Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 126

Mon, 07 Apr 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 23:35:48 -0400
[Avodah] two Qs re RYReisman's R'Ch'Nisan shiur

Tonight's shiur dealt w/ issues related to the first Pesach, that which
immediately preceded Y'tziyas Mitzrayim.  I have two Qs related to points
made by RYR.

RYR noted the issue of b'nei Yisrael allowing their b'heimos (90 donkeys
per person, according to one ma'amar CHaZaL) to carry all of the valuable
spoils of Mitzrayim on what was Yuntef for them -- weren't they violating
shvisas b'heimah for what was not tzorech hayom?  He said he found the Q in
the Chasam Sofer's writings and that the ChS's answer was based on a sugya
in BT Shabbos about preventing one's animal from doing m'lachah by placing
the burden on the animal (hanachah) while it was moving and removing the
burden (aqirah) before it stopped.  I don't understand how this answer is
relevant to YT -- isn't the problem of shvisas b'heimah on YT related
solely to tzorech hayom and not at all to aqirah, hanachah, and r'shuyos?
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant here, so I would appreciate enlightenment.  (As
I'm only up to digest#116 of V25, please cc: me on any responses to the
list.)  Thanks.

The Q comes up (RYR quoted it as being asked by R'G'dalya Schorr z'l') why
b'nei Yisrael rushed to gather the riches of Mitzrayim left by those who
died at q'riyas Yam Suf when they had to be urged to take those riches at
the time of Y'tziyas Mitzrayim -- RYR answered it according to what he had
noted earlier, saying that they were previously reluctant because the day
of y'tziyah was Yuntef for them, while there was no such obstacle come the
day of Q'riyas Yam Suf.  Yet later in the shiur, RYR himself noted that
said day of QYS was the seventh day and thus also a Yuntef ("uvayom
hash'vi'i miqra qodesh") as part of asking questions about Nachshon getting
his clothes and beard soaked, etc.  So was it a YT or not, and if it was,
shouldn't they also have been reluctant to gather those riches, as there
apparently was no tzorech hayom in doing so?  (As RYR, there's another tack
in considering b'nei Yisrael taking from Mitzrayim, one which involves
saying that they did so as per a Divine directive, but he wasn't using that
approach.  One might also note yet another approach, one which he didn't
mention: avadim aren't interested in riches, just in getting out of avdus,
but once they're no longer avadim, they might have more of a hankering to
gather riches!)  Again, as I'm only up to digest#116 of V25, please cc: me
on any responses to the list.  Thanks.

Thanks for reading and for considering an answer or answers to these Qs.

Gut Voch and Gut Chodesh from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Friedman Family" <acabrs@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:22:12 -0400
[Avodah] Levaya minhagim

Zev Sero wrote
>She'elas Tam: how do you know there wasn't any k'ri`ah done?  Women only
>tear an undergarment, and they do it privately, usually inside a car or
>somewhere like that, so maybe you just didn't notice.  Or maybe it was
>delayed until after the crowd left, for greater privacy.

I am not sure where that information comes from.  Again, when we sat shiva,
we tore our shirts and then pined them closed with a safety pin.  That's the
way I have always seen it done.  And in the all cases I have been privy too,
the women tore kriah at the chapel, or at the airport.

Chumi Friedman

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:26:38 +0300
[Avodah] Denying that Chazal are Oral Torah is Kefira?

*Shabbos********(31a): *A certain non?Jew came to Shammai and ask him 
how many Toras existed. Shammai replied that there were two the Written 
Torah and the Oral Torah. The non?Jew replied that he believed Shammai 
only regarding the validity of the Written Torah but not regarding the 
Oral Torah. He then requested to be converted to Judaism on the 
condition he would only be taught the Written Torah. Shammai reacted 
with anger and drove him away. The non?Jew then went to Hillel who 
accepted him as a convert. The first day Hillel taught him the letters 
of the alphabet: aleph beis, gimmel, daled. However, the next day he 
reversed their names. The convert complained that what he was being 
taught contradicted the previous lesson. Hillel pointed out that it was 
obvious that the convert was dependent on his authoritative knowledge to 
understand even the alphabet. Therefore, the convert needed to realize 
that he also needed to believe Hillel when he said there was also an 
Oral Torah.

** <#_ftnref1>**

*Rashi(Shabbos 31a): [Shammai] angrily rejected him ? *Because it is 
taught in Bechoros (30b): ?that a non?Jew who comes to convert and to 
accept upon himself the words of Torah ? except for one thing ? is not 
accepted. [*Hillel] converted him* ? and relied upon his wisdom that 
eventually he would accept all the Oral Torah. This is not the same as 
accepting everything except for one thing ? because the non?Jeew was not 
denying the Oral Torah but just didn?t believe that it was from G?d. 
Hillel was certain that after he taught the non?Jew he would come to 
accept it from him.**


????? ??? ???? ???, ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? 
- ??? ?????? ????, ????? ?????? (?:): *??????* - ???? ?? ????? ????? 
???????? ???? ????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? - ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? 
??, ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????, ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????

*Chazon Ish****(Letters 1:15):..* It is at the roots of our faith that 
all that is said in the gemora whether it is in the Mishna or gemora 
whether it is halacha or agada - all these things were revealed to us by 
medium of prophetic power ... There is in fact a major distinction 
between the power of prophecy and ruach hakodesh. Prophecy transcends 
the human intellect entirely. therefore someone who has reached the 
level of prophecy is able to acquire wisdom directly without any 
intellectual effort or involvement. In contrast, ruach hakodesh requires 
tremendous thought and analysis until he is given additional 
supernatural understanding. Without this effort this special 
understanding is never achieved. One of the fully accepted foundations 
of faith is that ruach hakodesh is critical to properly understanding 
the truth in the Torah that was given through prophecy. That is because 
Torah is not just probably true but is absolutely true. Consequently we 
are greatly distressed to hear any aspersions cast on the words of 
Chazal whether it is halacha or agada. It is equivalent to hearing 
blasphemy. A person who deviates in this way is according to our 
tradition as one who denies the words of Chazal and his shechita is 
invalid and he is unfit to serve as a legal witness  and  other issues.

*Maharal[1] <#_ftn1>**(Chiddushei Agada Shabbos 31a):* A non Jew once 
came to Shammai to convert?only for the Written Torah? Shammai drove him 
away in anger because he did not believe in the Oral Law?. We can learn 
from the fact that Hille accepted him that the Karaites who reject the 
Oral Law are not considered heretics. Because if the rejection of the 
Oral Law is heresy it makes no sense to accept a heretic for conversion. 
The reason for accepting him was since he was willing to accept the 
Torah itself but not the commentary [the Oral Law] - obviously he would 
eventually come to accept the commentary [the Oral Law] and thus he was 
not a heretic. It is difficult to accept the alternative explanation 
that although he was a heretic, that Hillel accepted him since Hillel 
was confident that eventually he would come to accept the Oral Law. 
However a heretic is not included in the Jewish people and consequently 
conversion would be irrelevant. Therefore it is obvious that he was not 
a heretic.


???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???': ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??????. 
???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??. ??? ??? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? 
???. ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? 
???? ???? ???? ??? ???????, ????? ???, ???? ???? ????? ????, ?? ???' 
???? ????, ????? ??? ???? ?"? ???'. ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? 
????? ?"? ???? ??? ?? , ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ???? 
????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???:

*Chazon Ish[1] <#_ftn1>**(Hilchos Shechita #2):* ? Essentially the 
status of someone who denies the Oral Law ? according to the Rashba as 
cited by the Beis Yosef ? is that he has the status of one who has 
rejected the entire Torah. However this is puzzling since we see in the 
gemora that a Kusi (Sadducee) has the status of a Jew as far as shechita 
? even though they don?t accept the words of our sages? We see this also 
in Yoma (19b) that they would give an oath to the high priest that he 
would not burn the incense incorrectly like the sadducee. If he had been 
a sadducee then he would have been a heretic to the whole Torah since 
they reject the Oral Law and thus his service in the Temple would have 
been invalid anyway? So even though we don?t find a specific verse 
concerning a cohen as we find concerning shechitah and writing a sefer 
Torah or mezuza ? nevertheless it is logical that whoever is not 
considered part of the Jewish people concerning shechita would also not 
be considered a valid cohen. Therefore it seems that when the Rashba 
refers to someone one who doesn?t believe in the words of our sages he 
meant someone who doesn?t believe in the Jewish life which is guided by 
the words of our sages concerningTorah and mitzvos. Included in this 
rejection is the rejection of the Torah. Thus Kusim (Sadducee) are not 
heretics because they are very careful to observe the Written Law. This 
view is also that of the Ritva (Chullin 132b) concerning ?Any cohen who 
does not acknowledge the validity of the Temple service has no portion 
in the priesthood?. Rashi explains: He doesn?t acknowledge that G?d told 
him that the cohen had the mitzva of Temple servce ? but rather Moshe 
made up the mitzva himself. The Ritva asks: ?According to this denial of 
the divine origin of the Temple servce the cohen would be a heretic in 
relationship to the entire Torah. So why say only that he has no portion 
in the priesthood ? he is in fact deserving of captial punishment? Thus 
the cohen must have meant that the service of the cohen is not 
indespensible ? even though he acknowledges that it is a mitzva given 
through Moshe.? Thus the Ritva acknowledges that the cohen is denying 
the worlds of our sages. Consequently the Ritva?s view is that someone 
who rejects the words of our sages while retaining belief in the Written 
Law ? is not considered a heretic in regards to the entire Torah but 
only in respect to one aspect.


???? ????? ???''? ??? ????''? ?????? ????? ?''? ??' ??''? ????? ????? 
???''? ????, ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???' ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? 
??''? ????? ????? ????? ??''?? ??? ???? ???? (??:) ???? ??????? ??''? 
??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???''? ?''? ?????? ????? ??''? 
??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??''?, ?''? ????? ??? ????? ???? 
????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??''? 
?????? ????''? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?''? ??''? ?''? 
????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? 
?????? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ?????''? (????? ???:) ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? 
???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????''? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? 
????, ???' ????''? ??''? ??''? ???? ???''? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? 
????? ??? ??' ????''? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ????, 
???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??''?, ??? ???? ???? ????? ??''? ?????? ????? 
????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???. ??' ?????''? ??????? 
???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?''? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ?? 
?????''? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????, ????? ???? ???? 
?? ??? ???? ????? ??: ????? ?????, ????? ??''? ?? ????? ????? ???? 
??????, ??''? ??''? ?? ????? ????? ??. ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? 
?????. ...

*Igros Moshe(E.H. 2:4): *It is not necessary for a candidate for 
conversion to learn and know the entire Torah before conversion. And 
furthermore he is a valid ger bedieved even if he doesn?t know the few  
minor and major mitzvos that he was required to be taught as is stated 
in the Rambam(Hilchos Issurei Bi?ah 13:17) and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 
268:12). This is stated explicitly in Shabbos (68b)  that a ger who 
converted amongst the non?Jews is a valid ger [even though he knew none 
of the Torah laws] and he is obligated to bring sacrifices to atone for 
his eating of prohibited blood, fat and involvement in idolatry. However 
even though he didn?t know the particulars of the mitzvos he still must 
accept the obligation to observe all the mitzvos that a Jew is obligated 
to keep. If he doesn?t accept the general obligation to keep mitzvos ? 
the geirus is invalid even bedieved. However this understanding would 
seem to be in conflict with the statement in Shabbos (31a) that Hillel 
accepted a ger even though he declared that he didn?t believe in the 
Oral Torah? Rashi tried to resolve this problem by saying that Hillel 
was confident that after the ger learned he would rely on him in this 
matter even though at the time when he immersed for conversion he still 
hadn?t accepted the Oral Torah.  However this does not resolve the 
problem at all because there was no mention in the gemora that the ger 
had to reimmerse after he had learned and accepted the validity of the 
Oral Torah. It would seem therefore that the acceptance of the Oral 
Torah seems to have been only an initial requirement lechatchila and 
does not invalidate the conversion if not accepted. Therefore Hillel 
accepted the ger even before he accepted the Oral Torah because he was 
confident that the ger would eventually come to believe in the Oral 
Torah. However Rashi gives a different explanation of the dynamics by 
saying that this case is not an example of conversion where everything 
except for one law is accepted. Rashi insisted that the ger was not 
rejecting the Oral Torah but was only rejecting that the Oral Torah was 
from G?d. These statements of Rashi seem unfathomable according to their 
literal understanding! Therefore it is necessary to explain Rashi to 
mean that concerning the ger?s acceptance of the mitzvos he did in fact 
accept the validity of Oral Torah. However he did not believe that the 
words of the sages of that generation ? Hillel and Shamai ? were part of 
the Oral Torah which was said by G?d. This that he didn?t know how to 
fulfill a particular mitzva does not prevent him from becoming a valid 
ger as I have written above concerning Shabbos (68b). This ignorance 
concerning the nature of the Oral Torah is only an lack of knowledge but 
it is not a lack in the acceptance. Nevertheless if Hillel hadn?t been 
confident that the ger would rely on him that the words of the Sages 
were also the Oral Torah from G?d ? he would not have accepted him. That 
is because one can not convert a ger who will not eventually fulfill all 
the mitzvos even due to  lack of knowledge. Consequently Rashi had to 
say that Hillel was confident that afterwards the ger would accept 
everything he said. Similarly it is necessary to say that the case of a 
ger who converted amongst non?Jews and despite knowing nothing he is a 
valid ger ? is only where soon after he will come to a Jewish community 
and learn and fulfill everything. Thus we see that Rashi?s explanation 
is a proof that without the full acceptance of the obligation to do all 
the mitzvos ? even lacking a single mitzva ? is not a valid ger as I 
have written.


????? ???? ???????, ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? 
??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????"? (????? ?????? ???? ??:??) ???"? (??"? 
???:??) ?????? ???? (??:) ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?"? ??? ?? ?? ?"? ??? 
??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?"? ???, ?"? ???? 
????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????. ?? ?????? 
???? ???? (??.) ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????"? 
???? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?"? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? 
???? ???"?. ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????, ??"? 
???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? 
???? ?? ??????, ??? ???? ???"? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? 
???????? ???? ???? ??"? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???"? ??? 
??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????,  ??????? ??? ??? ????. ????? ???? ??????? 
???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????"? ???? ??? ???? ???"? ?? ?? ????? ????? 
???? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???"? ?????? ??? ??????, ??? ??? ??? 
????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? (??:) ???? 
?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????. ?? ?"? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???"? ????? 
???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??"? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? 
???.  ?????? ??"? ???? ???? ????? ???"? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? 
??????? ???? ????"? ???? ???? ?"? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? 
????? ???? ??????. ????? ?????"? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? 
??? ???? ?? ???????.

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 22:37:25 +0100
Re: [Avodah] schechtworthy

I wrote:

> I personally, as this must make clear, struggle to believe that is 
> what poretz geder is all about.  Bli neder, I will be working a bit 
> less next week, so hopefully I will have time to go back over the SA 
> sources that I found last year and which point to a more local 
> definition of poretz geder (because if you go on the version of Rashi 
> and of Ramban, you seem to be more dealing with divrei Chazal than 
> anything else).   

Well here goes:

1.   Orech Chaim siman 133 si'if 1:  The Shulchan Aruch brings that we
say v'hu rachum in a loud voice and if one does not say it standing he
is over on the takana and is called poretz geder.
The Mishna Brura suggests (si'if katan 3) that there are those who say
that it is only poretz geder if he does not say it at all, but if he
does not say it standing it is not called poretz geder.
2.  Orech Chaim siman 550 si'if 1:  The Shulchan Aruch states: All are
obligated to fast these four fasts and it is forbidden to be poretz
The Magen Avraham explains: and even though m'dina in a time when there
isn't a sakana one is only obligated to fast on Tisha B'Av since
everyone is accustomed to fast it is forbidden to be poretz geder
The Mishna Brura adds that at a time when there are no gezeros of the
ovdei avodah zara, the chachmim left it up to the ratzon of yisroel so
that if the rov of Yisroel agreed that they should not fast on these
four fasts hareishus b'yadehem.  But the poskim have written that now
ratzu v'kiblu alehem klal Yisroel m'dor dor assur l'poretz geder.
3.   Orech Chaim siman 551 si'if 11:  Previous si'ifim have discussed
the minhag not to eat meat during the three weeks/nine days and in this
si'if the Shulchan Aruch says Kol me sheochel basar b'mekom shnohagim bo
asur poretz geder. 
4.      Yoreh Deah siman 39 si'if aleph:  - while it is not necessary to
check in the ordinary case for any of the other treifos except for the
lung it is necessary to check an animal and a wild animal to see if
there are lesions and all who are poretz geder to eat without a bedika
will be bitten by a snake.
The Shach there adds on "v'chol poretz geder - mashma d'bedika zu
m'derabanan ..."
5.      Yoreh Deah siman 89 si'if 3:  in the Rema:  It is our custom now
to be machmir and not eat cheese after a meat dish like after meat
itself and one should not deviate and be poretz geder.
6.      Yoreh Deah siman 115 si'if 2:  The Shulchan Aruch brings the din
that the cheese of a non Jew is assur because they stand it in the skin
of a nevila and even if they stand it in grasses it is assur.  And then
the Rema adds so is the minhag v'ain l'poretz geder im lo b'makom
shnehogo behem heter m'kodmonim
 Note again the Shach there explains on this section that even if they
stand it in grasses it is ossur "shekvar gazru al kol gvinot haovdei
cochavim" whether they stand them in grasses or not - ie again the Shach
seems to see it as a matter of gezera.
7.      Yoreh Deah siman 196 si'if 13:  The Shuchan Aruch brings that if
a woman has tashmish and then sees [blood] after that and she wants to
start counting from the next day she is to check herself very very
carefully and then wash in warm water to get out all the zera.  And the
Rema there adds and there are those who say that we are not beki'in
today and we do not rely on this and this is how we proceed as behold we
have already made clear that we are accustomed to wait even if there was
no tashimish at all so that there should not be a distinction between
counting and counting and kol sheken in a case like this v'kol she
poretz geder in such matters in a place where the custom is to be
machmir will be bitten by a snake.
Now the Shach seems rather puzzled by this; and he comments (on the
section v'hachi nahug d'kvar nitvaer) that he doesn't understand what
the connection is between this matter and this because over there there
is no relevance of bekius at all and we are gozer no tashmish for the
case of tashmish ... [there is more on this, but the point I wanted to
bring out here is that again the Shach seems to be connecting all this
with a gezera]

> -Micha

Now this list does really seem to be a bit of a mismash (except for the
commentary of the Shach, who seems, at least to me, to be trying to
bring the useage within the understanding of poretz geder that I brought
from the Rishonim, ie a violation of a takana or gezera of the Chazal).
The Mishna Brura's use of the ratzu v'kiblu aleihem language is
interesting because it rather suggests something closer to the way the
term seems to be being used now, as something that the people have
accepted upon themselves, rather than something imposed by the Chachamim
- but note the emphasis on klal yisroel m'dor dor coupled with this
being something that Chazal specifically left to the will of klal
yisroel.  Deviation from local minhagim, especially when the minhagim
elsewhere are different, nothing is longstanding, and the parameters for
decision making were not necessarily outlined by Chazal would seem to be
several quite dramatic steps away from even the Mishna Brura's

Note also the very interesting interjection from the Mishna Brura
regarding v'hu rachum - why should should the two cases differ?

The particularly interesting cases are the two where there seems to be a
disagreement between the Rema and the Shulchan Aruch (because once we
say that, the universality of klal yisroel m'dor dor has been lost, and
if the Shulchan Aruch did not rule in such a way, it is a bit more
difficult to say that there is a gezera of the chachamim).  For the last
case, the Rema brings in the additional factor that we are not beki'in
today.  Which seems to leave as the most unusual case the not eating of
cheese after a meat dish and not just after meat (or is this another
case of not being biki'in or a form of gezera to deal with ignorance -
where does a meat dish end and meat begin?).

So, as I said originally, there do seem to be some cases which point to
a more local definition of poretz geder, where there is a violation of
minhag rather than a d'rabbanan, but not a huge number.  Note also that
such cases do seem to centre around situations in which people might be
itching to find heterim due to the desire to satisfy pretty basic
impulses - for meat during the nine days, to eat on fast days, for a
limiting of the nida period.  There is also a sense of pretty long
standing historic minhagim - relating to areas that were, even at the
time of Chazal, acknowledged to be governed by minhag (avelus of the
beis hamikdash, waiting after food).

Beard trimming and galoshes don't really seem to me to comfortably fit
within this list, although I agree that the list seems in many ways
pretty random.



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:50:28 +1000
[Avodah] FW: Medicine for a Metzora

From: David Kishenevsky [mailto:dkish@jglinvestments.com.au] 
Sent: Sunday, 6 April 2008 2:47 PM
To: sba@sba2.com
Subject: Re: Medicine for a Metzora

Recvd from an ?outsider?:
From: SBA <sba@sba2.com>
Another question.
It seems clear that in those days, a person speaking Loshon Hara, Motzi Shem
Ra etc would end up becoming a Metzora.

So which normal bar-daas wouldn't refrain from LH, knowing that he'll get
on-the-spot punishment?

Re your second question, in his sefer, Danny Ginsberg provides an answer
from the Be'er Mayim Chayim. His answer is that not everyone who spoke LH
would become a metzora. Rather, one had to be worthy enough to merit the

This is because the term "adam" is used regarding negaim, and not other
phrases used for man, such as "nefesh", "ish" etc.? "Adam" is the most
exalted of the terms used for man, since it relates to the idea of "adameh
l'elyon", which is the height of man's achivement in this world. This is to
teach us that only "adam hashalem vehameuleh" whose ways are straight will
be punished with negaim. But a person on the level of "ish" (not on the
highest level of "adam") will not receive a nega for his sin.


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 06:22:01 -0400
[Avodah] Medicine for a Metzora

"Anyone know if a Metzora is allowed to seek medical attention and/or  
medication for his symptoms?"

Since a Metzorah is not a physical condition, there is only one  
Physician (the RSO) Who can cure it
and the only medication for the symptoms should have been utilized  
prior to the tzaraas which is
Shmiras Haloshon.  Also, the term leprosy for this condition is  
misleading since it leads one to think
it is a medical condition.


Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:18:51 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Is having a good time ossur

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Music for the sake of music is more problematic. Not in and of itself;
> you're "speaking" with a fan of Baroque and Rhennaisance music, as well
> as some of New Age (if it isn't too muzak-y) and lately (I guess I'm
> getting older) some forms of Klezmer and Jazz. - Micha

I am really puzzled by any issur of listening to music that 'soothes the
soul" even during aveilus.   AISI, the issur of music during aveilus is the
kind of music that inspires one to get up and dance.   The kind of music
[say the Goldberg variations] which were meant to help soothe an insomniac
is to me just like taking a form of "spiritual" medication. It's not for
enjoyment but for relaxation.

For a Tanach source see what Davdi did for Shaul, he soothed his Ruach Ra'a
[depression perhaps?].  Music as a therapy might be the spiritual
counterpart to a physical massage.

Music for partying OTOH is  different.

I must confess legabi Sefirah the Aruch Hshulcan sees this as the opposite.
If dancing music is assur, instrumental music all the more so!  WADR, I
disagree.  The tachlis can be quite different.  AISI, dancing music would be
assur during Sefirah, but passively listening to "soothing" instrumentals
would not be assur.

I have heard besheim RYBS that only music that caused one to get up and
dance [lich'ora even if one did not actually dance!] was the kind of music
that is assur.  This dovetails well with what I'm saying. I would suspect
that our esteemed moderator might also concur with this chiluk

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:20:20 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Medicine for a Metzora

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:
> "Anyone know if a Metzora is allowed to seek medical attention and/or
> take
> medication for his symptoms?"
> Since a Metzorah is not a physical condition, there is only one
> Physician (the RSO) Who can cure it
> and the only medication for the symptoms should have been utilized
> prior to the tzaraas which is
> Shmiras Haloshon.  Also, the term leprosy for this condition is
> misleading since it leads one to think
> it is a medical condition.
> ri

I've seen some things that said that tzaarat is definitely not
leprosy, but the various forms of tzaarat do appear similar to eczema,
ringworm, and other skin conditions.

Could it perhaps be that a person gets a real medical condition (eg.,
ringworm) because of his lashon hara, i.e. a person gets a natural
condition as a punishment b'derech teva? Similarly, perhaps a person
might break his bone or catch a cold because he did an averah.

If so, just as we can fix the bone or the cold even though it is a
punishment, perhaps too the tzaarat?

Mikha'el Makovi


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 126

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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

< Previous Next >