Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 065

Thursday, May 27 1999

• Voting in Elections
• Re: ikkarim
• Re: Soap
• Re: Seventy Nations of the World
• "Ozer"; anomalous liturgical prooftexts
• Re: Soap [2]
• Re: Soap [2]
• Re: electricity = fire
• Re: Lashon Hara
• Re: Lashon Hara
• ties on shabat
• Re: Avodah V3 #63: ... Charedi response
• Ikkarim
• Loshon Hora - Toeles
• Re: Hanukkah
• Chanuko, 5 Iyyar, Hallel
• Re: Avodah V3 #63
• Re: Avodah V3 #63
• Re: Removing a Dybbuk
• 70 Nations - Footnote
• You Can't Paint Sound

Shlomo Ouaknine asks:

>In the light of the elections, I want to submit a debate subject to
>have, if someone can help me, the positions of the guedolim on this
>subject : is it an obligation of involvment ot may a jew stay on "parve"
>positions ?

I believe the official position of the haredi community (with the
exception noted below), as expressed in such publications as Yated
Ne'eman, is that Torah Jews were required to vote for two reasons:

 1. As a kiyyum of lo tasur min ha-davar asher yagidu lekha, in response
to the explicit rulings of the Gedolim to vote for a certain candidate
and party.

2.  As a kiyyum of kiddush shem Shammayim, in demonstrating fidelity to
Torah by voting for a party that represents Torah.

The implication of this position is that abstaining from voting would
have violated the first rule and constituted a failure to be mekayyem
the second.

I recall that the Hazon Ish is quoted to the effect that one must vote.

However, the official position of the Edah ha-Haredit is that no one
should vote in an election for a secular government in Eretz Yisrael.  I
presume the rationale is that partipation in an election constitutes
mesaye'a li-yedei ovrei averah, on the assumption that the existence of
a secular government in EY is sinful and voting somehow facilitates that
sin.

If anyone can offer more insight into the position of Gedolim on the
halakhic issue of voting, I would appreciate hearing it.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 5/25/99 7:57:02 PM EST, C1A1Brown@AOL.COM writes:

>  the debate is, for the most part, academic and of little practical 
>  consequence.  The only scenario that comes to mind is.....invalidate the 
person's >  shchitah or decalre his wine stam yeynam

Other issues that come to mind is a) if one is Mkadeish a women with the 
condition that he has a Chelek L'olom Haboh, (as the Gemoroh says Al Mnas 
Sh'ani Tzadik, Sh'ani Taanoee etc.). b) Lshitas HoRambam (Hil. Rotzeiach 4:10 
and other places) that there is a Mitzvah to kill a Min.

It is brought down in the name of Reb Chayim, he asked since one who doesn't 
beleive in any of the Ikkrim is Mmeiloh a Kofer in Torah, what is the Uftu of 
the 13 Ikkrim, and he answered that the 13 Ikkrim one is obligated to learn.  
I would also refer to M"A 527 (8), however this should also be covered by the 
Rambam in Hil. Mamrim 3.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I am forwarding this letter to avodah, an email list which is devoted
to halachic issues.  In the meantime, while I wait for responses, I
will attempt one on my own.

--- flafonta@tin.it wrote:
>  I would like to ask for an Halachic clarification. Is the
> standard
> soap available in most countries OK for religious Jews, or in
> Israel also
> this item is subject to restrictions in the production process?
> Just
> reasoning by analogy, I can suppose that some greases of animal
> origin used
> in soap could not meet the rabbinical specifications; incidentally,
> I have
> found in the site www.menorah.it a list of colouring agents
> normally used in
> foods but not allowed by Khasherut for the same reason. 

I do not have s'mikha (rabbinic ordination) but I did study Yoreh
Deah (the section of the Code of Jewish Law dealing with kashrut) a
number of years ago.  It is my impression that there is no reason to
worry about hand soap, since one does not eat it.  Even if a little
bit of soap would adhere to one's hand and one used one's hand to
hold some food, that small amount would be batel b'shishim (nullified
because it is less than a ratio of 1 to 60).

On the other hand, it is common for many religious Jews to obtain
dishwashing soap with a hekhsher (kosher certification), especially
for Passover.  Presumably, they do this because they wash their
dishes with the soap and there is a possibility that the dishes will
be bo'leah (absorb) the ta'am (taste) of the nonkosher soap.  Based
on something that Rabbi Menachem Genack told my class in Yoreh De'ah,
it would seem to me that there should be no reason to buy
specifically kosher dishwashing soap.  Soap is something that is
pogem (causes food to become inedible).  The rule is that something
which is notein ta'am lifgam (injects taste which is inedible) does
not cause food (or a dish) to become nonkosher.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


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

Look in the appendix to the Stone Tanach(artscroll) which gives a list of
the 70 nations. It seem to be based on the decendents of the sons of Noach
and would therefore represent all of humanity regardless of what haapens
in the future--since all ultimately decend from these people (assuming one
entire family line wasn't killed off at any point)
E.G.

	1. In the post on "ozer yisrael big'vura," the author seemed to 
interpret this bracha in light of the passage in the shmone esreh, "melech 
ozer u'moshia u'magen."  However, the first "ozer" is with an aleph, the 
second with an ayin.

	2. A couple of posts focused on the liturgical proof text for aliyat 
regel.  Two similar anomalies:

		a. In the Shabbat morning shmone esreh, in the k'dushat hayom, it 
says "v'chatuv bahem [i.e., on the tablets] shmirat shabbat, v'chen katuv 
b'toratecha" and then quotes not from the Aseret HaDibrot (either version) 
but "v'shamru."

		b. In the Haggada Shel Pesah, the Korech is introduced with "al 
matzot u'mrorim yochluhu" (Num. 9:11), which is about Pesah Sheni, rather 
than the apparently just as good verse Ex. 12:8.

		Richard Friedman

I wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, it is common for many religious Jews to obtain
> dishwashing soap with a hekhsher (kosher certification), especially
> for Passover.  Presumably, they do this because they wash their
> dishes with the soap and there is a possibility that the dishes
> will
> be bo'leah (absorb) the ta'am (taste) of the nonkosher soap.  Based
> on something that Rabbi Menachem Genack told my class in Yoreh
> De'ah,
> it would seem to me that there should be no reason to buy
> specifically kosher dishwashing soap.  Soap is something that is
> pogem (causes food to become inedible).  The rule is that something
> which is notein ta'am lifgam (injects taste which is inedible) does
> not cause food (or a dish) to become nonkosher.
> 

Is the reason notain ta'am lifgam or is it that soap is not ra'ui
l'achilah (fit for eating), or, in the case of Pesach, it is not
ra'ui l'achilat kelev (not fit to be eaten by a dog) and hence it is
not considered "food."

(Rabbi Genack was dealing with a different issue: if you use a dairy
sponge to clean a meaty plate, the plate does not become treif
because the soap in the sponge is pogem the food in the sponge.)

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

I wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, it is common for many religious Jews to obtain
> dishwashing soap with a hekhsher (kosher certification), especially
> for Passover.  Presumably, they do this because they wash their
> dishes with the soap and there is a possibility that the dishes
> will
> be bo'leah (absorb) the ta'am (taste) of the nonkosher soap.  Based
> on something that Rabbi Menachem Genack told my class in Yoreh
> De'ah,
> it would seem to me that there should be no reason to buy
> specifically kosher dishwashing soap.  Soap is something that is
> pogem (causes food to become inedible).  The rule is that something
> which is notein ta'am lifgam (injects taste which is inedible) does
> not cause food (or a dish) to become nonkosher.
> 

Is the reason notain ta'am lifgam or is it that soap is not ra'ui
l'achilah (fit for eating), or, in the case of Pesach, it is not
ra'ui l'achilat kelev (not fit to be eaten by a dog) and hence it is
not considered "food."

(Rabbi Genack was dealing with a different issue: if you use a dairy
sponge to clean a meaty plate, the plate does not become treif
because the soap in the sponge is pogem the food in the sponge.)

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

<<
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?
>>

Check R. SZ Auerbach's work on this topic.  He already argued this point, and 
if memory serves me correctly concluded that we don't use electricity on 
Shabbos because that is what we have accepted upon ourselves.  (This is a 
simplification of a complexissue.  He goes through many different uses of 
electricity and shows many different sides to the issue, but in many 
instances the only conclusion he reaches is that this is our minhag).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
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.
>>

This is actually a g'mara ( I don't have the cite handy ) where Gedalya ben 
Achikam is blamed for his own murder for not suspecting as true the report 
that there were people out to kill him.  The g'mara states that he should not 
have believed them that it was true, but should have taken precautions just 
in case.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 5/26/99 8:35:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, EDTeitz@aol.com 
writes:

<< <<
 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.
 >>
 
 This is actually a g'mara ( I don't have the cite handy ) where Gedalya ben 
 Achikam is blamed for his own murder for not suspecting as true the report 
 that there were people out to kill him.  The g'mara states that he should 
not 
 have believed them that it was true, but should have taken precautions just 
 in case.
 
 Eliyahu Teitz
 Jewish Educational Center
 Elizabeth, NJ
  >>
The gemora is in nida 61a

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

> 
> << 
>  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 decided that ties are ok on shabbos, it's a bit of chutzpa 
>  to question it. 
>  
>  Rich Wolpoe
>  
>

On the other hand many hasidim do not wear ties - so it is not a trivial question.

Eli Turkel

>
>Date: Tue,  25 May 1999 11:14 +0200
>From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
>Subject: Elections in Israel and Charedi response
>
>Someone just showed me last Thursday's YEDIOT newspaper with a column on the
>Charedi response to the election results. There may be repercussions in the
>charedi community regarding *Daat Torah*. The rabbanim had *promised* that
>Netanyahu would be re-elected. Kids in yeshiva are already asking their
>rebbeim "how could our roshei yeshivot be wrong ?" The article even mentioned
>their "ruach ha-kodesh". MUSSAR HASKEL: don't *promise* what you can't
>deliver.
>

V'al Zeh Ne'emar,

You get into trouble when you believe your own propaganda.

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

>> C1A1Brown@aol.com

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.  
- -CB<<

Are you categorically stating that the Rambam - and those who follow him - would
not create a chiyuv to believe in those listed  Ikkarim?  IOW, they are only 
suggestions or outlines instead of chovos mammosh?

Rich Wolpoe

Moshe Feldman >>Nevertheless, it ismy 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. <<

an eitzo tova would seem that usually (though not always) one can vent 
by saying loshon horo w/o naming names.

EG, husband to wife:
"Some idiot at work accused me of responding to Avodah all day and not 
doing my work.  Chutzpah!"

IOW by using ploni/almoni one can vent w/o getting too depply into 
loshon horo.  Of course sometime the circustmstances will imply who 
that ploni is, nevertheless it seesm to be  a good idea to leave it 
even a bit fuzzy rather than to point a finger directly at someone in 
particular.

Below is an email from my father:

--- "Louis H. Feldman" <lfeldman@ymail.yu.edu> wrote:
> Dear Moshe,
> 	I have read this entire correspondence.  The one point that I
> would make is that in 2 Maccabees in the two letters in chapter 1
> there is
> no mention of political independence as a goal of the Maccabees or
> that
> the achievement of independence in 144 or 124 B.C.E. is to be
> celebrated.
> 2 Maccabees 1:18 says specifically: "We are about to celebrate the
> purification of the Temple on the 25th of Kislev."  Immediately
> thereafter
> there is mention of Nehemiah, "who rebuilt both the Temple and the
> altar,
> offered sacrifices."  Perhaps there is basis for thinking that the
> Sanhedrin instituted Hallel in 2 Maccabees 1:l0-11: "In the l88th
> year
> [124 B.C.E.] the people of Jerusalem and Judaea, the Senate
> [Gerousia,
> presumably Sanhedrin] of the Jews send greetings to Aristobulus,
> teacher
> of King Ptolemy, who is also one of the stock of the anointed
> priests, and
> to the Jews of Egypt.  Because we have been saved from great
> dangers by
> G-d we thank [sic] him as it is right to thank Him for having taken
> our
> side against a king."


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

R E Clark:>>Whatever the doubts historians may have, R,
Ovadyah needs no defense for considering Hanukkah a celebration of a 
supernatural miracle involving oil.<<

I heard an explanation once as follows:

How come the Gemoro stresses the miracle of the oil, while earlier sources 
(including al haNissim!) omit it?

Answer:
While the BhM was still around, Chanukko - at that point in history - was 
primarliy a celebration of indepndence from thel hegemony of the Syrian Greeks. 
(as R. Moshe Feldman points out).t

However, followign the Churban and while in Bovel, the oringal ta'am seems to no
longer be applicable.  comes the Gemoro in Shabbos with May channuk (IOW what is
it to us NOW in golus?) and says that we still commemorate Divine providence as 
illustrated by the miracle of the oil.  IOW, now tha the militray victories have
been reversed, we revert a the mircale of the oil and focus on the spiritual 
aspects. And this was the pardigm for nearly 2 millenia.

Now, move forward to 5 Iyyar, 1948.  Is this a golus event or a non-golus event?
Do we require a neis nigleh to parallel the oil or is the military vicotry 
paralle enought to the events of 164 BCE? 

I would frame the machlokes as follows:
If you hold that EY is THE criteria, then the events of 5 Iyyar, 1948 deserve 
Hallel. (I would label this a Mizrachi position)

If you hold that until the BhM is up and running we are STILL in golus, then I 
would say 5 Iyyar is not enough to say Hallel. (I would  label this an Agudist  
position)

Rich Wolpoe

> From: EDTeitz@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Lashon Hara
> 
> I see a difference, not that I disagree with the conclusion (I'm not sure yet 
> what I think on the issue).  The therapist is not interested in the accuracy 
> of the story, only in the effect the percieved events are having on his 
> patient.  Also, the therapist is professionally forbidden to spread the 
> story, so there is no concern for rachil.  A wife, however, will defend her 
> husband, not offer therapy.  That means she will believe the story, believe 
> that her husband was wronged.

===> I seem to recall seeing in the Chafetz Chaim's material that he
strongly argued AGAINST "telling spouses all" and -- apparently -- did not
accept the "therapeutic value" of such discussions.

--Zvi



> 
> Eliyahu Teitz
> Jewish Educational Center
> Elizabeth, NJ
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Hanukkah, history and later takkanot
> 
> I do not deny the miracle.  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.

===> I once heard from Rabbi M. Feldblum that originally the "Nes Shemen"
was the "validator" of the "Nes Milchama" -- that is, the incident of the
oil "showed" that the military victory was not just "good tactics" but was
through HKBH's "intervention".  Hence, the al HaNissim emphasizes the
MILITARY victory and "downplays" the "oil".  According to this, the two
went "hand in hand" but the military was emphasized.
After the Churban, it was simply impossible to meaningfully focus upon the
military aspect and so the *focus* was shifted to the "Nes Shemen"....
According to this approach, even when the focus was on the military
victory, there "had" to be the Nes Shemen to "prove" that it was an event
that should be commemorated in this manner.

A possible conclusion is that since there was no "equivalent" occurrence
of an "overt" miracle here -- it may be more difficult to commemorate 5
Iyar in this manner.

Another potential conclusion is that if it is the *victory* that was
celebrated (and not the outbreak of hostilities), then 5 Iyar may not be
suitable since that was not the "armistice day"...

--Zvi

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
 I seem to recall seeing in the Chafetz Chaim's material that
> he
> strongly argued AGAINST "telling spouses all" and -- apparently --
> did not
> accept the "therapeutic value" of such discussions.
> 

The question is whether the CC, in his tzidkut, was overly machmir on
this issue (k'darko bakodesh in the Mishna Brurah).  My point, both
in the case of reading newspapers and in the case of speaking to
spouses, is that I feel that it would be better to emphasize mekil
halachot of lashon hara which most people could easily keep rather
than creating a very machmir system of halachot which most people
just pay lip service to.  

The story of the CC quoted at the beginning of "Guard Your Tongue" is
telling.  A rich businessman gave the CC a list of seforim to buy. 
All the CC's books were included, except Sefer Chofetz Chaim.  The
business explained that his business required his knowing all that
goes around him, and that it would be very impractical for him to
learn Sefer CC.  The CC replied that Rav Yisroel Salanter said that
even if the only result of reading Sefer CC is that the reader emits
a sigh, that is enough of a reason to read the sefer.

I would rather someone read a sefer on lashon hara that elicits
action,  not only a sigh.

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

---On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Rabbi Yosef Blau <yblau@idt.net> wrote:
> There are a number of unusual aspects to the story about the recent
> removal of a Dybbuk by Rabbi Batsri in Dimona, assuming that the
> description in the media is accurate.  
<snip>
>In general, early halakhic sources for
> this
> practice do not seem to exist, there being no mention of it in
> either
> the Talmud or the Zohar. 
<snip>
> Only in recent years has the need for psychological help become
> accepted
> in the Charedi world. A return to removing Dybbuks instead of
> therapy or
> medication can actually cause great harm.

1. Are you suggesting that Dybbuks are some kind of schizophrenic
condition?

2.  Do you doubt the veracity of stories regarding the removal of
Dybbuks by gedolim in the past couple of centuries?  Or, were those
exorcisms some form of behavioral (or other psychological) therapy?

3.  What parallels exist between the removal of Dybbuks and exorcism
practiced in other religions.  Do advocates of Dybbuk-removal grant
legitimacy to similar stories in other religions?

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

>>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.

Micha:
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<<

Think of the phrase "hagam Shaul banvi'im" which began as literal and later 
evolved into a metaphor.

Rich Wolpoe

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> 
> 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



One of the problems with reading about a story versus experiencing it 
directly was pointed out to me by a proffessor of German that I had in 
College. By reading about a story, you can't see body language or hear 
voice inflections or word emphases, or detect attitude.  Nor do we know 
this student's history. Also, word emphasis can change the entire 
meaning of a statement. 

Try the following exersize:

Say the phrase:  "You Can't Paint Sound!"  and repeat it each time 
emphasizing a different word each time.  You will realize that that 
emphasis alone, can change the entire meaning and intent of the 
sentence. 

Hevei Don LeKaf Zechus.

Obviously, in the above story it is unknowable from the narritive what 
the verbal emphasis,vocal inflections and attitude expressed by the 
student was. Nor is the character and reputation of the student known.  
The response by R. Kornglass should be judged appropriate as it is 
inconceivable to me that a man of such distinction would have ejected 
from class a student for merely asking a question about why tying a tie 
in a knot on shabbos is not consisdered keshira. 

If a Rebbe would eject a student from class for asking an innocent 
question, than it is the rebbe that should be thrown out of Chinuch.

HM

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


[ 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         ]