Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 064

Wednesday, May 26 1999

• ikkarim
• archaelogy
• chanukah
• Halocho al Pi Arahceology
• 13 Ikkarim
• Re: Halocho al Pi Arahceology
• Seventy nations of the world
• Seventy Nations of the World
• Being seen at the Temple
• Re: archaelogy
• Hanukkah
• Re: Lashon Hara
• Ozeir Yisrael BiGvurah
• Re: Hanukkah
• Re: Being seen at the Temple
• Re: Lashon Hara

In part because of an offline discussion, I would just like to add a caveat 
to the discussion of the Rambam's ikkarim and the issue of psak.  No matter 
which Rishon you side with or how you formulate the basic tenents of belief, 
the debate is, for the most part, academic and of little practical 
consequence.  The only scenario that comes to mind is a person approaching 
two kasher eidim and declaring before them, l'mashal, that he denies the 
validity of torah sh-ba'al peh or mashiach (c"v), and those eidim being 
called to a B"D to a din torah to invalidate the person's shchitah or decalre 
his wine stam yeynam - the unlikilihood of such an event occurring speaks for 
itself.  Denying belief cannot be compared to cases of chilul Shabbos or A"Z 
that categorize the person as a min where a demonstrative action is 
performed.  As for olam haba - k'lapei shemaya galya. 

This is not to deny that defining chovas halevavos is valuable and 
worthwhile.  However, it falls outside the realm of psak for all practical 
intents and purposes (see Chovos HaLevavos in intro.)

-CB

  

> 
> R. Moshe Feldman
> Perhaps one could distinguish between (1) Tefillin and (2) 
> when chazal/rabbinic authorities institute hallel on Chanukah/Yom 
> Ha'atma'ut:  In case (1) the issue is whether historical data can be
> used to revise current practice.  In case (2) the issue is whether 
> historical data can be used to inform current rabbinic authorities in 
> deciding whether and how to make a certain takanah.  In case (1), if one 
> holds like the Chazon Ish (CI), then one would
> take the position that historical realia is irrelevant to the halachic 
> process if the halachic process has ignored the reality.  
> 
In the discussion of shiurim the Ramban mentions the ancient coins
that he found in Israel as a proof.
How does CI explain this?

Eli Turkel

Everyone seems to agree that Chanukah today is based on the miracle of
the oil. However, this is not true. Many have pointed out that Al
Hanissim stresses the military battle. While many answers have been given
one possibility is that different communities stressed various parts
of Chanukah even in ancient days and Al Hanissim and the Gemara in shabbat
represent two different outlooks.

Eli Turkel

From: Joelirich@aol.com
<< My point is this: that one may not go back in time and leapfrog 2,000 yars 
of  halachic precedents.   >>
How then do you understand Baba Bathra(74a) where the Rabbanan excoriated 
Rabba Bar Bar Chana for not counting the chutin and the chuliot of the tzizit 
of the meti midbar in order to determine if the Halacha was like bet Hillel 
or bet shammai?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich<<

Good point.  w/o knowing the sugya, I will punt on this point.

My point is this, you cannot uproot fixed, binding halocho by independent 
non-masora means.  You might be able to verify a "metzius" question.  I imagine 
that techeiles migt fall into that realm, or perhaps if we went back far enough 
in history we could find the location of the simmanim of a girraffe and beging 
shecthim them.  Or perhaps we could revive eating grasshoppers, (amongst bnei' 
ashkenaz etc. 

R ED Tetitz: >>It might simply have to do with acceptance.  The ordering of the 
parshios of t'fillin seems to not have been a unified custom.  And the 
archaeological evidence shows that the disagreement goes back quite a while, 
maybe even showing that there was never concensus.<<

Ein hochi nami.  My point is that historically there were debates on various 
issues, BUT, we accepted one opinion to the exculsion of others, and handed down
that acceptance.  And it is not legitimate to revive the issue based on 
"primordial: evidence.  

Just as R. Eliezer was rejected even though bas kol agreed with him, similarly 
we cannot overturn accepted standard halocho by digs.  <there must be doubl 
entendre there somewhere >

Acceptance counts.  But I think the imperative watchword is minhog avosienu 
beyodeinu.  It might be shown that Rabba Bar Bar Chana had no minhog and so 
should have sought objective verification.  Again, I do not know that sugyo 
well.

Permit me a poor but useful illustration.  The Rambam notes that one should NOT 
be mesadder birchos hasachar all at once - even though he concedes that such was
the prevailing minhog.  Let's survey our list, how many of us actually say 
she'oss li kol tzorki when putting on our shoes in the morning and how many of 
us do so during the list of birchos hashachar?

IOW, even the Rambam's clear opposition to a prevaling minhog had little impact 
at best.

And while archaeological evidence could have been deicisve during the era that 
Rabbinu Tam and the Rambam debated the Tefillin issue, at THIS point, it's a 
done deal and no ambount of earlier evidence matters anymore.  The velt has 
paskened (via accpetance, consensus, etc.) that the Rambam's shito is to be 
followed.

R ED Teitz>>And with regard to Sanhedrin, we follow their decisions, not their 
deliberation<<

precisely the point.  There WAS A point in time that tefillin was being 
deliberated at THAT time arahceological evidence WOULD have been legit.  Why? 
Accpetance/minhog avoisenu/etc. had not YET taken place.  That era (the Smag?) 
was still during the deliberation era.  Now it's a done deal.  The "sanhedrin" 
of history has made a decision and external evidence should not uproot it.

I made a similar point legabeie WTG's and psak.  It is too early to make a final
determination.  let the debate go on until the dust settles. We still need time 
to weigh the writing of the Frimer. H. Schachter, etc.

re: the ikkarim there WAS a point in history that ikkarim were not fixed.  My 
point is NOW it's a done deal (at least so far as I can tell).

My bottom line is that we cannot undo bindin precedents.  I'm not sure exactly 
how to get to the binding status, but once we have had many generations 
accpeting something, I think it's too late to revisit it.

What would happen if we re-visited electricity on shabbos and some Gro-like 
gadol "proved" that it was totally not analogous to eish - would we reject the 
thousands of teshuvos and piskei halocho that have been based upon that 
assumption?

Legabei 5 Iyyar, of course there is no one consensus.  There IS a consensus that
those who commemorate yom hoatzmout use 5 iyyar as opposed to the date of the UN
vote of the date of the cease fire.  Even there, acceptance consensus has taken 
place.

As far as Josephus goes, I am not aware that his books were used lehalocho by 
rishonim. The Yossipon of the midle ages is according to most historians not 
written by Josephus himself.  I make a distinction between academia and halocho.
In the academic historical world, Josephus makes a number of useful, valid 
points.  But, I would not use his criteria - even as a mesiach lefi sumo -  to 
make takknos today.  Why? Because our styule of making a takkono has to itself 
have some sort of tradition.  We shouldnt look back to see how sanhedrin did it 
(at least for a practical purpose), if it means ignoring our traditional 
tehcniques.  If we started emplying sanhedric techcniques, then we could start 
doing afkinu by kiddushin etc. which is what that BD in Israel did.  While in 
theory maybe a BD COULD employ afkinu, the facts are that Botei dinnim for the 
last several hundred (thousand?) years did NOT do it, so it's consider a chutzpo
to go back and revive long dormant techniques that were pusposefully left in 
"genizo" of sorts.

When Sanhedrin is revived, we will NOT be bound strictly by minhog avosienu or 
widespread accpetance.  Teh Sanhedrin can revisit issues as they used to.  (Even
then takkonas Ezra failed because of ein ro hatzibbur yochol laamod bo, etc.). 
Sanhedrin has the power to change the Tefillin to Rabbeinu Tam or whatever.  
Meanwhile, lacking a Sanhedrin, we are bound by minhog avoseinu/accptance etc.  

Arachaeology can give us histrical background, it can help dtermine a metzius 
that is STILL in doubt, but it should not overturn an accepted practice.

A cute stroy from Ner Yisroel.  A bochur asked R. Dovid Kronglass how can we 
wear ties on Shabbos, isn't it keshiro?  R. Dovid threw him out of class.  why? 
(acocrdign to my sources) because he sees that the Rosh yeshiva and all the 
rebbei'im are wearing ties, so he know it's muttar, so his question is silly.  
My spin, once it's decied that ties are ok on shabbos, it's a bit of chutzpa to 
question it. 

Rich Wolpoe

On Tue, 25 May 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Rambam's clearest statement on the issue appears in the Moreh I:36 near
> the end, where he writes: If you think one can be melamed zekhut on
> those who believe in corporeality, [for instance,] that they were
> educated that way or are simply ignorant or lacking in intelligence, one
> can have the same opinion of idolaters. 
> 
What about the lashon of the Rambam in Hilkhos teshuva 3:14, "venidonim al
godel rish'am vachatasam", dosn this language imply shogegim as well?

Moshe

In a message dated 5/26/99 9:32:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 A cute stroy from Ner Yisroel.  A bochur asked R. Dovid Kronglass how can we 
 wear ties on Shabbos, isn't it keshiro?  R. Dovid threw him out of class.  
why? 
 (acocrdign to my sources) because he sees that the Rosh yeshiva and all the 
 rebbei'im are wearing ties, so he know it's muttar, so his question is 
silly.  
 My spin, once it's decied that ties are ok on shabbos, it's a bit of chutzpa 
to 
 question it. 
 
 Rich Wolpoe
 
  >>
My spin(unencumbered by any knowledge of the facts) was he got thrown out 
because of  a chazakah based on past acts that he was a mechutzaf.  The best 
way to learn is to ask questions like this because if the knowledge you have 
leads you to believe that ties should be assur, and everyone wears them, then 
there's a pgam in your understanding and you would want to increase your 
knowledge base to correct this lacuna rather than keeping your mouth shut and 
always being ignorant.  What's worse is when you ask to get clarification and 
get thrown out or a sarcastic(non-informational) response (not that this ever 
happens - but it could)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

How is "nation" defined in that phrase?  If you say "linguistically," corresponding to the "70 tongues," again, what's the definition of language there?  (Especially since -- at least from a genetic and linguistic point of view -- nations continuously change identities, are born, and blend into one another.)  Presumably Chazal didn't view these figures as metaphorical: it would be hard to understand how the 70 parim of Sukkos, for instance, would atone for 70 nations if the figures were not meant to count something in particular.

Sholem Berger
bergez01@med.nyu.edu

Sholem Berger writes:
:                                                     Presumably Chazal didn't
: view these figures as metaphorical: it would be hard to understand how the 70
: parim of Sukkos, for instance, would atone for 70 nations if the figures were
: not meant to count something in particular.

I would have argued the reverse. If the number 70 was intended to be literal,
than the number of parim would have been different pre- and post-Sancheirev.

OTOH, being a loyal Hirschian, I have no problem believing the number is
symbolic -- not Chazal's symbol, but HKBH's. IOW, Hashem chose 70 bulls for
Succos mussafim in order to represent, not count, the many nations.

Why 70 as a symbol for "very many"? Seven represents one kind of wholeness,
being the days of the week, 10 another, being the base we count by. In addition
we have the "shiv'im nefesh" of galus mitzrayim which became the "kikochvei
hashamayim" of today.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-May-99: Revi'i, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 320:34-321:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 86a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 1

RJJB asks:

>I was learning in Rosh haShanah around pages 4-5 that the passage
>"shalosh paamim bashanah yeira'eh col zchurchah ..." is redundant,
>that we don't need it for the mitzvah of appearing at the Temple,
>so it's used to define bal t'acher (not being late with various
>nedarim etc.).  See esp. the first Rashi on 4b.  Pretty much all
>of the tannaim cited agree that the passage is redundant and does
>not teach the mitzvah to appear at the Temple, although it might
>teach tashlumin for Shavuot sacrifices, or that all the chagim
>atone for certain sins against the Temple.

>So why is that passage used  in the Siddur, in the Yom Tov musaf,
>as *the* prooftext of the mitzvah to appear at the Temple?  Naaleh
>veneira'eh venishtachaveh bishalosh paamei ragleinu CACATUV
>B'TORATECHA...?

Speaking al regel ahat, I think the answer may lie in the parallel pasuk
in Ki Tisa (Ex. 34:23).  This earlier verse presumably represents the
makor for the mitzvah.  For confirmation, one should check to see what
pasuk is quoted by Rambam and Sefer ha-Hinnukh in discussing this
mitzvah.

Regarding the choice of the later pasuk in the liturgy, the simple
answer would be that the paytan was not looking for the halakhic source
(which the Gemara -- and possibly the Rishonim -- associate with the
earlier pasuk), but with the passage that most fully describes the
activity.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

A source please.

ari zivotofsky

Eli Turkel wrote:

> In the discussion of shiurim the Ramban mentions the ancient coins
> that he found in Israel as a proof.
>

R. Moshe Feldman writes:

>I agree with Eli with respect to our current celebration of Chanukah,
>which should be understood by us based upon post-Yavne Chazal's
>explanations.  However, if it is clear from the sources that the
>original celebration of Chanukah -- as instituted by Chazal in
>Hasmonean times-- was more nationalistic in character, then that
>original celebration might be useful in analyzing whether we should
>institute Hallel today with respect to Yom Ha'atzma'ut.

I can't really object to your first sentence. :)

But your second sentence implies that Hazal instituted the holiday in
Hasmonean times.  Do you have sources that prove this?  Josephus, a
post-Hasmonean source, refers to a holiday called "Orot," and Maccabees
refers to a celebration that does not resemble ours.  What makes you
certain that these were instituted by Hazal (or, to use the more precise
term, the Pharisees)?  Put another way, even assuming that there was
some celebration of the Hasmonean revolt prior to Yavneh, we do not know
who instituted it.  Nor do we know what its character was.  For example,
if the issue we are concerned about is the recitation of Hallel, how do
we know that that the "Hasmonean Hanukkah" involved such recitation?

This leads to my second, more general, objection.  You write, "if it is
clear from the sources. . . "  But exactly how clear are the sources?
The study of classical Jewish history is often an invitation to
speculation and supposition because the sources are so rarely clear.
This is true even about institutions which the sources discuss at
length, such as the Sanhedrin.  How much more so a topic such as
Hanukkah, which is barely discussed at all!

However, even granting your unprovable premise that the Pharisees
instituted a celebration in Hasmonean times, and granting your
additional premise that this celebration focused on the military victory
rather than the miracle of the oil but was later transmuted during the
Yavnean period, I question your suggestion that the nature of the
"original celebration" should be more decisive in evaluating Yom
ha-Atzmaut than the nature of the celebration as described in the
Talmudic sources.  The Hasmonean Hanukkah, assuming it existed, was
celebrated for a few centuries, while the Hanukkah we know and love has
been celebrated for over a millennium and half.  One is codified in
Halakhah, the other is at most a footnote of history.  It strikes me as
unconventional, to say the least, to base a halakhic argument regarding
Hallel on a celebration vaguely described only in non-halakhic sources.

>However, R. Ovadyah's assertion that it is necessary that there be a
>miracle in order that we say Hallel is open to question.

Granted.  But I don't think this has anything to do with Hanukkah.

>I do not deny the miracle.

I would not have thought you do.  But in a previous post you wrote:

>d) Rav Ovadia Yosef considers Chanuka to be a celebration of a
>supernatural miracle (rather than a nes nistar)--the flask of oil
>burning for 8 days.  In fact, [the first mention we have of this
>miracle is the Talmud Shabbat and] the books of the Macabbees do not
>mention this miracle; instead they assert that the 8 days of Chanuka
>correspond to the 8 days of Succot which were missed as a result of
>the Greek occupation of Jerusalem.

You made it sound like R. Ovadyah is on shaky ground.  But he is
presumably basing himself on the gemara in Shabbat, the Rambam, and all
subsequent halakhists.  Whatever the doubts historians may have, R,
Ovadyah needs no defense for considering Hanukkah a celebration of a
supernatural miracle involving oil.

You conclude:

>  Rather the issue is whether Chazal in
>Hasmonean times instituted Hallel on Chanukah *primarily* because of
>the miracle or primarily because of the military victory.

If you have any non-circumstantial evidence on this question, I would be
eager to hear it

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark 

In v3n62 Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes:
:                   Why isn't the case of the Rambam similar?  I would
: answer that there are two issues in lashon hara: (a) the ma'aseh of
: lo telech rachil and (b) the to'tza'ah (result)--negative information
: has been spread.

I'm not sure why (b) would need to be part of hilchos lashon hara. Isn't
it just a case of hezek?

On a different and contradictory tack, couldn't we say the same of any
bein adam lachaveiro? There's an issur against being a mazik (in the broad
sense -- hurting another in some kind of way), and then there's the problem
of the hezek itself. (This contradicts the last idea because the two together
would imply that L"H is supposed to be a second issur for a certain kind of
hezek -- damaging another's reputation by spreading an ugly truth. In which
case, there's no surprise that (b) would be redundant.)

:                                                        Rav Dovid
: Weinberger ...                         was mekil.  The reason to be
: mekil is by analogy to the din that one may speak "lashon hara" to
: his psychotherapist.

To my mind, there's a big difference. The psychotherapist isn't listening
with intent to get to the history of the situation. As Moshe writes,
"all he needs to understand is the mind of his patient". A wife, while she
may be more in a position to know whether "her husband is a schlemiel",
she's really in the same position as any other listener. While she may be
more interested in being there for him to vent, she's also more inclined
(one hopes) to believe his version of events.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-May-99: Revi'i, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 320:34-321:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 86a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 1

Someone asked me in email about the b'rachah of "ozeir Yisrael bigvurah". He
was asking WRT convinving me to wear a gartl, as the b'rachah both mentions
Yisrael and was written to be said when putting on a belt. He therefore argued
that there's some Jewish belt.

I disagreed, as the b'rachos were said upon getting dressed. Instead I argued
that wearing a belt is like kissui rosh (associated with the following
b'rachah) -- we have a ritualized alternative only when the culture wouldn't
otherwise have us wearing one. If you have a hat for style reasons, you don't
need a yarmulka.

All that aside, I originally misunderstood the question to be about the meaning
of the b'rachah. After some thought, this is what I came up with.

G'vurah is the strength of character to say no. As in "eizehu gibor?" or
gevurah as a sefirah in antithesis to chessed. BTW, the next b'rachah is
about tif'eres -- "b'sif'arah", and has "oteir Yisrael" in parallel to
"ozeir Yisrael". I get the impression that there's an intentional progression.
That would imply that the previous b'rachah "hameichin [asheir heichin]
mitz'adei gaver" is about chessed. But that's just guesswork, and doesn't
explain why it isn't in the same pattern. The point for this b'rachah is
g'vurah -- k'vishas hayeitzer and "sur meira`".

In Sh'moneh Esrei we list the forms of Divine assistance as "melecho ozeir
umoshia umagein". A melech is concerned with ordering society -- hashgachah
minis, as the Rambam puts it. An ozeir, moshi'ah or magein is engaging in
hashgachah p'ratis. Perhaps that's why we single out Yisrael in this
b'rachah. According to much of Chazal, only we receive hashgachah p'ratis.
According to the Rambam, anyone can earn or lose the right, and according
to many everything -- even which leaf is to fall -- is subject to hashgachah
p'ratis. But certainly the goal of h"p is Yisrael's welfare first and foremost.

But why ozeir and not moshia or magein? Moshia would means that Hashem saves
me from my own faultering g'vurah, and magein means that He protects it
from faltering to begin with. Since we're talking about g'vurah, either would
be in violation of bechirah chafshis. Ozeir is more along the lines of
"b'derech she'adam holeich, sham molichin oso".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-May-99: Revi'i, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 320:34-321:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 86a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 1

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> But your second sentence implies that Hazal instituted the holiday
> in
> Hasmonean times.  Do you have sources that prove this?  Josephus, a
> post-Hasmonean source, refers to a holiday called "Orot," and
> Maccabees
> refers to a celebration that does not resemble ours.  What makes
> you
> certain that these were instituted by Hazal (or, to use the more
> precise
> term, the Pharisees)?  Put another way, even assuming that there
> was
> some celebration of the Hasmonean revolt prior to Yavneh, we do not
> know
> who instituted it.  Nor do we know what its character was.  

My father notes that the second book of Macabees (written in
pre-Yavneh times) ch. 1 does record a celebration of Chanukah.  That
celebration did include an eight day celebration, though there is no
mention of lighting candles.  A brief excerpt:  "[letter dated 144
BCE] To our Jewish brothers in Egypt...may God [bless you etc.] . . .
we lit the lamps and offered the shewbreads . . .  we [write] urging
you to keep the days of the feast like the feast of tabernacles." 
While the author the letter is unknown, it does seem that this is a
Pharisaic document.  

A second letter found in II Maccabees 1:10  states: "In the [year 124
BCE] the people of Judea and Jerusalem and the Gerousia [generally
translated as Sanhedrin] of the Jews sends greetings. . . to the Jews
of Egypt: Because we have been saved from great dangers by God . . .
we are now about to celebrate the dedication of the Temple on the
25th day of Kislev.   We thought it only right to tell you so that
you too can celebrate these days like the feast of Tabernacles and
Day of the Fire commemorating the time when Nechemia who rebuilt both
Temple and Altar offered sacrifices."

Especially from the second source, we can see that an official body
in Yerushalayim--probably the Sanhedrin-- designated Chanukah as time
of celebration.  Presumably Hallel was said, although there is no
evidence of this in the sources.  It would seem odd to posit that for
two hundred years Hallel was not said, but afterwards, because the
holiday was transmuted from a nationalistic to a solely religious
holiday, it was decided to institute Hallel.

<snip>
> However, even granting your unprovable premise that the Pharisees
> instituted a celebration in Hasmonean times, and granting your
> additional premise that this celebration focused on the military
> victory
> rather than the miracle of the oil but was later transmuted during
> the
> Yavnean period, I question your suggestion that the nature of the
> "original celebration" should be more decisive in evaluating Yom
> ha-Atzmaut than the nature of the celebration as described in the
> Talmudic sources.  The Hasmonean Hanukkah, assuming it existed, was
> celebrated for a few centuries, while the Hanukkah we know and love
> has
> been celebrated for over a millennium and half.  One is codified in
> Halakhah, the other is at most a footnote of history.  

I don't see why understanding Chanukah from a Hasmonean perspective
is necessarily l'afukei understanding Chanukah from a post-Yavneh
perspective.  Clearly, the post-Yavneh perspective is paramount in
terms of normative halacha, both in terms of the celebration of
Chanukah and in terms of the recitation of Hallel in general. 
However, if we can be relatively sure of certain details which
existed at the time of institution of Hallel during Hasmonean times
(e.g., that there was no decisive victory and that political
independence occurred many years later), those details should be
available to inform our rabbinic leadership's decision regarding the
institution of Hallel for Yom Ha'atzma'ut.

> 
> >However, R. Ovadyah's assertion that it is necessary that there be
> a
> >miracle in order that we say Hallel is open to question.
> 
> Granted.  But I don't think this has anything to do with Hanukkah.

No.  It has to do with Purim.

<snip>
> You made it sound like R. Ovadyah is on shaky ground.  But he is
> presumably basing himself on the gemara in Shabbat, the Rambam, and
> all
> subsequent halakhists.  Whatever the doubts historians may have, R,
> Ovadyah needs no defense for considering Hanukkah a celebration of
> a
> supernatural miracle involving oil.

That is correct.  However, if, in fact, it is clear that the Chanukah
celebrated during Hasmonean times was instituted primarily because of
the military victory, though there is mention of supernatural
miracles  (II Macabees 1:21: "The heavenly apparitions that appeared
to those who magnificently defended the honor of Judaism"), then we
should be able to derive from this that Hallel may be instituted to
commemorate military victories which lead to political independence.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 5/26/99 11:14:57 AM EST, REC writes:

> Regarding the choice of the later pasuk in the liturgy, the simple
>  answer would be that the paytan was not looking for the halakhic source
>  (which the Gemara -- and possibly the Rishonim -- associate with the
>  earlier pasuk), but with the passage that most fully describes the
>  activity.
>  
It is brought in the Kllolei HoRambam that the Rambam uses a Possuk that 
describes a Mitzvah more direct instead of the Possuk brought in Gemarah etc.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
> :                                                        Rav Dovid
> : Weinberger ...                         was mekil.  The reason to
> be
> : mekil is by analogy to the din that one may speak "lashon hara"
> to
> : his psychotherapist.
> 
> To my mind, there's a big difference. The psychotherapist isn't
> listening
> with intent to get to the history of the situation. As Moshe
> writes,
> "all he needs to understand is the mind of his patient". A wife,
> while she
> may be more in a position to know whether "her husband is a
> schlemiel",
> she's really in the same position as any other listener. While she
> may be
> more interested in being there for him to vent, she's also more
> inclined
> (one hopes) to believe his version of events.

I should point out that Yossi Prager told me that Rav Aharon
Lichtenstein (in his "press conference") agreed to my reasoning.  I
do agree with your possible chiluk between a psychotherapist and a
wife (as I myself indicated in my prior post).  Nevertheless, it is
my contention that the rules of to'elet permit lashon hara to be said
despite the fact that the recipient of the information may be
somewhat believing of the information provided that the recipient has
kavanah not to accept the information for its veracity but has intent
to help the teller of the information.  I seem to recall that in
various cases (e.g. someone entering into a business deal) where the
book "Guard Your Tongue" permits a person to tell LH because of
to'elet, Rabbi Pliskin always admonishes the recipient not to
necessarily believe the information but to be choshesh that perhaps
the information may be true.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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


[ 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         ]