Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 056

Thursday, November 19 1998

• Re: Critique of the Lesson from Yeshaya
• Re: are bamoth really assur?
• [none]
• Israel / Rav Kook
• [none]
• [none]
• Re: Avodah V2 #55
• Re: Computers
• Re: Avodah V2 #55
• accident
• New topics
• Re: use of computers & internet
• Re: are bamoth really assur?
• Hilchos Ar'ah d'Eretz Yisroel
• Literal, Idiomatic, Homiletic
• R. Hirsch's sources
• Re: Computers
• Re: shir hamaalos
• Sources for parshanut, ayin tachat ayin
• Forcing a man to give a 'get'
• yaakov in grar

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I guess my concern is, if I can put my finger on it more precisely -
> that in the past, people commentating on Tanach invariably had a solid
> basis in Talmud etc as well. So that, to whatever extent, the knowledge
> went hand in hand - so even where an explanation was brought that was
> contrary to chazal, it was not because of an ignorance of chazal. 
> 

I cannot muster any significant concern on this point. Sorry.

> What seems to me to be happening today - and your wife may have some
> views on this, but I have wondered whether it is linked to the Beis
> Ya'akov educational system.  Is that people are learning Tanach, albeit
> with Rashi, Ramban etc, but absent anything approaching that basis.  And
> increasingly these days, girls are spending, maybe three years post high
> school, and then continuing to go back and teach and learn (and hence be
> creative and darshan), - without, in some cases, ever having learnt a
> mishna other than pirkei avos.
> 

I have taught much Nach over the years, and find that my knowledge of
Talmudic literature is nowhere near as essential as Malbim, R' Tzadok and
Michtav Me'Eliyahu.

> And it seems to me to be creating a discourse in which the two are
> increasingly not linked.  This also seems to be fueled by something
> reported by many educators I have talked to - about how difficult it is,
> in todays Yeshiva high schools, to get the boys interested in gemorra,
> while the tanach teaching goes swimmingly - and then I seem to hear,

Shocking! Where might these yeshivos be?! In all those that I am aware of,
I would classify the study of Tanach as "drowning", not "swimming"! 


YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I'm sure you didn't over look the mishna in Zevachim perek 14 which says
that after yerushalayim bamos are forever assur (lo haya lahem heter od) I
believe that the Rambam psokens like this in Hilschos beis habechira perek
alef halacha gimel. Please let me know why this isn't applicaple to your
theory. (note: no sarcasm is meant, knowing Rabbi Dr Riceman personally I
have the greatest admiration for his Torah knowledge)
Elie Ginsparg

Subject: use of computers & internet

Daniel Eidensohn writes

>> There is no blanket prohibition of the use of computers  -" no matter what the
>> appliciation" - only a strong description of the harm of various activities
>> that the computer is capable of doing
.....
>> The tone of the postings concerning this issue have been inappropriate

I agree that their blanket prohibtion concerned the internet and not computers
(The Internet is prohibited even for Parnossa)
and so apologize for the misinterpertation.
However, even according to this our list might be illegal.
They don't go into details of email versus web browsers.

In any event I use the web for many professional purposes and their psak would
put many people out of work if not for the fact that most working observant
Jews do not follow the Eida haCharedit.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

I was hoping someone else more knowledgable than I would respond to R' 
YGB regarding the "lost" legacy of Rav Kook. My understanding is that the 
legacy has split radically into two parts:

a) one group, following Rav Zvi Yehudah Kook,  has turned into the 
policical group that supports the settlers, etc, placing strong emphasis 
on the kedusha of the land-  This is the group tied to B'nei Akiva 
yeshivot, for instance- 

b) another group (perhaps mostly academics) emphasizes the universalistic 
message of Rav Kook- open arms to all, appreciate the seculars, etc.

This split shows up clearly in the secondary literature on Rav Kook. The 
two groups have separate academic conferences, I think. 

Of course each group claims that it follows the "true" spirit of Rav Kook. 


__________________________________________________________________

P. Rivka Schochet and Claude Schochet		    
    claude@math.wayne.edu       http://www.math.wayne.edu/~claude/
 
During 1998-9 on sabbatical leave at
	Mathematics Department
	The Technion
	Haifa 32000 Israel
	
	home phone (starting 10/15): 04-834-6049

Subject: israel

R YGB writes

>> Is there some source in R' Kook's writings for placing land and sovreignity 
>> thereover as a value over and above Kiruv of Chilonim to Torah?


Most independent observers agree that Rav Kook lived before any of these events
were even thought about and so it is fruitless to speculate what his position
would have been. Those from the Merkaz yeshiva push the view that Rav Kook would
support the positions of Rav Shapira. Most likely these positions come from
Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook.

Though I agree with YGB I am confused by his reference to Kiruv. The position
of those who oppose returning any land is that it is forbidden by the Torah.
How can any concern for kiruv override this?
Rav Moshe Feinstein in the latest volume discusses giving a nonreligious person
to eat when he won't make blessings or wasj his hands. He basically allows it
only reluctantly for a short time until the person realizes that religious
people also have manners. After that we do not override "lifbe iver" because
of the feelings of the chiloni person. Even Rav Auerbach who is more lenient
does so only because "lifbe iver" is different than other prohibitions. He
would not allow one to override prohibitions even rabbinic ones because of
kiruv reasons.

The reasons that Rav Soloveitchik, Rav Schach and Rav Yosef all agree to
returning land, at least in principle, is because of Pikuach Nefesh of the
entire nation in Israel. Within the last year the letters of Rab Schach on
Israel have been published. In those letters he clearly states that the
settlements incite the gentiles against us and so should not be considered.
I assume he would advocate dismantling the settlements if that were the price
of a peace agreement. Thus, there would be no pikuach nefesh for the inhabitants
and less pikuach nefesh for the rest of the country.

Those who oppose this viewpoint have 2 objections.
Either the prohibition of giving back land overrides pikuach nefesh
or
disputing the fact that returning land will make the people safer.

Rav Goren writes that up to half of the people in the land should give up their
lives before any land is returned.
The second point is a military/political decision rather than strictly halachic.
This leads to the question whether one can rely on military people for an
opinion. Rav Soloveitchik felt that this was no different than asking a doctor
for his opinion about eating on yom kippur.

One complication in the whole story is that there is no such thing as the
"machmir" opinion as both sides claim that the other side will lead to a
more dangerous situation.

One last remark:
RGB refers to the NRP. In today's news the Agudah came out with a statement
against the Wye agreement and stating it was forbidden to give back lands.
It was noted that the rabbis from Degel haTorah did not sign the declaration.

Several months ago I saw a survey for Israeli opinions about the Oslo agreements.
Interestingly it showed that about 70% of the modern orthodox people opposed Oslo
while about 90% of the haredim opposed it!! (I don't vouch for the accracy of the poll).

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

Your research is admirable, but fails to address the critical question 
of why
Hirsch did not feel the need to cite Chazals at length to justify his
criticism of the Avot but you do.  

- -Chaim B.
-----------------------------

This may sound naive, but I always read that Rashi (who's quoting 
Chazal) the way R'Hirsch read it.  I wasn't aware that any more 
justification was necessary.  Just read that Rashi (26:27)  v'ain adam 
m'dakdeik bahem ma tivam.   No one was m'dakdeik.  And when they turned 
13, each went his own way.

BTW, does anyone know where Eisav and Yaakov were during the famine when 
Isaac and Rivka went to G'rar?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

>Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:26:16 EST
>From: Joelirich@aol.com
>Subject: Receiving compensation for learning/teaching tora

>Does anyone know of any compilation of sources on this topic? I'm
interested
>in the historical flow which to my admittedly untutored eye appears to
have>
>gone from being considered an act of the evil inclination to take
compensation
>to now being an act of the evil inclination not to take compensation.

See the Gemara in Neddarim daf 37 and the Rambam on this.  The shulcahn
Oruch in Hilchos Talmud Torah brings down the Halacha L"emaasa.  He says
(in sif 5) with regard to taking to teach,that now days we do take and we
consider it S'char Betaylah, payment for not doing something else.  As
far as taking to learn, as in Kollel, see the Rama in sif 21 who writes
that today it is customary to take, but only from an organization not an
individual.  See the Shach which writes in the name of the Kesef Mishna
that we even take from individuals.

Ben
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Last year, I attended a lecture by R'Berel Wein who was speaking about 
this very issue. (Technology and frumkeit)  He mentionned that when the 
printing press came out, the third work to be printed was a pornographic 
book.  The BDaTZ's of the day issued their warnings and prohibitions, 
which may have been a very good idea at the time, but the rest is 
history.  

The same may be said for computers.  There may come a time where 
computers are safer, but the eida chareidis community is one where the 
people have succeeded in keeping shmutz out in way we can't and don't 
want.  THeir standards of tznius may be repulsive to me, but I'll tell 
you something ,when I walked  thru the streets of Meah Shearim, my 
Yetzer Hara was fast asleep, something which cannot be said for it when 
walking thru the streets or supermarkets of America.  So I applaud the 
issur put out, even as I type this on the internet. 

And as for comparing Internet to libraries, it's a comparison I've heard 
too much.  e.g. those who compare getting porn off the net to going to a 
store are being a wee bit naive.  The effortless search on the web makes 
things which were impossible or simply impractical a few years ago 
accessible.  NOT because the info wasn't there before,but because it's 
so easy to get it.  So PLEASE don't claim that "if we assur the internet 
we have to assur libraries and magazines etc..." 

Thank you
Raffy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 21:08:51 +0000
> From: David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: are bamoth really assur?
> 
> While I in general agree with Chana Luntz's warnings about emulating
> the Avoth, I am les certain than she that bamoth are assur nowadays.  I
> will, alas, be out of town for two weeks and so won't be able to watch
> the sparks fly, but the chance was too good to miss.
>   One of the Rambam's principles is that halacha is unchanged since
> Moshe.  I know of two types of counterexamples.  One type is exemplified
> by the chazal kether malchuth haya munach ad shenatlah David v'zachthah
> lo ul'vanav.  This is reflected in the Rambam's insistence that one of
> the qualifications for a king is to be descended from David (through
> Shlomo).  Other Rishonim disagree.  The point, of course, is that even
> according to the Rambam no such condition existed at the time of Moshe. 
> There are other examples of this type.

===> I do not know if this is a good example since Moshe simply did not
give all the specific details of Melech.  The Rambam's insistence is (I
believe) based upon statements in Sefer Shmuel that there is an eternal
covenant with David for the Melucha.  This would not seem to really be a
case of anything *changing* -- more the idea of *clarification*.



>   The second type is exemplified by the chazal hi haythah nachalah.  The
> Rambam understood this to be a predetermined choice which was only put
> into force later (one can certainly understand the relevant sugyoth that
> way).  The technical problem is that there are a bunch of braithoth
> which the gemara explains by saying that they refer to zman hether
> habamoth.  If we believe the Rosh's principle that the gemara is
> uninterested in history of law (I'm afraid I can't recall the source) it
> must be telling us this in the expectation that bamoth will become
> muthar again.  The conceptual problem is that the mishna's description
> of flipflopping permissability of bamoth doesn't fit comfortably into
> the Rambam, even though it can be shoehorned in.

===> ACtually, Bamoth *are* permitted for the non-Jew even in our time...
Maybe that is why there are "historical" citations of what Jews did (to
provide the necessary contrast).  Another factor may be simply that this
sort of "historical" data is needed to understand the Kobanoth that are
offered in the Beth Hamikdosh.


>   Another possibility (which can be shoehorned into the gemaras, I
> think, but which the Rishonim would uniformly reject) is that bamoth
> were assur in Talmudic times because there was a unified halachic
> authority.  Now that there is no longer such a thing bamoth ought to be
> muthar, and all the braithoth referring to them should be halachically
> viable.  We can all go down to Tennessee (barring technical problems)
> and sacrifice nedavoth.
>   Any comments?
--Zvi

> 
> David Riceman
> 
> Oh - I'm actually on the verge of getting a grasp of the synagogue
> question I asked a while ago (DV).  I hope to summarize once I've
> finished.  In the meantime I highly recommend the Aruch HaShulhan on
> Y.D. 214 (it's in the new volume 9).

I think I accidentally sent you an entire issue of avodah!
If I did and it was posted, please forgive me.  I'm new at this.

Raffy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Hi!
Just curious.  
How do new topics get started?

Raffy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I don't find much new in the issur promulgated against internet use. It's just
a continuation of the same trends started a century ago -- do we view the
availability of Western Culture as an opportunity (albeit one to be used with
caution) or a challenge?

The first camp would forge ahead with using the internet in blatantly positive
ways, such as limud Torah, as well as a general communication medium. The
ability the i'net provides is worth the vigilence it requires.

The second sees the need to avoid the problems of mass communication
(p'ritzus, apikursus, etc...) as the greater priority, and therefore would
avoid the internet.

As to Eli Turkel's "concern":
: However, even according to this our list might be illegal.
: They don't go into details of email versus web browsers.

At most, they assur-ed using the internet to read and contribute to the list.
Juno (*) would be a "muttar" alternative. (I could even maintain the list
entirely from Juno.) So, the list itself wouldn't be included as it is in
principle possible to read it without the internet.

-mi

(*) Disclaimer: I work for D.E. Shaw & Co., owners of Juno Free Email
                services.
    Juno provides an email-only dial-in connection, without using internet
    protocols or requiring an ISP. So, you can get email without opening your
    home to the i'net in general.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5981 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

What about Reish Lakish's opinion there that bamos are muttar? I think
somewhere (although Micha will be upset with me for not taking the time to
look up the source) the Meshech Chochmo discusses this at length.

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Cheryl Maryles wrote:

> I'm sure you didn't over look the mishna in Zevachim perek 14 which says
> that after yerushalayim bamos are forever assur (lo haya lahem heter od) I
> believe that the Rambam psokens like this in Hilschos beis habechira perek
> alef halacha gimel. Please let me know why this isn't applicaple to your
> theory. (note: no sarcasm is meant, knowing Rabbi Dr Riceman personally I
> have the greatest admiration for his Torah knowledge)
> Elie Ginsparg
> 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Eli Turkel wrote:

> Though I agree with YGB I am confused by his reference to Kiruv. The
> position of those who oppose returning any land is that it is forbidden
> by the Torah.  How can any concern for kiruv override this?  

I am confused, and doubly so! What din requires the mitnachlim to prevent
the turnover of the land? If the government turned to them for a psak, I
understand that lefi darkam they would have to render a psak l'issura, but
I do not see what compels them to physical opposition when it creates a
rift in Israeli society that marginalizes Orthodox Jews.

V'ki teima that there is a chiyuv on the populace to rise up against
govenmental policies that run counter to Torah - why are the Merkazniks
not in Kikar Shabbat demonstrating against Chillul Shabbos and Chitutei
Shichvei as well? 

> Rav Goren writes that up to half of the people in the land should give
> up their lives before any land is returned.

Is there any basis for this? The Gemara in Shevu'os 35 allows a govenment
to expend only up to one-sixth of a nation in war. If, on the other hand,
this is a definite Milchemes Mitzva - than why stop at a half? 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

To expand the parshanus a bit.

IMHO Ayin tachas Ayin is a legal idiom referring to just compensation.  Simliar 
to Habeus Corpus, it has a specific meaning in legal terms that is not meant to 
be taken literally.  Thus is really not a drush although sheves, ripuy boshe, 
pegam, and tsaar probably are.

Simlarly, tikkun sofrim is not that the Sofrim changed the text, it actually 
refers to a literary device.  (al pi R. Meis Simcho Feldblum)  This is similar 
to the english idim "poetic license". (After all who among us has ever acutally 
seen a licensing bureau for poets <SMILE>)

This week's "Yosheiv Oholim" is an idiomatic reference to being studious.  The 
Medrash expands this to mean studying with Sheim vo'Ever, but the peshat iteself
implies studious. 

Giv'at Tzorfat is a translation of French Hill.  However, do not think that this
implies a people in Europe, rather it is named after an officer in the British 
Army surnamed French! (of course the surname probably did derive from France)

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Some recent writers on R. Hirsch have demonstrated that his notes often
contain many sources that are not hinted at in the written works. Thus he
was criticized, early in the century, by none other than Gershom Scholem,
for creating a symbolic system divorced from traditional Kabbala, even
though his manuscripts display recourse to the Zohar.

What this means is
1) you can't infer from absence of sources that he didn't care about
building on the sources;
2) that even where he took note of these sources in his preparation, he
did not believe that he needed to barricade himself behind those sources.

Our modern inclination (in academia as well as Torah) is to throw the
entire database at the reader. Genuinely great writers, for a variety of
reasons (ve-ein kan makom l'haarikh) may not do so.

As to R. Hirsch, there is room for much research into his relationship to
his sources. [Anyone owing me a paper for 19th century course is welcome
to take me up on it.]

In a message dated 98-11-18 09:22:34 EST, you write:

<< 
 And as for comparing Internet to libraries, it's a comparison I've heard 
 too much.  e.g. those who compare getting porn off the net to going to a 
 store are being a wee bit naive.  The effortless search on the web makes 
 things which were impossible or simply impractical a few years ago 
 accessible.  NOT because the info wasn't there before,but because it's 
 so easy to get it.  So PLEASE don't claim that "if we assur the internet 
 we have to assur libraries and magazines etc..." 
 
 Thank you
 Raffy >>

but otoh I can see someone saying the same thing when the first libraries were
opened(for the pernicious effects of libraries see for example My Name is
Asher Lev by Chaim Potok-to quote the gedolim:-))

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

There are indeed four psukim discussed in Lkutei MaHaREaCH, but they are different
psukim than those that people say today. The first siddur I know of that includes
the four that are said today is ..... Artscroll. If you know of an earlier source
please let me know.

Ari




Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 11/16/98 3:55:40 PM EST, azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov writes:
>
> > Last week someone asked about the source of the 4 pesukim that some
> >  append after shir hama'alos.
> >
> >  Yitzchak Zirkind responded "See Tur OC 51 and Shulchan Aruch Harov
> >  51:9".
> >
> In my haste (ducking from micha <g>), I erred, that reference is as you said
> for Psukei Dzimroh.  The source for the 4 psukim after shir Hama'alos (or Al
> Naharos Bovel), is Kabbalistic, with the first Possuk having a Mokor in the
> Zohar (balak), the others are also mentioned in Sha'ar Hamitzvohs (Arizal-
> Parshas Eikev), the explanation (brought in Lkutei MaHaREaCH (Birchas
> Hamozon), is since the Satan can argue that only when we are satisfied we
> Bentch therefore we say, Avoricho...Bchol Eis.  (perhaps likewise in Possuk 2,
> we say Ki Zeh KOL Ho'odom), likewise psukim 3 and 4, Veevoreich...L'olom
> V'oed, N'voreich..Mayatoh Vad Olom.  I further noticed that these 4 Psukim are
> included among many more to be said "Sheloy Yechesaar Lachmoy", in the Siddur
> Chasam Sofer.
>
> Kol Tuv
> Yitzchok Zirkind

>>>It is not unusual for a Gadol to state an idea - with little support or
perhaps even citing inadequate  justification. But since he is a Gadol - it
can be assumed that there is a legitimate source. <<<

I won't quibble on the point that a gadol can state an idea and not give us
the full development and justification in context - that's not our point of
contention.  What you have failed to prove is your assertion that only sources
in Chazal serve as justification.  Care to support such an assumption?  I
argue that a  Rishon/Acharon can justify a position based on internal reading
of the text without assuming external sources.  L'havdil, when one reads an
interpretation of literature one judges its merits based on the text.  (And to
extend the analogy, your original point is also not unique to gedolim.  For
certain scholars/thinkers I might grant a point without necessarily asking
them to spell out their justifications and sources). When you attribute
sources to gedolim (or anyone) when the original author never referred to
those sources - do you not call that speculation?

Re: eyin tachat eyin - In Moreh Nevuchim Rambam interprets this literally.
The approach of the majority of Rishonim to avoid a literal reading is prob. a
reaction to Karaite interpretation (see Ibn Ezra, R' Sadya Gaon).  A
percentage (I won't attempt to quantify) of parshanut of the Rishonim is
reactionary, meaning it is a response to Christian or other readings, rather
than an 'ivory-tower' approach that ignored the need to respond to outside
concerns.


-Chaim B

I was mid-vikuach with a Reform Jew on the subject of "kofin oso ad sheyomar
'rotzeh ani'". (The "mah lihashiv" is to explain that if he'd understand that
halachah isn't "touchy-feely" and that oneis is a precise halachic category.
Just because it seems like the get was forced, doesn't mean that it qualifies
as "anus".)

However, getting to the source (Rambam Gittin 2:21,22), I was lead to the
following chiddush. I'm sharing it with the list to see if you can find flaws
with it. (Much like "tachas".)

I want to claim that the Rambam doesn't limit "anus" by claiming that a chiyuv
can't be forced. Rather, he doesn't require that a chiyuv be fulfilled
bimeizid. Much like eating matzah at gunpoint on the first night of Pesach.
In the Rambam's words (2:21) "We don't say oneis except by someone who was
separated and forced to do something that he wasn't required from the Torah to
do."

The Rambam doesn't raise the subject of "ratzon" until the next halachah. There
(2:22), after explaining how we can be sure that ratzon exists, concludes with
"... k'var gireish lirtzono."

I therefore want to argue that the Rambam doesn't require ratzon in order to
avoid aneis, as ratzon and oneis are in seperate halachos. Rather, there is no
problem WRT fulfilling a chiyuv by an oneis. However, get happens to have a
requirement of being b'ratzon. Therefore, we force the guy to give expression
to that ratzon as part of hilchos gittin.

-mi


PS: About "ayin tachas ayin". Since "tachas" does often mean payment, even if
it's not muchrach that way, is it still a d'rashah to say that that's the
meaning here?

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5981 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raffy Davidovich [mailto:raffyd@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 9:07 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: 
> 
> 
> BTW, does anyone know where Eisav and Yaakov were during the 
> famine when 
> Isaac and Rivka went to G'rar?
> 

Ramban on achosi hi states that the reason the presence of children didn't
contradict the statement that Rivka was Yitzchak's sister is because there
was the possibility that there was a wife who didn't come to grar with them.

So, at least accoring to Ramban, they were in grar with their parents.

Avi Pechman

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]