who can guarantee that while waiting for the ferry I
wouldn't commit a sin and forfit the right to enter Israel?!

He later fasted to forget Torah Chutz La'aretz...

Rav Zeira was apparently more concerned about sins he might do in chutz
L'aretz which would prevent him from making aliyah, and he had no concerns
about any sins he might perform in Israel.  Food for thought.



From: menucha <menu@inter.net.il>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] yishuv EY
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>,
"Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <465E4BB2.4050204@inter.net.il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

See Yerushalmi kilaim 9,3


From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] yishuv EY
To: "menucha" <menu@inter.net.il>, "A High-Level Torah Discussion
Group" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID: <003301c7a353$8395bcb0$0101c80a@VIDEO>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original


As Rn' Menuchaa wrote -- Chazal in the G'mara are the source of this
opinion.

For further discussion of this source (and others) you can see the following
article:

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sde_chem/malhi-4.htm

"The Mitzva of Settling Israel from a Historical Perspective" by Yirmiyahu
Malachi, from Sde Chemed 5754 7-8.

Find the word "kilayim" to go directly to the discussion on this topic. (The
article is in Hebrew)

 
 
In a message dated 5/27/2007 R' Michael Kopinsky wrote:
 
>>1. The number of places where the nusach hatefilla changes  because of
masculine/feminine is very few.  (The only ones I'm aware of  are in
modeh/modah ani and in Elokai Neshama.) <<
 
>>>>>
In Tefilla Zaka said on Yom Kippur eve, among the list of things "I did  
wrong with the limbs You gave me" is the following:  "Al yedei hirhurim  ra'im 
basi lidei hotza'as zera levatala."  In the ArtScroll machzor, these  words are 
placed within brackets, indicating they are to be said only by  men.  Actually, 
to me it seems that whoever wrote Tefilla Zaka had only men  in mind and it 
didn't occur to him that women might also recite this  tefilla.  (However, 
since it now seems to be the accepted thing to do, I do  say the Tefilla Zaka -- 
sans that particular phrase of course -- with  special kavana for the paragraph 
forgiving those who spoke loshon hara about me  and fervently praying that 
those about whom I spoke L'H will forgive  me!)





--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/552deece/attachment.html 

 
 
In a message dated 5/27/2007 R Doron Beckerman  wrote:   
 
>> ....from which the Gemara
there proves, similar to our issue,  that Ezra did the right thing, and
anyone in the same position should choose  TT over Binyan BHM"K, and,
similarly, over Hatzalas Nefashos, if others will  do it.....


....It means that one who CAN do so, should! And its not  just the BH, it is 
the
Nefesh HaChaim and the Brisker Rav who say the same.  R' Nehorai said that he
will not teach his son any trade, only Torah, since  he wanted his son to
follow the path of RSHB"Y....

....The Chafetz  Chaim said that the person learning accomplishes more 
spiritual
benefit.  Whether that is for himself, or for the world, or something else, I
don't  know.

Someone who can learn but does not, rather chooses to become a Zaka  worker,
is not following any Halachah.<<




>>>>>
The rav of my shul is a major talmid chacham but he is also the rav of a  
shul.  He spends most of his time learning but not every single minute of  every 
day -- since he does have baalei batim who sometimes need his  attention.  I 
can't mention his name because he once found out somehow that  I quote him on 
the internet, and he specifically requested that I not do so  again. (To say he 
was displeased is putting it mildly.)   
 
Anyway, he once said in a shiur that one who works for the tzibbur -- the  
rav of a kehillah for example, or a rebbe who gives shiurim to talmidim  when he 
could be learning on a much higher level by himself -- is compensated in  
Shomayim for the Torah learning that he was not able to accomplish in his  
lifetime.  In Gan Eden, HKB'H Himself teaches this person the Torah he  would have 
learned here on earth had he not devoted himself to the  tzibbur.  I found this 
very comforting because my father z'l once said  in a drasha that baalei 
batim don't appreciate how much a rav has to  sacrifice of his own time for them 
-- when he really yearns to learn  Torah but his time is not his own.  I assume 
my father is now learning all  the pages of Gemara he never got to down here.
 
 
I don't know whether this Heavenly compensation also applies to Zaka and  
Hatzala workers, or to those who do other forms of chessed, but it seems to  me 
likely that it does.
 
As for the person who took time off his learning in order to earn  parnassah, 
my rav says that working for a living is a mitzva and that the time a  person 
spends working is not considered batala.  However, he is very strict  about 
every non-working minute -- every minute not working should be spent  learning 
-- and he would highly disapprove of reading secular literature --  or 
spending time on the 'net.  (He does glance at the NY Times, probably in  the room 
the Gra used to study math, probably because he holds there is to'eles  in being 
an informed person, or possibly because he could not otherwise distract  
himself from having hirhurim of Torah in an inappropriate place.)


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/4b4151dd/attachment.htm 

 
 
In a message dated 5/27/2007 R Moshe Feldman wrote:  
 
 
>>(2) The poskim pasken that a man can
force his wife to make  aliyah.  <<




>>>>>
Is this the generally accepted psak?  My impression was the opposite  -- that 
if his wife refused to live in E'Y, this would be one of the [few]  
permissible reasons not to live in E'Y.  Or was it only that a man is  allowed to leave 
E'Y in order to find a wife -- but then can compel the wife he  has found to 
leave her parents and follow him to E'Y?!  Anyway I sure hope  every couple 
sorts this out before getting engaged.


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/abbab4bf/attachment.html 

 
 
In a message dated 5/29/2007 R' Eli Turkel wrote: 

>>SBA thinks Satmar is mainstream because he quotes the Sheloh  etc.
By mainstream I mean today's mainstream. How many yeshivot in EY  learn
VM and how many learn the thoughts of R. Kook and  RYBS?<<






>>>>>
To you and to me Satmar is not "mainstream" -- but I think you might  get a 
shock if you had the answer to this question:  how many Satmar babies  were 
born last year in the whole world (E'Y and chu'l) vs. how many non-Satmar  
charedi and DL babies were born?  How many babies are born in a  lifetime per Satmar 
woman vs how many babies per non-Satmar charedi or DL  woman?  I read 
somewhere that if present demographic trends continue (of  course they may change -- 
no one knows the future) then a hundred years from  now, 90% of the Jews in 
the world will be Orthodox -- and 90% of those will be  Satmar.

--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/b17e071f/attachment.htm 

R'n TK:
My guess:? Whoever wrote it lived in a time and place where people mainly
spoke Aramaic but were comfortable with Hebrew too, and switched naturally
back and forth between languages without giving it much thought?-- much as
we do here on Avodah.? 
?


Going off on a tangent (but still keeping to the subject line) I recently
saw someone write something about love, that "Ahavah" comes from the root
"Hav," give, so that giving leads to loving, etc., etc. (I think this is
well known - I've certainly heard it before, though I can't recall a Mekor.)
Now, isn't "Ahavah" Lashon Kodesh, and "Hav" Aramaic, sort of shooting holes
through this Vort?

KT,
MYG

Dear Ovedim,

While I have followed the thread on "Torah Study vs. other contributions to 
society" with great interest, I have refrained from posting in this matter. I 
just care to make a little comment and go back to lurking:

As posters on this thread have shown, there are multiple angles from which to 
analyze this matter, we may consider what to do besh'at hatzorekh, as well as 
whether one should lekhat'hillah interrupt his learning, assuming that he is 
learning full time, indeed.

One particular angle that I didn't see enter the discussion, and which is in 
fact relevant, is that we ought to distinguish between one who has unlimited 
resources available, and one who, like most of us, will one day need to fend 
for his family. In fact, we only discussed the first case and didn't even ask 
where the resources come from (a functioning, almost self managing business, 
inheritance, retirement savings, rich parents and/or in laws, the government, 
having a meshulla'h going begging, begging personally, ...).

It might be interesting to explore whether the mere fact that, all else being 
provoded for, sitting and learning is preferable for the sitzfleisch-enabled, 
whether that implies that supporting such a person takes precedence over 
supporting, say, an oncology department at Laniado, Sha'arei Tzedek, etc. Or, 
perhaps the preference does not extend to having a priority claim on funding, 
as the mitzvah is to learn, not necessarily to pay someone to learn. I do not 
mean to imply that we should question the praiseworthiness of 
Yisakhar-Zevulun relationships, but rather to question whether such 
relationships are obligatory for the philantropist, whether they take 
precedence over other community needs, or not. In fact, we can even compare 
and contrast a Yisakhar-Zevulun relationship with the loss the extra need for 
funds implies in one's own time available for one's own learning.

Having made my remark and asked my questions, I shall watch with great 
interest what our illustrious Ovedim will argue.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RTK wrote:
> This is an embarrassingly elementary question, but maybe someone could
> ?take the time to answer it anyway: ?Why would surgery make an animal treif
> ?-- if the surgery cured what was wrong with the animal and the animal is
> now perfectly healthy?

This is a well known halakhic question that has no easy answers. We assume 
that the 18 tereifos are fixed, hence we don't add newly discovered 
pathologies, but also do not substract from them. Thus, one may wonder about 
the anomaly of having tereifus lirefuoh. We are generally machmir out of 
doubt.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RSB wrote:
> The Daf Yomi program members are studying Yevamot right now.

Let me answer as someone who gives such a shiur. 

> This masechet is filled with complex issues; issues which raise serious
> moral and halachic implications. ?Issues that should truly be dealt with
> intensively and not during the 30+ minutes assigned to Daf Yomi.

Typically, a DY shiur takes an hour.

> Most Daf Yomi teachers have barely enough time to explain the daf
> literally.

Absolutely correct. Especially with Yevamot.

> My question addresses 2 aspects:
>
> a) When the question raised is b/c of a horrible action taken prior to the
> event under discussion and the g'mara only discusses a certain specific
> result, do you mention/discuss/raise the moral problem with the original
> act?

I do. HOW MUCH time I use depends on the kind of moral issue and the time 
available. Otherwise, one would - at best - lose the mussar sefer embedded in 
the gemara.

> b) If not, does this lead people to think that Torah supports these
> actions? How can they learn that force is wrong if all that is discussed is
> (for example) the yibum issues with relation to the issue of the forceable
> action?

Actually, that yibum works ba'al korcha is a profound issue in its own right. 
I made sure to make some comment about the matter, but it is too complex to 
study in less than a few hours dedicated to this one question.

> c)Do you think that the Daf Yomi schedule should be reset to include an
> extra day (or more) of discussion on the actions connected to these
> masechtot, instead of glossing over the problematic issues?

No, it won't work. However, I would really like for the DY schedule to be 
relative to the difficulty of the massekhet. Or for the Mif'al haShas 
programs to become as widespread as DhY. There are so many deep issues that 
we can't cover. The stronger shiur communities out there add a weekly shiur 
to deal with 'iyun issues of the daf. That is a good idea IMO.

> Or do you think that there is no problem at all, that the original actions
> are permitted, perhaps even supported?

That is a general statement. Generally, I am of the opinion that if the Torah 
permits something, it cannot be as bad as the prohibited equivalents. Thus, 
as rape is prohibited (Rabbi Dratch collected sources on this IIRC last year 
before Shavuot, in consultation with this list, and then offered to make the 
sources available), and generally is not effective in establishing a marital 
bond, except in the case of yibum, that implies that, while objectionable, it 
is somewhat less objectionable in the case of yibum than generally. It isn't 
good, it isn't permissible, but relatively less objectionable.

Of course, many people have difficulty with the word "relatively" and 
relativize its impact. Let the reader of this post beware of reading such 
relativizations in my use of the word "relatively". ;-)
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 130
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."