Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 020

Thursday, April 15 1999

• RE: Teshuvah and non-Jews (was: Albanians)
• Re: ecology
• Re: Avodah V3 #19
• RYEH, RYHH, CI, and the reliability of the transmission
• Soloveitchik
• Soloveitchik/Soloveichik
• Re: Hebrew
• RE: Avodah V3 #19
• Update
• new online chareidi newspaper
• me'inyana d'yoma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: micha@aishdas.org [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 12:36 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Teshuvah and non-Jews (was: Albanians)
> 
> 
> Without knowing which sugya in Sanhedrin Avi Pechman is 
> referring to, this
> answer may be totally off base. But...

My comments were based on Sanhedrin 57b which indicates that all the
"extras" in Jewish jurisprudence based on the concept of v'hitzilu ho'eida
do not apply to non-Jews. I jumped to the conclusion that the interpersonal
laws (dan l'kaf zchus, etc.) also do not apply to non-Jews. (They don't;
however, that sugya in Sanhedrin is not relevant to this point).

> 
> : Why would charata be an issue? Is teshuva available to 
> non-Jews? Doesn't the
> : sugya in Sanhedrin re: 7 mitzvos imply that it's not?
> 
> Some of the examples we find of teshuvah in aggadita are 
> Hagar/Keturah,
> Yishmael and Esav -- non-Jews, not even proto-Jews.

Yishmael and Eisav, as descendents of Avraham Avinu, had some element of
kedusha. A better example would be Adam, I think.

We have accounts in shas where non-Jews did tshuva (e.g. Nevuzarradan, after
the slaughter over Zecharya's blood, Niron Caesar, after the arrow
divination). In these cases, the tshuva was accompanied by geirus, which
allowed for a new starting point.

> There are two inyanim when it comes to teshuva: 1- the 
> chiyuv, 2- the ability to
> undo the past. Are you sure the gemara is saying that 
> teshuvah is unavailable
> to non-Jews as a means of returning to G-d, as opposed to 

I'm not sure of anything. However, consider the following: There are
protocols for dealing with non-Jews in danger (ma'alim, moridin, ein ma'alin
v'ein moridin). Whatever the status of a non-Jew based on his actions (let's
concede that a nazi war criminal has a status of at least ein ma'alin), his
regret of those actions (let's assume he does full fledged tshuva) doesn't
change his status (at least for our purposes; if G-d wants to consider the
reformed nazi of the chasidei umos ha'olam, that wouldn't impact on how
we're supposed to deal with him). Or does it?

> ruling out the idea
> that they have a particular mitzvah of teshuvah?
> 
> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for 13-Apr-99: 
> Shelishi, Sazria-Metzora
> micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H 
> O"Ch 311:10-16
> http://www.aishdas.org                                Eruvin 64b
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Kuzari I 81-84
> 

See also the Chinuch on "Bal Tashchis"

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I don't have access to a gemarah to look up re goyim and teshuvah, but
what about Nineveh?  Shaul Weinreb

In a previous post, Rav Bechhofer had said

>One of several statements by RYHH over the years that left me questioning
>the reliability of quotations is one he made that his grandfather had told
>him (and him alone) that the Chazon Ish had told his grandfather (and him
>alone) on his (the CI's) deathbed that he (the CI) recanted his psak on
>the International Dateline (Note: REHH - the grandfather - was of the
>opinion that the IDL is 180 degres away from EY).

His source was an article written by R(av) Y(ehuda) H(erzl) H(enkin) in shana
l'shana 1979.  Unfortunately, the article does not support Rav Bechhofer's
characterization.  As this is a  serious accusation against a respected talmid
hacham, I will briefly outline the problem.

The article is not based  on statements that R(av) Y(osef) E(liyahu) H(enkin)
made to RYHH (and RYHH alone).  Instead, it is based (mila b'mila, as RYHH says)
on a document given to him by an avrech who studied with RYEH the last year of
his life, and based on the avrech's conversations with RYEH.  There is an
introduction that goes into the origin of the document, and how the statements
in there agree with those that RYHH knew personally, and he concludes that the
document is an accurate transmission of his grandfather's statements.

 The statement about the C(hazon)I(sh) is that while RYEH greatly esteemed the
CI, he was upset by the controversy over the international date line, which he
felt the CI was in error.  He adds that RYEH frequently told him (the avrech)
that the CI was nitcharet l'sof yamaf.   

This statement about the CI is not one of those  that RYHH says that he can
verify independently.  Furthermore, the article does not state how RYEH knew (or
according to Rav Bechhofer is supposed to have known) about the the CI's harata
- whether directly from the CI or perhaps a visiting talmid of the CI.  (We are
very familiar from other recently niftar gdolim that posthumously, talmidim
claim that the gadol had harata, bringing him into agreement with the local
zeitgeist, and apparently RYEH felt strongly about the issue of a unified
calendar.  To RYEH, the CI's harata was irrelevant for psak, and was used for
hashkafic purposes)

In 1992, the article was reprinted (with minor changes) in shut Bnei Banim II. 
There, he no longer says that the document is published "mila b'mila", and he
omits the statement that the CI recanted.  I don't know why he omitted this
statement, but perhaps precisely because it could be misinterpreted as stating a
direct knowledge about the CI's position.

The article suggests that RYHH  was very careful in distinguishing statements
that he personally heard from  RYEH and those that he heard of from others.  The
characterization of rav Bechhofer that "his grandfather had told
>him (and him alone) that the Chazon Ish had told his grandfather (and him
>alone) on his (the CI's) deathbed that he (the CI) recanted his psak on
>the International Dateline" has no basis.  

Finally, i when one is  discussing  whether someone's transmission of a mesora
is reliable, we need to be extra careful to describe accurately the disputed
statements.  It is one thing to use the CI statement to say that one doubts RYHH
assessment of the document as reliable, and therefore the statements in the
document need independent verification.  It is quite another to accuse anyone of
being unreliable on the basis of statements that he did not even make.

Meir Shinnar

> 
> If I can recall it correctly,  I would like to relate an interesting 
> pshat I heard from R. Eliahu Soloveichik on the concept of Naval 
> BeReshus Hatorah as it relates to last week's parsha. 

Pardon my ignorance, who is R. Eliahu Soloveitchik?

Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
> 
> >
> > If I can recall it correctly,  I would like to relate an interesting
> > pshat I heard from R. Eliahu Soloveichik on the concept of Naval
> > BeReshus Hatorah as it relates to last week's parsha.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, who is R. Eliahu Soloveitchik?
> 
> Eli Turkel

R. Eliahu Soloveichik (note the spelling... The Chicago Soloveichiks 
leave out the "t") is R. Aaron's second oldest son and the Sgan Rosh 
HaYeshiva of Brisk here in Chicago.  He is a contemporsry of mine, as 
are his immediate older brother, Moshe, and immediate younger brother, 
Yosef. We all received Smicha at the same time from R. Aaron and HTC.  
All three of the eldest of R. Aaron's  Children are brilliant, but for 
various reasons which I will not get into here, Eliahu is the defacto 
Rosh HaYeshiva of Brisk, Chicago.

HM

Eli Turkel wrote:


> I have not done any survey in Israel but my gut feeling is that in
> most litvishe yeshivot (certainly Hevron today most probably in
> Ponovezh and Brisk - anyone with more current information would be
> welcome) the lingua franca is Hebrew. On the other hand the chassidic
> yeshivot stress yiddish. At the last siyum hashas the speeches pretty\much
> divided between Hebrew and yiddish depending on litvak/Hassidic.

In Yeshivas Mir, Yerushalayim, R. Asher Arieli, gives his Shiurim in 
Yiddish, a language he had to learn in adulthood as Hebrew was the 
spoken language in his home.

HM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saul J Weinreb [mailto:sweinr1@uic.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 3:24 PM
> To: Avodah
> Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #19
> 
> 
> I don't have access to a gemarah to look up re goyim and teshuvah, but
> what about Nineveh?  Shaul Weinreb
> 

Off the cuff, I'd draw a distinction between a tzibbur (even a non-Jewish
tzibbur) and an individual.

Avi Pechman

Hi All,

I just wanted to thank all of you who had tzipporah leah bas chaya in
mind over the last couple of days.  The most recent report is that she
is doing much better.  Her organs seem to be recovering, although she is
still on a respirator and is still in icu.  Please keep having her in
mind.

Take care,

Joel
-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com   
W-212-761-1404

found an interesting new publication on line of interest to the ortho
commnity-------called DEah Vdibbur, it's at the shema yisrael web site.
amongst many interesting articles, this week one on  orthodox demographics,
and one on attitudes of relig zionist youth in israel [ mainly their
disillusioned state]    worth a look

I'm acquainted with several people who consider themselves committed,
Orthodox Jews, who happen to cheat on their taxes. The cheating normally
takes the form of not reporting income, and inflating deductions.

Is there any room to say that these acquaintances of mine are not in
violation of any halachos?

Avi Pechman

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]