Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 154

Mon, 03 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: [Areivim] The Shevach Scandal and the Arrested Rabbis (Zev Sero)
• 2. SZ and Tisha B'av (was The Three Weeks and Private Aveilus) (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: some halachot of moser (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 4. Re: we live in good times (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Pas Yisroel, Pas Palter and Pas Akum (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Kohen Gadol (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Kohen Gadol (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: some halachot of moser (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: some halachot of moser (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: midrash elei ezekarah (Arie Folger)
• 11. Re: SZ and Tisha B'av (was The Three Weeks and Private Aveilus) (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: some halachot of moser (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 13. Re: Kohen Gadol (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

Mike Miller wrote:
>  maybe the moser can fight back
> m'din rodef if he holds that his mesirah does not make him chayav
> misah.

Who says a moser (or a rodef) has no right to defend himself?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Doron Beckerman wrote:
> Does anyone have any sources regarding an increase in the severity 
> levels of the Aveilus surrounding Tisha B'Av being due to the Shabbetai 
> Tzvi followers (across many communities) eating and partying on Tisha 
> B'av  and therefore high levels of Chumra were implemented? If so - only 
> regarding Tisha B'Av or the whole period?

I don't have a source that this is the reason for an increase in the
observance of this aveilus, but I can add some sources for the fact
that it was widely believed among O Jews that SZ Jews made a big deal
of davka violating TB.  (Whether this belief was actually true, I have
no idea.)

1. R Yonoson Eibshutz was an expert menaker, and would personally
treiber the meat for all his talmidim.  One of R Yaakov Emden's
accusations against R Yonoson was that he would deliberately leave in
some of the gid hanosheh, in order to be machshil people in eating it,
because each of the 365 mitzvot lo taaseh corresponds to a day in the
calendar and gid hanosheh corresponds to Tisha B'av; since, according
to the SZ people, TB had been abolished, so had been the issur of GhN,
and it was a "mitzvah" to eat it.

2. The infamous slander that was told to the GRA against the chasidim,
which caused him to conclude that they were an anti-halachic kat that
must be put in cherem, was that the Baal Hatanya was seen partying
with his followers on TB, with a girl on his lap.  (TB that year was
on Shabbos, and the girl was two years old.)


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Zev Sero wrote:
> Eli Turkel wrote:
>>   R Broyde has an article on the
>> subject in Journal of Contemporary Society 43
>>
>> In it his brings that the Tzitz Eliezer allows reporting crimes to
>> western society governments based on the Arukh HaShulchan that todays
>> governments do not kill criminals as bandits used to in the old days.
>
> 1. This makes no sense, since its premise - that the law of moser has
> something to do with the government killing the victim - is patently
> false.  Hamoser *mamon* chavero is no less a mosser.

*Rosh says that being moser money will lead to killing
*

*Rosh**^[1] * <#_ftn1>*(17:1):? *Our Sages compared an informant who 
causes a bandit to take money from another Jew to a rodef who pursues to 
kill ?. So to in the case of money of a fellow Jew, once it falls into 
the hands of a bandit there is no mercy. Today they take some of it and 
tomorrow they take the rest and in the end the Jew himself is taken by 
the bandits and he is killed because they think he admit he has more 
money. Because it leads to killing, the informing of bandits about a 
Jew?s money is like a pursuer to kill someone (rodef) and the victims 
can be saved by killing the informant? And surely in the present case 
where according to witnesses he has been warned already and he refuses 
to desist. Thus it is considered an on going crime and everyone has the 
right to punish him without the need of receiving witnesses in his 
presence. Even when it is not an on going crimes, when someone is judged 
before non-Jews they do not require the acceptance of witnesses in his 
presence. That is because someone who is an established informant, the 
non-Jews show favoritism to him for their own benefit. Therefore if 
there were a requirement to accept witnesses in his presence and do a 
thorough examination of them ? he would never be convicted since the 
non-Jews would protect him. Even when he is not in danger he informs on 
individuals and the public so surely in the case where he is accused and 
thus his life is in danger ? he will make false accusations and will 
endanger the entire Jewish community. Therefore the standard practice in 
all Jewish communities is when a person has informed three times ? 
either regarding giving over the Jew himself or his property to a bandit 
? they search a means of having him punished. This is an emergency 
condition for the community to prevent him informing on others and to 
eliminate informers. Therefore in our present case where witnesses have 
established that he has repeatedly informed and that he is prepared to 
do it again ? it is good to have him judged and punished. And thus 
should be done to all enemies of G-d?


>
> 2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
> his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
> designed to please the censor, and is so over the top precisely so
> that the reader should understand that he doesn't mean it.  E.g. see
> the title of the siman on hilchot gerut.   It's of a piece with the
> siddurim that proclaimed "avinu malkenu en lanu melech *bashamayim*
> ela ata"; everybody understood that the extra word was not to be said.
It is hard to accept that the Aruch HaShulchan would lie c.v. about the 
correct halacha See Yam Shel Shlomo Bk 38a
>
> The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
> assailant.  I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.
>
Rema (388:7) is dealing with a case that someone is regularly beating 
others - there is no mention how serious the beatings are

*Rema**^[1] * <#_ftn1>*(C.M. 388:7):?* Some say that if a man has been 
hit by another - it is possible to file a complaint with the secular 
government - even though this causes the assailant great damage.

There is also a Shach (388:45) to this effect as well as a Chasam Sofer 
(Gittin 7a).






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/cf882914/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/cf882914/attachment-0001.vcf>

R' Stuart Feldhamer asked:
<I believe it's an explicit pasuk in Nach that the walls of Y"M were
not destroyed on 17 Tamuz for the first destruction. Do you have any
sources for
the shiur?


There seems to be a machlokes the Bavli and the Yerushalmi regarding
this. The pasuk in Yirmiya says explicitly that the wall was breached
on the 9th of Tamuz and this is the way the Bavli assumes. However the
Yerushalmi makes a startling statement that what is written in the
Navi is wrong and the wall was really breached on the 17th. Tosafos in
Rosh Hashana states that the Navi knew the correct date but since the
people were mistaken as to the date the Navi recorded the incorrect
date.

The Minchas Chinuch is bothered by a number of questions.
1. How can there be a machlokes R' Akiva and R' Shimon about what day
in Teves was observed (the tenth or the 5th)? Why didn't they just see
what people did?
2. According to the Bavli the walls of Yerushalayim in the first Beis
Hamikdash were breached on the 9th of Tamuz. If so, why do we fast on
the 17th? After all, the pasuk in Navi is clearly talking about what
happened during the first Beis Hamikdash and therefore the chiyuv mi
divrei sofrim should be on the 9th.

He answers that the Navi never set a specific day for the fast only a
month. That is why the pasuk only mentions months. After the churban
bayis sheini, chazal decided to set specific days for the fasts.

For an article about this topic please see

http://www.jerusalemkoshernews.com/
2009/07/kosher-kuestion-pas-yisrael-%E2%80%93-jewish-bread-005/#more-840



Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/c86748db/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> I've always been puzzled that a Kohen Gadol could not even become tamei 
> through the death of the seven krovim.
> Yet, if the KG came upon a meis, he was required to contaminate himself 
> because of meis mitzvah.

What's not to understand?  When the KG's relative dies, there are many
others available who will take care of what needs to be done.  Even if
he has no siblings with an equal duty, "vechol beit yisrael" will surely
share in his grief and not allow his parents to remain unburied.  So he
can't make himself tamei.  But if he finds himself in a situation where
if he doesn't do it nobody will (whether it happens to be his relative
or not), how can he walk past and leave a Jew lying there?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> R' Micha wrote:

>> It seems to me self evident, a huge statement about 
>> the relative importance of chessed.
 
> And not to allow him for his own immediate family *IS* chessed?

Chesed shel emes is for the meis, not for the burier!


> Also, if he comes upon a meis, he could demonstrate his chessed by 
> summoning another person.

If he can then by definition it's not a meis mitzvah.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Zev Sero wrote:
>
> The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
> assailant.  I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.
>
>
This is the basis of the Rema

*Maharach Ohr Zarua^ **(#142): ? *Therefore it appears that any person 
who regularly hits others ? his legal status is like that of a person 
who regularly informs on others. However if he does not hit others 
regularly but just did it this time and regrets it and it is clear that 
he will not continue doing this bad behavior ? then it is definitely 
prohibited to kill him or to cause him to lose his money. Because 
HaMaimoni writes that even in the case of a moser the ruling is that if 
the deed of informing is done [and it is not expected that he will do it 
again] then it is prohibited to kill him. Therefore it would appear that 
while the victim of the beating is still angry at his assailant and he 
hasn?t calmed down by complaining to the secular authorities and he can 
not restrain himself from taking revenge ? either the victim himself or 
his relatives who are close to him   - as a result I am afraid that the 
perpetrator already has become wicked and that it is a minor thing in 
his eyes to beat him again and this will lead to murder. It is therefore 
not only the victim who is allowed to file a complaint with the secular 
authorities, but it is in fact a mitzva for everyone to report to the 
judge that Reuven hit Shimon. Therefore those who are filled with rage 
report the crime to the secular authorities so the situation will not 
escalate. And if this reporting to the secular authorities leads to the 
judge taking advantage of the perpetrator and taking away all his money 
? than the information is exempt. Because if he isn?t exempt then no 
person will attempt to save his fellow man from the assaulter. This is 
like the case of a person trying to save someone who is being pursued 
and the rescuer damages the possessions of an innocent bystander. There 
is no question that if the rescuer is able to save the pursued by 
damaging one of the pursuers limbs - then he must do the minimal needed 
to save the victim. This is why Rav Huna amputated an arm. However 
perhaps instead of amputation it is much better to tell the secular 
judge to cause him to lose a significant amount of money ? rather than 
have him amputate a limb.  If the assailant is someone who regularly 
hits others and has done it repeatedly and openly ? and from his actions 
it is clear that he will beat up anyone who disagrees with him ? then it 
is a clear mitzva for every Jew to report him to the secular authorities 
and request that he be stopped. However if as a result of informing the 
secular authorities they mistreat him and take away all his money ? the 
informant is not liable. Whoever is involved in improper behavior or 
with non-Jewish women or with anything which might bring harm to the 
community ? if the community warns him to stop and he doesn?t listen ? 
it is permitted to inform on him to the secular government ? that he is 
doing disgusting things. However if he only does it once and stops ? 
then it is definitely prohibited to inform on him to the secular 
government. But if not informing the secular government results in 
accusations against the community or even an individual because the 
secular government knows that a crimes was definitely done by a Jew but 
they don?t know which one and they mistakenly accuse a Jew of the crime 
? it is permitted for the accused to deny it and tell the secular 
government who the real criminal was. This right to inform on the 
criminal is even if the one who committed the crime did not intent to 
cause harm but rather a mitzva. For example the incident with Rabbeinu 
Yitzchok who circumcised converts and as a result the whole community 
was in danger. This is described in the sefer Ohr Zarua and I have 
already written about it.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/34f3e26f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/34f3e26f/attachment-0001.vcf>

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:

>> 1. This makes no sense, since its premise - that the law of moser has
>> something to do with the government killing the victim - is patently
>> false.  Hamoser *mamon* chavero is no less a mosser.

> in the case of money of a fellow Jew, once it falls into 
> the hands of a bandit there is no mercy. Today they take some of it and 
> tomorrow they take the rest and in the end the Jew himself is taken by 
> the bandits and he is killed because they think he admit he has more 
> money. Because it leads to killing, the informing of bandits about a 
> Jew?s money is like a pursuer to kill someone (rodef)

This is very remote.   The Rosh is clearly looking for a justification
for what seems at first glance a strange law.  But if such a remote
possibility of the moser's actions ultimately leading to his victim's
death is enough to compare the moser to a rodef (though we wouldn't
do so in other cases with similar risks), then there is certainly no 
justification for *not* treating in the same way one who causes another
Jew to go to prison.  Prisons today may be less dangerous than they
were in Roman times, but they are still dangerous places, and the life
expectancy of someone who goes to prison today is diminished at least
as much as that of the Rosh's victim of a financial mesirah. 



>> 2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
>> his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
>> designed to please the censor, and is so over the top precisely so
>> that the reader should understand that he doesn't mean it.  E.g. see
>> the title of the siman on hilchot gerut.

> It is hard to accept that the Aruch HaShulchan would lie c.v. about the 
> correct halacha See Yam Shel Shlomo Bk 38a

See what he says about gerut.  It's not really a lie, if the reader is
expected to see through it.


>> The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
>> assailant.  I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.

> Rema (388:7) is dealing with a case that someone is regularly beating 
> others - there is no mention how serious the beatings are
>
> *Rema**^[1] * <#_ftn1>*(C.M. 388:7):?* Some say that if a man has been 
> hit by another - it is possible to file a complaint with the secular 
> government - even though this causes the assailant great damage.
> 
> There is also a Shach (388:45) to this effect as well as a Chasam Sofer 
> (Gittin 7a).


Where does he say "regularly"?   And who suggested that the beating
must be serious?  But what source is there to extend this heter to
people other than the victim?

 


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RMB wrote:
> But to me that kind of dating seems compelling, since it's only from
> the perspective of centuries later that one would think to telescope
> churban bayis with the Hadrianic persecutions as a single narrative. It
> just wouldn't seem like one long story from a closer perspective.

1) Mediaeval generally means between the fall of Rome in 476 (or even
earlier, from the split between the Eatern and Western Roman empire)
and the discovery of the New World in 1492. Jewishly, this is a very
long period. When we use the adjective Mediaeval, we often think
Rishonim, but this period includes not only the Geonim and Rishonim,
but also the Savoraim and even some of the Amoraim. Hence, it doesn't
mean the Midrash is particularly late.

2) there are other texts, which sensibly identify all 10 as living at
the time of teh Hadrianic persecutions, or that do not make any claims
that the ten were contemporaries. It is only Eile Ezkera that posits
the link with Mekhirat Yossef and a discussion on the subject with the
Roman emperor or one of his officials, that would require them to be
contemporaries. According to other readings, they may have lived in
different times, but we weave their stories in one literary unit.

Accordingly, the other formulations ('Assara Harogei Malkhut beMidrash
uveFiyut lists 28 different piyutim, many of them following different
shitot!), the story need not be a high Mediaeval creation.

Also, as the author of 'Assara Harogei Malkhut beMidrash uveFiyut
argues, there were a lot more than 10 Harogei Malkhut, so in fact,
they are all true (except for Eile Ezkera. In the Yeckishe tradition,
many communities indeed skip the first stanza on Yom Kippur, which is
the stanza making the historically most difficult claim. However, I do
not know whether the reason for skipping that passage is the
chronological issue, or a reticence to publicly mention such esoteric
matters like the lasting debt of the sale of Yossef, or again because
there was a variant tradition that considers the Mekhirat Yossef part
to be a later addition - your learned comments will be most
appreciated here).

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service
* Testing the Efficacy of Prayer

Doron:
> Does anyone have any sources regarding an increase in the severity levels
> of the Aveilus surrounding Tisha B'Av being due to the Shabbetai Tzvi
> followers

I never heard of the SZ element in 9 Av so
Here is a guess from a history student.

The advent of SZ was oft associated with the catastrophic events of
Tach v'Tat

Maybe the added aveilus was due to Tach v'Tat but ATTRIBUTED to SZ

Just a guess

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 09:40:08PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
>   R Broyde has an article on the
> subject in Journal of Contemporary Society 43
> 
> In it his brings that the Tzitz Eliezer allows reporting crimes to
> western society governments based on the Arukh HaShulchan
> that todays governments do not
> kill criminals as bandits used to in the old days.
> Tzitz Eliezer explicitly says that one should inform on child
> molesters to the government
> 
> R. Elyashiv concurs in a case of a robbery in the office of religious
> affairs. Informing
> the police will lead to an investigation which most likely will find one of the
> religious employees guilty. R Elyashiv based on a Panim Meorot says to report
> the incident to the police
> 
> R Batzri disagrees stating there is no such thing as a just secular government.
> R. Wosner differentiates bewteen a crime under Jewish law and a crime only under
> secular law. When the incident is covered under dina demalchuta then one
> can inform the police.
> 
> R. Moshe Feinstein seems to allow informing the police only for violent crimes.
> 
> In summary it is a machloket haposkim and so the one who informed has
> a legal basis.
> Even in theory one would have no right to kill such a person.

In my comments on Areivim, I was assuming that among the opinions who
I can easly find (the above poskim plus RHS and RYBS and the Pitchei
Choshen) R' Basri's opinion would be the most relevant to the Brooklyn
Syrian community. (Though RMF may also be relevant to them, I doubt
RYBS would be.)

Note that after the moser has already reported his intended target(s)
to the government, R' Basri rules that the moser's fate must be
decided by the beit din, so our discussion of how to handle a moser is
largely academic, assuming someone caught on what he was trying to do
before he did it.

--Ken

-- 
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/827b3e5e/attachment-0001.pgp>

Zev Sero:
> What's not to understand?  When the KG's relative dies, there are many
> thers available who will take care of what needs to be done.  Even if
> e has no siblings with an equal duty, "vechol beit yisrael" will surely
> hare in his grief and not allow his parents to remain unburied.  So he
> an't make himself tamei.  But if he finds himself in a situation where
> f he doesn't do it nobody will (whether it happens to be his relative
> r not), how can he walk past and leave a Jew lying there?

I concur with Zev and just want to add or expound :-) a bit

That AIUI meis mitzvah is k'vod hameis and k'vod habriyos so it overrides
the prohibition of KG or Nazir being Tamei

As Zev has noted, the death of a relative would probably entail a chevra
kadisha taking care of the needs of Burial

NB:  At the death of Nadav and Avihu -
The kohanim were interdicted from mourning
BUT
Acheichem beis Yisroel Yivku es hasreifa.

Theoretically or practically - when a KG or Nazir cannot be metapeil
with a dead relative the house of Israel steps into the breach

While the case of meis mitzva is davka when there IS no chevra to
intercede.

I think Zev covered the basics, I simply wanted to clarify it a bit more.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 154
***************************************

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..."