Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 34

Fri, 17 May 2024

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zvi Lampel
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 19:31:29 -0400
[Avodah] Examples of disrespect among chachamim circa R.

Rabbi Ari Kahn cites two Gemaras in which Rabbi Akiva himself criticizes a
chacham for lack of sufficient respect for another chacham, and the deathly
consequence Rabbi Akiva attributed to such behavior. (My translations.)

*Nedarim 40a* ? one of Rabbi Akiva's disciples fell sick, but Sages did not
visit him. Rabbi Akiva entered [his house] to visit him [and attend to his
needs/ask Hashem to have pity on him], and because they swept and sprinkled
the ground before him, he recovered. "My master," he said, "you have
revived me!" Rabbi Akiva went forth and lectured: "Anyone who does not
visit the sick is like a shedder of blood."

*Menachos 68b* tells us that Yehuda ben Nechemia?s face shone when he
dismissed a kushya posed by his rebbi, Rabbi Tarfon, leaving him speechless. R.
Akiva, Rabbi Tarfon?s colleague (with whom he often disagreed) said to him,
"Yehudah! Your face has brightened with joy because you have refuted an
elder?! I wonder whether you will live long."

Said Rabbi Yehudah ben Ila'i, " That happened half a month before Passover.
When I ascended again [to the beis medrash] for Shavuos, I asked for him:
Where is Rabbi Yehuda ben Nec?emia? And they said to me: He passed away.

RAK notes that this second source is particularly impressive as the death
clearly takes place between Passover and Shavuot, and, ironically, the
topic of discussion included the Omer!

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240513/a76c935a/attachment-0001.htm>

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:35:50 +1000
[Avodah] Tochacha

R Micha, I am sorry but I believe you are mistaken in saying -
Lehalakhah (MB 608:9) it is prohibited to offer tokhachah more than once.

That Halacha is limited to giving PUBLIC Tochacha
This is clear in the Rama [608:2]
And MBerrurah [608:8] ?
where he clearly declares
one is obligated to offer Tochacha in private until the sinner [repents]
hits or curses

As for the various Gemaras that R Micha refers to
They are all addressed in the R Yona
All of them apply ONLY to someone who will not even listen to his Rosh
So you may have a Kasheh
But that is a Kasheh on Rabbenu Yona
And I believe we follow RYona in these matters

All this was posted before,
Please show Rishonim who disagree with the RY
We identified and offered a link and translation of that RYona some
previous posts back
So far I am unaware of any response on this chat that addresses this RYona
=  =  =  =

The ArHaShulchan R Micha quotes and translates
equally supports this perspective
Here is R Micha?s quote ?
AhS, se'if 5
any mitzvah not spelled out in the Torah
no tokhachah not even once because "mutav sheyihyu shogegin".
those that are spelled out mochin beyadan.
Ve'im yodeia' she'ein devarav nishma'in
lo yomar BERABIM [my emphasis] lehokhichan raq paam echad.

And further R Micha quotes the AHaShulchan ?
in se'if 6 "venir'eh li"
that when people think something is mutar,
if you know for sure they will not accept [the emes] from him, he should
stay quiet

I make the following observation:
The AHaSh [end 5] actually asks our Q -
the first ruling applies to Shoggeg but the latter refers to Meizid

The AHaSh is clearly referring to matters that are not Min HaTorah
As he explains in 6
And he is again referring to those who believe the rebuker is being a
that is the ONLY time a public rebuke is offered once and then no more
BUT he still maintains that PRIVATELY one must continue to rebuke

=  =  =  =
In the particular case of women eating erev YKippur without adding any time
to extend YK
It seems they are Shoggegim because they have a Minhag
from their mothers and Bobbes and many generations back
That they eat right until nightfall or Shkiah or whenever

They actually believe that the Rabbi rebuking them is being a Machmir,
overly zealous
THAT is why they are Shoggegim/Shoggegos
And NEVERTHELESS one must continue to rebuke them in private.

And because this is a public violation
The rebuke must be made in public
See BaEr Heitev [608:4] the public rebuke is to counter the desecration of
HaShems Glory
Not primarily to repair or heal the sinner

The continued private rebuke has another purpose ?
Either or both to help the sinner
And to shore up the community posture and outrage over this violation even
if the sinner will not listen
If the sinner will not listen even to his Rosh Yeshivah,
Or if he hits or curses
Then presumably, we assume he is no longer a member of the community

See also ShHaTziyun [608:8] re the obligation to use force and penalties as
part of the rebuke
and that applies not only to the BeisD
but also to ANYONE who has the power to so act.

=  =  =  =  =

As for the SChassidim
I did not find R MIchas reference -
Beir Halakhah (s"q 2) cites the MA who in turn, cites Sefer haChassidim
The MAvraham brings it but it is in parenthesis and I am unsure of the
authenticity of such notes within the MAvrah
I believe the MBerruah or ShHaTziyun also quotes the SCh
But I did not find it.

Furthermore ?
it is well known that RMoshe dismisses much, if not all of it as a fake
Secondly, we have no one who suggests that it ever eclipses Halachah
Third - lets have a look and see if we can make sense of what he is
actually saying
Here is a link ? https://www.sefaria.org/Sefer_Chasidim.413.1?lang=bi

[My translation]
One who is certain that his rebuke will not be accepted
Ought not rebuke
So how do we understand that we are instructed to rebuke until cursed
[we asked this question earlier ? what is the point of such a rebuke?]
This is referring to a situation where the relationship is close and
Like parents and children
in other words in such cases one must not permit one?s affection curb their
duty to rebuke
And rebuke sharply
But must continue to intensify the tone of the rebuke until the
relationship may be damaged
Where they hit, curse or insult [as per each opinion]

However with other people
Who will hate and [have the power] to harm
And if the rebuker intends to anger the sinner the sinner will harm the
There is no need to continue to rebuke.

It seems, at least to me
That he is concerned about people who have a history
Who will use the pretext of this Mitzvah
To get at, to hurt and insult the person they hate


Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240514/7e6b16f2/attachment-0001.htm>

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Zvi Lampel
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 18:24:51 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Rabbi Akiva's Students' Deaths as Soldiers in

> > https://asif.co.il/wpfb-file/6_2-pdf/
> > by R. Shmuel Yismach, Igud Yeshivot HaHesder
> > <
> https://asif.co.il/files_author/%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%91-%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%90%d7%9c-%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%97/
> >
> RMB: The idea that the Y-mi's "iskarah" wasn't a lung disease (askara) but
> the
> type of low-ranking Roman soldier who carried a dagger (sicarii) also fits
> Igeres R Sherira Gaon referring to their deaths as a "shamda". Persecution
> is a term we would use for something caused by people, not disease.
> But RSY in this article cites RSG and then uses R Hai Gaon, RSG's son, as
> proof that they died of disease -- by presuming the first definition of
> "iskarah" when RHG uses the word. Whereas the whole argument is based
> on assuming the two Greek words having the same transliteration.

RSY is here countering the known (to him) arguments that have been made
(and documents them naming names) based on Rav Sherira Gaon's attribution
of "shamda" to Rabbi Akiva's students' death ("vehayah shamda al talmidim
shel Rabbi Akiva") versus the Gemara's attribution of their death to
"iskara" (or Kares). Your thesis (that the Gemara's "iskarah" wasn't a lung
disease [askara] but the type of low-ranking Roman soldier who carried a
dagger [sicarii]) is intriguing and would indeed make RShG's "shamda"
virtually synonymous with it; but none of RSY's sources make that claim.

Most of them consider the two terms to have separate, if not contradictory,
meanings.* The closest approach to yours is the one that points out that
"askar" is Turkish (!) for "army." Perhaps they do not entertain your
suggestion on the grounds that the hidden daggers carried by the Sicarii
were weapons they hid up their sleeves to sneak up to their victims and
secretly stab them. They were not the swords used by armies in battle. (And
I have not found a source that "sicarii" was a type of low-ranking Roman

RSY is making the argument that 7 manuscripts of R'ShG's epistle do not
have the word "shamda" at all,** and his son, RSG, cites him as using the
word "iskara". So--again with the premise that the two words mean different
things--this indicates that the manuscripts that have RSh'G using the word
"shmad" are erroneous.

* One proposes that RShG's "shamda"=Rebbelion is the historical truth, and
the Talmud only said "iskara"/kares out of self-censorship so as not to
provoke government ire. Another takes "shamda" to mean persecution, which
led (not to rebellion, but) to fleeing to caves, which brought on sickness
and death from lack of air ("iskara"). Another proposes that death by the
sword cutting the throat ("shmad") is equivalent to choking ("iskara").
Another equates "iskara" to lashon hara, the cause Hashem's punishment
through the Roman killings ("shmad"). And then there's the one already
mentioned, of "iskara" coming from the Turkish word "askar" meaning "army."

**And in fact, in the passages where RSh'G does use use the word "shamda,"
he uses it to mean persecution to prevent allegiance to the Torah, not
warfare between two armies or its results.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240514/a53ed392/attachment-0001.htm>

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Joel Rich
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 05:59:43 +0300
[Avodah] dibbur

The Rambam in the peirush hamishnayot (Avot 1:16) categorizes types of
dibbur. 1. Mtzaveh (commanded) 2. Asur (forbidden) 3. Maus {disgusting} 4.
Ahava (beloved) and 5. Mutar (permitted. How do you understand 4 ? Is it a
mitzvah or an inyan (and the flip for 3)? Is HKBH indifferent in cases of
Bsorot tovot
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240515/1bdc3fe8/attachment-0001.htm>

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Joel Rich
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 05:57:55 +0300
[Avodah] choices

If adam harishon had been given a choice of eating from the eitz hachaim or
eitz hadaat, which one should he have picked (pun intended)? Why?
Bsorot tovot
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240515/b4e2f0b0/attachment-0001.htm>

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 14:11:26 -0400
Re: [Avodah] dibbur

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:59:43AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> The Rambam in the peirush hamishnayot (Avot 1:16) categorizes types of
> dibbur. 1. Mtzaveh (commanded) 2. Asur (forbidden) 3. Maus {disgusting} 4.
> Ahava (beloved) and 5. Mutar (permitted. How do you understand 4 -- Is it a
> mitzvah or an inyan (and the flip for 3)? Is HKBH indifferent in cases of
> 5.?

I see (3) and (4) being things that could be assur or a chiyuv under
Hilkhos Dei'os, if the person is at a level where that kind of speech
is a reasonable "stretch goal" that they ought to be trying to avoid /
to speak.

In that, I take it that Hilkhos Dei'os boils down to "Thou shalt strive
to be a better person than you are today." Which would include avoiding
being miusdik and trying for that which is ahuv by the Borei. But these
can't be hard goals, because they depend on where you are currently
holding and what direction you are right now capable of growing in.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger                 Today is the 22nd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF               situation for the benefit of others?

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Zvi Lampel
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 13:23:26 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Rabbi Akiva's Students' Deaths as Soldiers in

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:24?PM Zvi Lampel <zvilam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...I have not found a source that "sicarii" was a type of low-ranking
> Roman soldier.)

I did find the following on Wikipedia:

Originally, the accensi were light infantry in the armies of the early
Roman Republic. They were the poorest men in the legion, and could not
afford much equipment. They did not wear armour or carry shields, and their
usual position was part of the third battle line.[1] They fought in a loose
formation, supporting the heavier troops.

They were eventually phased out by the time of Second Punic War [218 - 201
BCE--centuries before Rabb Akiva's time--ZL]

In the later Roman Republic the term was used for civil servants who
assisted the elected magistrates, particularly in the courts, where they
acted as ushers and clerks.

1. Southern, Pat (2007). The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional
History. Oxford university press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-19-532878-3.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240515/0fcaddbb/attachment-0001.htm>


Avodah mailing list



Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous Next >