Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 057

Friday, November 20 1998

• Re: Forcing a man to give a 'get'
• achosi hi
• [none]
• "good sins"
• Rules of Conduct
• The Legacy of R. Kook
• Re: Forcing a man to give a 'get'
• Re: are bamoth really assur?
• With an eye for peshat and idioms
• Re: With an eye for peshat and idioms
• Halachic parsha problems
• Re: Avodah V2 #56
• Re: The Legacy of R. Kook
• Re: Avodah V2 #56
• Re: Ayin tahat ayin, Avodah V2 #55
• Re: achosi hi

In a message dated 11/18/98 4:29:23 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> 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?
> 

I see no problem in Teitching it either way.  The question is just why did
Torah use this term and change from 2 psukim before that Onosh Yeioneish
Vgomer.  BTW perhaps the Machlokes of Nefesh Tachas Nefesh can also be
explained that it is based on how to Teitch Tachas in place of or in payment
for.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind 

I'd like to know if anyone on the list has ever seen anything written 
about the frequency of "achosi hi" maasim in Chumash with the avos.  
It's a fairly strange story, and to have happened THREE times!!
I mean, things like that don't happen nowadays!

What I would like to see is if anyone, ancient or recent has a hashkafic 
or deeper spin on the significance of these three stories and how they 
relate to us either through "maasei avos siman l'banim" or by way of 
Yeshaya's teaching, oft-discussed these last few weeks.

Raffy

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

>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:-))

Ein Hachi nami!
My point was that you can't compare the harm of more accessible sources 
to the harm of less accessible sources.  Basically a faulty kal 
v'chomer.


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

There are many places in shas and the rishonim where the idea of committing
a minor averah in order to avoid, or to help someone else avoid, a big sin
is discussed.

A someone related idea might be one of the rationales for being mechalel
shabbas to save a life: Do one sin now - even a very big one - so the person
can do many mitzvas later (keep future shabbasim). Parenthetically, it must
be referring to doing the mitzvas and not avoiding the lavim of the future
shabbasim since if his life is not saved he will also not violate the lavim.

Is anyone aware of any other discussions where we are told to sin now in
order to do future mitzvas. It seems like a strange concept. we are not told
to plant kilayim so that we can keep peah, leket, trumah, etc. or to be boel
a niddah so the future kid will keep lots of mitzvas, or to drive to shul
shabbas to keep mitzvas of laining, davening, etc. This would relate to
telling non-frum to drive to a shul or class on shabbas so that they will
learn and in the future they will keep other mitzvas.

C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> >>>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.

At this point I am not sure what the point of contention is. We all agree that the
Avos have a unique status. We all agree that they deserve to be treated with extra
sensitivity and respect. We all agree that if a source for a point exists in
Chazal - there is no need to reinvent the wheel and assert a chiddush (textual or
otherwise)..

On the other hand, I have never asserted that the only source for explanation of
verses is from Chazal. I have also never asserted that there is a explicit rule
that it is prohibited to understand a verse - even in a critical understanding -
without the justification of Chazal.

What we are dealing with seems to be an issue of sensitivity. For example, while
there is no official rule that one can not argue directly with Rishonim - we don't
do it. That is the way our rebbeim treated the rishonim. Or as Reb Moshe put it -
someone arguing with a rishon is probably not committing a sin but it is probably
an indication of stupidity. Reb Moshe himself argued with Rishonim - someone on a
lesser level doesn't. Similarly my rebbeim - and I assume yours - would not  find
faults with the Avos  unless there was a specific chazal. I don't think there is
an actual rule not to do that. But when everyone I have ever respected in Torah
acts with that degree of deference and awe of the Avos - why would I want to be
less sensitive?

The gemora says that an Am HaAretz is someone who is not meshamash talmidei
chachomim. The sensitivity to our predecessors is something that comes only from
being meshamash talmidei chachomim.  Pardon the crudeness - but asking why one
can't understand a verse in a way that casts a negative light on the Avos - is
like asking why you can't wipe your nose on your sleeve. Of course you can do it -
but why would you want to?

In sum, I presume that any negative comments concerning the Avos - coming from a
Gadol - have a source in Chazal. That is what I learned from my rebbeim and that
is sufficient proof for me. If you have a gadol that explicitly disagrees with
this approach than there is a basis to continue this discussion - otherwise it is
simply your opinion versus mine.


                                                  Daniel Eidensohn

Regarding the legacy of R. Kook, R YGB asks:

> 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? For, it seems to me, personally, that it
>would be more in line with R' Kook's famous line that true tzaddikim do
>not complain about evil, but rather add righteousness, to set up
>hitnachluyot in Tel Aviv to be marbitz Torah than in Chevron.

>I know others have attributed this weltanschaunng to R' ZY Kook, as
>opposed to the father. I certainly cannot see it originating in the R' Y
>Reines/R' M Bar-Ilan stream of Mizrachi thought.

In discussing the relationship of Rav Kook (pere) to the current
policies of the National Religious Party, and the religious thought and
political activism of the students and rabbis of Yeshivat Merkaz Ha-Rav
(and its satellites), we should distinguish between the realms of
philosophy, halakha and politics.

In terms of philosophy, I think there is generally recognized a clear
distinction between the religious-pragmatic Zionism of R. Reines and the
mystical-messianic Zionism of R. Kook.  That said, it is less clear
exactly how much of a messianist R. Kook was.  As Claude Schochet
correctly notes, R. Zvi Yehudah Kook's interpretation of his father's
thought is the orthodox one in the precincts of Merkaz ha-Rav and many
other religious Zionist institutions in Israel.  R ZYK, who edited most
of his father's writings, emphasized a different line from that quoted
by RYGB, his statement in Orot (I believe) that we are seeing the
fulfillment of the Gemara in Sanhedrin (98 or thereabouts) which says
that when trees bloom again in Israel, ein lekha ketz meguleh mi-zeh.

Of course, R. Kook's ouevre is too rich to boil down to a single
quotation.  In the scholarship of Zvi Yaron, Avi Ravitzky and others, R.
Kook emerges as a complex thinker, sensitive and visionary.  Exactly how
faithful his son's students are to R. Kook's overarching vision is a
complicated question.  Certainly, many of them have rejected his
appreciation of secular studies.  And the aggressive and confrontational
methods adopted by some seem contrary to R. Kook's spirit of gentle
persuasion.  On the other hand, they pore over his writings (which they
are continuing to publish) and venerate him the way hasidim venerate
their rebbe.  They refer to his collected writings as "Shas Lavan"
(referring to their white bindings.)  They have launched Machon Meir, a
ba'al teshuva yeshiva, and a branch for women as well.  In authentic
Kookian style, they refer to the secular Jews as the
"not-yet-religious."  And they take seriously his many statements
regarding the incomparable value of Eretz Yisrael to Am Yisrael.  But,
as readers of R. Kook know, you generally will not find him making a
clear statement regarding the practical balancing of competing religious
values.  The bulk of his philosophical writing, allusive and abstract,
lends itself to varied interpretation.

As I understand it, in the wake of the Six Day War (if not before), R
ZYK was very explict that yemot ha-mashi'ah are practically here.  This
certainty of impending ge'ulah is, I believe, critical in understanding
the halakhic and political stances of R ZYK's disciples.  Thus, on the
controversial halakhic question of giving up land, they have championed
two sources: the Ramban's statement that giving any portion of the land
of Israel up to a non-Jew is an issur de-Oraita (of lo tehanem), and the
Minhat Hinnukh's argument that pikuah nefesh does not apply in a
milhemet mitzvah (including, of course, defending Eretz Yisrael).

Of course, the halakhic issue is not clear cut, and (shades of another
thread) the silence of the Shulhan Arukh suggests to me that
extra-halakhic considerations should play a role.  But let us assume
that the issur to return land is a clear one.  I would think that there
remain other halakhic considerations which need to be taken into
account.  For example, various rabbis have publicly ruled that a soldier
must disobey orders to uproot a Jewish settlement, as such an order
violates the aformentioned issur.  Now, R. Kook has written that the
government of the State of Israel has a din of melekh.  This would
suggest that violating any state law (even speeding or jaywalking) would
constitute meridah be-malkhut.  Without passing on the merits of this
position, any self-respecting disciple of R. Kook must take it
seriously.  Would meridah be-malkhut apply to disobeying a military
order?  I cannot be sure, but I wonder why the issue is not discussed.
One might conclude that the rabbis in question have been willing to set
this concern aside where it butted up against their messianic attachment
to territory.

The same is true, I believe, in the realm of political activism.  While,
as noted above, R. Kook's philosophy does not readily translate into an
activist political agenda, certainly kiruv and talmud Torah should
occupy as much time and effort as yishuv Eretz Yisrael.  And maybe for
some it does.  But the impression one gets is that issues of territory
generally elicit far more passion.  In any case, one should also note
that many (if not most) national-religious Jews participate in
right-wing political activism, not because they subscribe to a
messianic-mystical theology, but because they believe pragmatically that
territorial compromise will not bring peace or security to the Middle
East.  Of course, that question has nothing do with R. Kook, and I think
has no place on Avodah.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 11/18/98 4:29:23 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> 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.
>  
But we touch the issue of Mitzvohs Tzorichos Kavonoh, please See S"O Horav
Hil. Pessach 475: 28, 29.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/18/98 9:44:02 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

>  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.

It is Bmkoymoy Parshas Re'ei, and see discussion in Encyclopedia Talmudis
Erech Bomoh (vol. 3), also see additional references in Sdei Chemed Klloloim
letter Koof Kllal 13.  Also note the Tzofnaas Paneiach (Ragitchover) Al
Hatorah Parshas Re'ei, the Daas Hayerushalmi that Heter Bomoh requires Novie
(Megilah 1:13) or 3 (Sanhedrin 2:5).

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Micha writes:

>>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?<<

Ein hochi nami, the MONETARY aspect might be from the drush; All I mean to say 
is not to take Ayin tachas Ayin as meaning to literally poke out an eye; not 
necessarily because the chachomim darshend this away, rather because as an idiom
it never meant it literally in the first place.  My inutiive guess is that it 
means one is obligated to restore or make reparations for the lost 
eye/tooth/limb, etc. (Just compensation)

The specifics of that compensation al pi drush (maybe a mesorah or based upon 
Chazal's analysis)

So we have 3 distinct layers:

1) the literal meaning (but NOT the peshat).  Just like habeus corpus does not 
refer to a real, live corpse <pun>.

2) The idiomatic meaning, i.e. we have a legal term that poetically tells us 
that a person is responsible to make compensation for damages  (IMHO this is the
peshat)

3) The details such as sheves/Tsaar/ripuy,boshes/ etc. which chazal tell us how 
to implement compensatiion pracitally and halachically (IMHO this is drush as in
medrosh halocho)

In the realm of machshovo, we can calirfy a lot of obscure Torah when we 
understand that certain terminology has an idiomatic meaning quite different 
than the literal meaning.  

Here's a humorous anecdote long these lines.  A store had a sign regarding the 
kashrus of their matzos that stated in Hebrew: Mayim shelonu and translated it 
into Yiddsh as unzerer vasser!  (this is a true story!) 

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe  

In a message dated 11/19/98 4:50:04 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Yiddsh as unzerer vasser!  


Perhaps they wanted to Bavorn Gozul :-)

Some parsha problems:

(1) The Netziv already resolves the difficulty of selling bechora, which is a
davar she'lo ba la'olam, with a chiddush of tshuvot haRivash that pre-mattan
Torah this was not an issue (I do not have a Shut Rivash but am speculating
that perhaps this is a general din in kinyanim done by bnei noach).  I thought
perhaps one could compare the bechorah sale to a sale of tovas ha'na'ah.  In
any event, I am still bothered by why there is no issur of ona'ah in the
exchange of the bechorah for a simple pot of lentils.

(2) Some meforshim seem to understand that Eliezer was the shliach to be
mekadesh Rivkah (I thought he was simply a messenger and Yitzchak did the
kiddushin later).  How could an eved serve as a shliach?

-Chaim B

Regarding the issue of the political/religious right wing in Eretz Yisrael
and R' YGB's feelings that they contribute to turning off the chilonim to
yiddishkeit, R' YGB knows that I disagree with him.  However I would like
to take this opportunity to voice my opinion, for whatever it is worth.
It turns me off too when I hear about acts of violence that are commited
in the name of eretz yisrael.  However, I know many many many people who
believe that giving away more of the land of Israel is a) dangerous
strategically and b) prohibited according to Halachah - that are not
violent nor are they in any way a chillul hashem.  To dismiss their point
of view,
just because it is causing a chillul hashem is wrong for several reasons.
The first is because most of the chillul hashem is caused by bad press.
Let me compare this with the anti chareidi press which often turns
chilonim off to yiddishkeit.  One must acknowledge that yes, there are
crazy chareidim, and violent chareidim, and hipocritical chareidim
Rachmana Litzlon.  But is this a reason to dismiss the arguments that the
chareidim put forward?  Shouldn't we look at what they have to say, and
decide, do I agree or do I disagree?  Are they right or are they wrong?
BY many definitions, I AM a chareidi,  will I dismiss my beliefs and
lifestyle just because some of my unfortunate coleagues act
inappropriately? There are also many chareidim B'H
who lead exemplary lives worthy of praise and are a Kiduush Shem Shamayim.
deciding the issue of giving up more land in eretz Yisrael should take a
consideration of the merits of the arguments on all sides of the issue.
Be they religious arguments or politcal/strategic ones.  Bemechilas Kvod
HaRav YGB I think that he is allowing his disgust with some of the actions
of some of the people in the "right wing" to color his judgement of tehir
opinions.  I personally also know many people who are major talmidei
chachamim (who also are very familiar with HaRav Kooks writings) who feel
that it is wrong to give away Eretz Yisrael.  Maybe they need better press
because they happen to be wonderful people.  They are not violent,
threatening, or racist - as the press would have it. Just because you are
A "settler" doesn't make you a Chillul Hashem, which is what HaRav YGB is
implying - I think unintentionally.  I learned bechavrusa in Eretz Yisrael
with a man who knew shas practically Baal Peh, and he was a very gentle
person, but he lived with his family in a trailer in a settlement near
Shiloh and carried an M16 with him wherever he went.  A picture in the
newspaper of him would certainly make him look like another extremist with
a gun.  But that is not the reality - he is a gentle father of a family
that believes in what he is doing and is trying to protect himself.
I even met some of the "extremist" leaders when I was in Eretz Yisrael,
and was impressed with their personality.  I will not mention people by
name unless someone wants to e-mail me privately about them.
Let's debate the issues, and not dismiss a legitamate opinion because
there are some crazy people who can't control themselves who make for good
sensational articles in the newspaper.  

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> violates the aformentioned issur.  Now, R. Kook has written that the
> government of the State of Israel has a din of melekh.  This would
> suggest that violating any state law (even speeding or jaywalking) would
> constitute meridah be-malkhut.  Without passing on the merits of this

Where does R' Kook say this and in what context (considering that he
passed away thirteen years before the birth of the State)?

YGB

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

please switch my listing to your other list. 
                                  Steven Brizel(Zeliglaw@aol.com)

At Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:59:14 -0500 (EST), R' Micha Berger wrote:


>I'm not as sure the literal meaning is "an eye in place of an eye". That
would be "bimkom". I couldn't find a single case where "tachas" means "in
place of".

How about the queen who replaced Vashti:  ". .  tahat Vashti."

Have a good shabbas!



 However, "tachas" is used elsewhere to mean "payment". So it then
becomes "an eye's payment for an eye".


__________________________________________________________________
We have a tradition from the Baal Shem Tov that when someone tells you
"not good things" about another person, you should feel great pain and
distress.  Because, either way you look at it, someone is hurting: If
the story about this person is true, then things are not good for him.
And if the report is false, then the one who has fabricated it is
hurting.
                 From: "Bringing Heaven Down to Earth"
                    by Tzvi Freeman - tzvif@aol.com
                     http://members.aol.com/tzviF

-----------------------------------------------------------------
			Ira L. Jacobson

I recently discussed the issue with the Rav of my shul - Rav Menachem
Zupnick and he suggested that this may be the mekor to ma'aseh avos
siman l'banim.  How else do we know that such an idea exists?  Here the
Torah goes out of it's way to show how children's actions are directly
related to the actions and situations that their parents went through.

Take care,

Joel

Raffy Davidovich wrote:
> 
> I'd like to know if anyone on the list has ever seen anything written
> about the frequency of "achosi hi" maasim in Chumash with the avos.
> It's a fairly strange story, and to have happened THREE times!!
> I mean, things like that don't happen nowadays!
> 
> What I would like to see is if anyone, ancient or recent has a hashkafic
> or deeper spin on the significance of these three stories and how they
> relate to us either through "maasei avos siman l'banim" or by way of
> Yeshaya's teaching, oft-discussed these last few weeks.
> 
> Raffy
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

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


[ 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 ]