Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 078

Monday, December 14 1998

• ais laasos and kollel
• Re: chanuka
• Milsa deb'dichusa
• Re: Avodah V2 #77
• Kollelim
• Re:moshe and time mag
• R. Yehonasan Eybeschuetz
• Hillul Hashem in the performance of a mitzvah or Averah
• chanuka:Psak & Mishna Berura
• payment for learning Torah
• Re: chanuka:Psak & Mishna Berura
• Chumros
• Theft
• Re: payment for learning Torah
• Re: Theft
• Re: milsa d'bedichusa, Chanuka, retzicha thorugh gerama for a B"N?
• Re: Avodah V2 #77

As I recall (and it's been a while since I looked at the tshuva) Rabbi
Feinstein wrote that in the early nineteen fifties when there was indeed
a dearth of knowledgable Jews.  I don't think one can justifiably deduce
what he would have said about today's situation from that tshuva.

David Riceman

Huh?

R' Moshe is certainly entitled to his opinion, and those who consistently
follow his psakim might be allowed to follow his psak here - but the MB
rules explicitly to the contrary in 672:11 - a brocho is only made if
other members of the household are awake!

On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> 
> Rav Moshe disagrees with the above which is the view of the Magen
> Avraham.  Igros Moshe O.H. IV. #105.7 page 194-196. At the end he says
> "The Ri the Rosh and the Rema 672:2,...one is obligated to light even if
> there is only a single person in the place with a Beracha because
> persumei nisa is not required...and according to the Mechaber, Ri, Rosh,
> Rema that today when we light inside and the time is the entire
> night...it is possible to light even he is the sole individual in that
> place even if the members of the family are already sleeping when he
> gets home even with a Beracha..not like the Magen Avraham...  but the
> words of the Magen Avraham are astounding and one is required to light
> with a beracha even when the family is sleeping and even if he there
> alone by himself and even if he the only one in the whole city...This is
> also brought by the Mishna Berura [see Shaar HaTziyun 672:17 who says
> that this the accepted practice] and one must do it this way.." 
> 
>                                               Daniel Eidensohn

YGB

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

It is clear that the milsa deb'dichusa is  o n l y  at the beginning of
the shiur,  after which the Rebbe sat "b'aima" and said the shiur.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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]

In response to David Riceman post on Kollelim. 

First, where can I find this letter you refer to where the Rambam writes
that the Kollelim are not learning Talmud Torah?

Did you see the sources which have been referred to previously before
entering your post?  The Chofetz Chaim (Bi'ur Halacha 231) refers to this
Rambam and says that it would no longer apply today.  In addition the
Rama, Shach and Kesef Mishna clearly disagree with the Rambams opinion. 
As the opinion of the Rama and Shach are considered a great deal more
final in Halacha Limassa, I believe that the Kollelim have a strong leg
to stand on.

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]

Since I started this discussion of the Rambam TT 3:10, I wish to clarify
that none of us - certainly not me, a card carrying Kollelnik for a dozen
years, and certainly not R' David R., one of the greatest talmidei
chachomim I know - is unaware of the heterim and even the mitzva,
accroding to some, to learn in Kollel according to the overwhelming
majority of latter sources. Our discussion concerned the Rambam l'shitaso
minei u'bei, and how he would view the mitzva of TT relative to the
Chillul hashem - from his perspective - of being supported for doing so.

On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Ben Smith wrote:

> Did you see the sources which have been referred to previously before
> entering your post?  The Chofetz Chaim (Bi'ur Halacha 231) refers to
> this Rambam and says that it would no longer apply today.  In addition
> the Rama, Shach and Kesef Mishna clearly disagree with the Rambams
> opinion. As the opinion of the Rama and Shach are considered a great
> deal more final in Halacha Limassa, I believe that the Kollelim have a
> strong leg to stand on. 
> 
> Ben

YGB

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

I recently saw Moshe Rabeinu on the front cover of TIME magazine, does 
any one have comments on this--I didn't get to read the article, did I 
miss anything worth reading
Elie Ginsparg

I have spoken with Dr. Shnayer Leiman about the controversy.
He stated that academic scholars generally agree with Rav Yaakov Embden
while rabbanim generally disagree, When I pressed him for his opinion
he refused to answer.

p.s.
For those that don't know Shnayer Leiman besides being a top historian
he is also a top tamid chacham.

Eli Turkel

In a lecture of Rabbi Wein the following topic arose
(based on some discussion in the internet)

It happens every once in a while that an El Al plane is delayed up
to an hour because some man refuses to seat next to a woman and they
then need to start changes seats. Depending on the circumstances this
can lead to a substantial delay.

Rabbi Wein felt that this lead to a chillul hashem and in his words
"the man doesn't get it" = one can perform a mitzvah without getting
Jewish values.

Eli Turkel

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Huh?
>
> R' Moshe is certainly entitled to his opinion, and those who consistently
> follow his psakim might be allowed to follow his psak here - but the MB
> rules explicitly to the contrary in 672:11 - a brocho is only made if
> other members of the household are awake!

You have raised an interesting problem. How does one read the Mishna Berura to
arrive at halacha l'maaseh? In other words - if you had gone to the Chafetz
Chaim for a psak what would he have answered? Is it the words of the Mishna
Berura or is it the Mishna Berura combined with the Baer Halacha and the
Shaarei Tziyun and your knowledge of common practice. I have been told that he
wrote it primarily as a source book. That the Mishna Berura is lchatchila but
to know the full and final psak you must incorporate his other commentaries
and pasken for yourself. It is not unusual for him to modify what seems to be
a straight forward statement when you read his other commentaries. Rav Moshe
seems to saying that the final understanding of the Mishna Berura is his
statement in the Shaarei Tziyun or at least that the Chofetz Chaim would not
be bothered at all by someone saying a Beracha. [which is not the impression
if you look at sif koton 11 by itself]. Thus Rav Moshe is saying since it is
obvious from his analysis that you need to say a Beracha, this seems to be the
common practice and the Mishna Berura himself has no problem with some one
saying a Bracha - therefore one should say a Beracha.
A similar problem is found in the issue of shinoi makom for berachos. In Simon
178 the mishna berura requires a new beracha with any significant change of
location. The Biur Halacha 178 2 seems to acknowledge that there are
alternative views which are also acceptable.[see the Aruch HaShulchan 178]
Rabbi Bechoffer and I disagree on how to read and utilize the Mishna
Berura.Eilu v'Eilu.

In sum, One view is that  the sefer as primarily a source book and not as
final halacha. You read it to determine what issues the  Chafetz Chaim wanted
you to be aware of. You are safe relying on the Mishna Berura - but it is not
psak. Therefore one must study what he has to say and come to your own
conclusion and it is in fact your psak. The alternative is that the Mishna
Berura is a halacha sefer in the same sense as the Aruch HaShulchan and the
Igros Moshe. His psak is contained in the Mishna Berura but he provides for
bedievad solutions in either the Baer Halacha or the Shaar HaTziyun.

                                     Daniel Eidensohn

Daniel Eidensohn writes

>> Rabbonim who accept a salary, teachers in yeshiva as well as roshei yeshiv

I think this is the crux of the question. Almost no one today questions the
need of any public figure to accept a salary.
I heard from Rav Soloveitchik that he would prefer not to take a salary but
that it is not feasible.
One can equally argue that one needs a salary while learning to become a
rabbi - as the Kesef Mishna states if there are no lambs there will be no
sheep.

The more controversial issue is whether one who will never become a
community leader - either because he is not interested or because he
is not good enough - can receive money. There are loads of people today
who learn in kollel and receive money but will realistic never become
teachers, roshei yeshivot or rabbis in communities.

kol ruv,
Eli Turkel

On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> You have raised an interesting problem. How does one read the Mishna

For some strange reason I find myself not wanting to accept that accolade.
:-).

I invite our learned chaverim to peruse the MB and SH on their own.

I think multiple large sized sledgehammers are required to turn an "ein
mochin b'yado" into Halacha l'Ma'aseh.

But ask your LOR!

> Berura to arrive at halacha l'maaseh? In other words - if you had gone
> to the Chafetz Chaim for a psak what would he have answered? Is it the
> words of the Mishna Berura or is it the Mishna Berura combined with the
> Baer Halacha and the Shaarei Tziyun and your knowledge of common

YGB

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

The current (Dec. '98) issue of The Jewish Observer contains an essay by
myself entitled "Good Chumros?" I invite our chevra to read and comment!

A Freilichen Chanuka (I know, simcha is not necessarily required - be
happy anyway),

YGB

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

Is there any responsibility of a person to his employer with regard to the
employers intangible property?

For example if ploni works as a fund raiser for "Chicago" Yeshiva and in so
doing is entrusted with a list of donors. "Another" Yeshiva employs ploni
believing that ploni will bring in new sources of funds.

Can Ploni use the the list of "Chicago" Yeshiva to pursue donors of
"Another" Yeshiva?

If not who is the wrong doer? Ploni? "Another" Yeshiva?

    Dick Fiedler    dfiedler@ibm.net
    Skokie Il   (847) 329-9065 Fax (847) 463-0582       /\
    Efrat Israel  (02) 9932706  Fax (02) 9932707    \--/--\--/
        .. __o    __o    __o    __o    __o    __o    \/    \/
       .. -\<,   -\<,   -\<,   -\<,   -\<,   -\<,    /\    /\
      ..(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)  /--\--/--\
                                                        \/ 

In a message dated 98-12-13 04:50:18 EST, you write:

<< 
 Daniel Eidensohn writes
 
 >> Rabbonim who accept a salary, teachers in yeshiva as well as roshei yeshiv
 
 I think this is the crux of the question. Almost no one today questions the
 need of any public figure to accept a salary.
 I heard from Rav Soloveitchik that he would prefer not to take a salary but
 that it is not feasible.
 One can equally argue that one needs a salary while learning to become a
 rabbi - as the Kesef Mishna states if there are no lambs there will be no
 sheep.
 
 The more controversial issue is whether one who will never become a
 community leader - either because he is not interested or because he
 is not good enough - can receive money. There are loads of people today
 who learn in kollel and receive money but will realistic never become
 teachers, roshei yeshivot or rabbis in communities.
 
 kol ruv,
 Eli Turkel
  >>
Let me ask a simple not lhalacha question. What exactly has changed over the
years that now makes it mandatory for a public figure to take compensation?
I'm not asking for a recapitulation of the halachic sources but an
understanding of the mitziut that have changed. Secondly, is the system where
only those who are"good enough" receive compensation saying that some are more
equal than others based on the talents that were given them by hkbh(or should
support be based on ability or desire or both)

Kol tuv
Joel Rich.

In a message dated 12/13/98 8:38:20 AM EST, dfiedler@enteract.com writes:

> Is there any responsibility of a person to his employer with regard to the
>  employers intangible property?
>  
>  For example if ploni works as a fund raiser for "Chicago" Yeshiva and in so
>  doing is entrusted with a list of donors. "Another" Yeshiva employs ploni
>  believing that ploni will bring in new sources of funds.
>  
>  Can Ploni use the the list of "Chicago" Yeshiva to pursue donors of
>  "Another" Yeshiva?
>  
>  If not who is the wrong doer? Ploni? "Another" Yeshiva?
>  
As one who once negotiated with fundraisers, there are clear guidelines
discussed about these issues.

Kol Tuv, Happy Chanukah

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/11/98 12:45:22 PM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> 
>  Why did the brothers of Yosef think it better to kill him through a gerama
(
> as
>  Ramban learns on 'v'yisnaklu oso l'hamito') - it's still a violation of
>  retzicha, and I'm not sure it makes any difference for a B"N anyway.

Poor R' Chaim always picking at him :-)

In general according to many Yosef had a din of Rodeif (or perhaps Mossur
which is the same Geder, the fact that Rashi (37:2 D"H Es Debosom Ro'oh)
brings 3 things makes him a Muchzok, nonetheless they wanted to avoid direct
killing, as to a BN in a Gram, see Rambam Hil. Rotzeach 2:2, which is Mashma
he has to tie him down, (even though that by putting Yosef into a pit of
snakes it is pretty much the same, it is still something that Al Kol Ponim a
Yid is not killed in Beis Din for, but in any case in Pshutoy Shel Mikroh they
did not see the snakes).

Happy Chanukah to all,

From the Zikoron to Hidleku Neiros Bchatzros Kodshech, we should merit to see
Neiros Tziyon, especially that Haneirois Hallalu Einon Bteilin Lolom.

Yitzchok Zirkind

Anshe Knesses Hagedola

The traditional explanation of the mishna is that there was a chain of
mesora. Moshe-Yehoshua-Zkeinim, etc. All preserved the mesora by teaching
it to their generation and ensuring it being passed down. The meforshim do
say that the mishna is showing disapproval of the beis shammai-Rabban
Gamliel approach of limiting teaching Torah to a select group. The attempt
to identify major radial "changes" in the application of Torah in the
post-Ezra period has generally been in the domain of the non- traditional
Jewish scholars. It is clear from the Rambam Talmud Torah 1:2 that the
imperative of teaching talmidim is min hatorah. The Rambam elaborates on
the system of teaching Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu implemented. Aaron may
have "received more attention" due to his leadership responsibilty (tora
yvakshu mipihu) but everyone learned the fourth time around. This appears
to be a model and not stam a historical point. The gemara on RYehoshua ben
gamla is discussing insuring that each child receives an education. But is
is a davar pashut that the chachamim of each generation always saw their
duty as  primarily teachers of Torah, and was indeed always done so. (just
that unfortunately not every child received). The glosses of the Yaavetz
(RYE, if you wish) on Avos Dr Noson makes a point that even Beis Shamai
when he limited teaching to ashirim, was referring to baalei midos of high
character, who were happy with their lot, not the wealthy elite.

I believe that the traditional view is that Torah was always available to
the extent possible, and those who studied it well did indeed BECOME the
elite, due to the great kavod that clal yisrael has towards lomdei Tora.
The modern scholars in an anti kavod ha torah move, set forth the "limited
purview" theory you cited (that the opposite happened, i.e. the elite
Became the Torah teachers). They may claim that they have a basis from the
approach of R gamliel but that is flawed; it was an entrance exam and not
screening out the non-elite (unless by elite one means highly refined and
of exemplary character.) They may concede that they have no proof from R
gamliel, but that things were different before Ezra. That's a classic
"claim" which appears to have been fiercely rejected by the
traditionalists.

Regards,
Avraham Allswang 
> 
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:24:54 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Avos - Haamidu Talmiddim Harbei
> 
> I once heard over the following:
> 
> After Golus Bovel, Anshei Knesses Gdolo wanted to ensure Torah's Survival
by 
> "opening it up to the masses".  That before hand Torah (or specifically
Torah 
> sheb'al Peh) was the limited purview of the elite (leviim etc.).
> 
> Later on , the AKG were afraid that Torah could be vulernable if another 
> persecution came. 
> 
> Does any one out there know of a source for this idea?
> 
> Regards,
> Rich Wolpoe
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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


[ 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 ]