Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 244

Sunday, January 2 2000

• Re: sefardi minhag
• Re: Altalena
• Re: Bes din
• Re: Altalena
• re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews -- Heschel
• Re: Re[2]: Shas or SA?
• RE: Ramban, Acquiring water
• RE: Prayer of Agunoth
• Torah Donation
• Re: Altalena
• Re: Altalena
• Re: Moshe's free will
• RE: Prayer of Agunoth
• Re: Altalena
• Re: Women and "mayim achronim"
• Re: Rav Dessler's Shita on Kollel
• Re: Rav Dessler's Shita on Kollel

Sam Ominski wrote: <<
I wonder sometimes if Hachmei Ashkenaz are descended from Shammai. No
offense intended.  >>

And I wonder if this impression that Ashkenazi psak tends to be more
machmir than Sephardi psak is in fact statistically correct.   Anyone 
have any idea? 

KT,
Shlomo Godick

Good Question. What do you think? I would be mechalek between those
functioning within a democracy, trying to sway public opinion, and those
breaking the law for their own purposes.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Yzkd@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Altalena


> In a message dated 1/2/00 1:26:27 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
>
> > From their
> >  perspective, Etzel (the Irgun) was mored b'malchus, and, thus b'geder
> >  rodfim.
> >
> According to this logic what is the Din of Arutz-7?
>
> Kol Tuv
>
> Yitzchok Zirkind
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 1:11 AM
Subject: Bes din


> > Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:19:50 -0500
> > From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> > Subject: Re: Bes Din
> >
> <<Obtain written, signed waivers from dayanim that they will hold me
> harmless from any liability arising from my disclosing their wrong
> doings,  and I will be glad to provide an earful of information.>>
>
> I am not a lawyer and do not know what the implications are if you
> reveal information which is factually correct.

    The implication winning the lawsuit with that it entails (i.e. the cost,
the heartache and the bother)

>
> However,  you do urge the readers of this list to act.  I ask again and
> again,  bottom line,  what should any of us do?  Those with information
> are not sharing it,  but you would have us do battle with virtually every
> beis din in America on virtually no facts.

    The best thing to do is to lobby rabbanim, roshei yeshivot an other
important commumnal leaders to fix the situation. Insist that major
organizations make this a priority.  Demand the rabbininc credentials of
corrupt rabanim be revoked etc.  In short demand honesty.

>
> Please propose a reasonable course of behavior.
>
> Gershon
>

In a message dated 1/2/00 11:13:35 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

>  I would be mechalek between those
>  functioning within a democracy, trying to sway public opinion, and those
>  breaking the law for their own purposes.

Once we mix here democracy IOW a Geder Mlucha which is dependent on Rotzon 
Hoam, then the whole Geder of Mrida Bmalchus may depend on Rotzon Hoam as 
well.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I think it was an internal dispute amongst Chazal regarding
certain policy directives.   The elitist view versus the populist
view, if you will.  But no one was voicing broad accusations 
against rabbinic restrictions in general.
 
Shlomo Godick


RCSherer wrote: <<
> Joel Rich wrote: <<
> I do suggest that individuals may from time to time feel that Rabbinic
> leadership (past or present) is going down the wrong track (eg the
> famous gemora re the date of yom kipppur) and still remain in the camp
> of "tora true" .  >>
> 
> Agreed.  But the gemora there is talking about a technical
> disagreement. Rabbi Yehoshua did not accuse Rabban Gamliel of
> "impeding rather than inspiring greater joy and love of G-d", r"l.

I don't know about that. The Gemara there goes on to discuss 
about how on that day they opened the Beis Medrash to anyone 
who wanted to come in, whereas Rabban Gamliel had limited 
access to the Beis Medrash to people who were "tocho k'voro." 
And in several places in Shas, the Gemara makes a point of telling 
us that a certain halacha or drasha was learned "bo bayom" 
referring to that day. Is that an accusation against Rabban Gamliel 
for impeding rather than inspiring love of G-d in those who were 
excluded from the Beis HaMedrash? Tzarich iyun.

>>

In a message dated 12/31/99 12:13:15 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Please expand for the list...
> 
In the Hakdamah of R' Dovber (the Mittler Rebbe) he describes the way the 
Baal Hatanyoh holds one has to learn Halacha, starting with the Gemara and 
Tos. mainly the Rosh and to review the Piskei Halochos of the Rosh, the Tur 
w/o Beis Yosef many times then the B"Y and to review each Simon 2-3 times 
then review many times the Halochos of the B"Y and Rama, he also gives Seder 
Halimud for one with less time.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Chaiim Brown writes
>>>>>>>>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 18:28:51 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Question on Ramban

Acc. to Ramban, Moshe thought the shepards of Midyan unjustly took the
water 
that the daughters of Miryam had drawn into the troughs for their
animals.  
Question: how were the daughters koneh the water?  The troughs and pails
I 
imagine were hefker in a makom hefker.
>>>>>>>>

The water WAS Hefker...but you can Acquire Hefker thru
your utensils. (Placing an object in a utensil of yours
is an ACT of ACQUISITION)

See Ramban Laws of Acquisition Chap 2 and See Sales
The chapter on acquisition thru utensils. All see the
Rambam in Theft and Loss
	>If you take berries being picked by a poor person
	>it is rabbinical theft. But if the poor person
	>gathered them (or they were animals in a closed
	>trap) it is Torah acquisition
Russell Hendel; Math; Towson; RHendel@Towson.edu
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

RE: Michah's citation of the verse "The Jews screamed out"
that "it was accounted as if they did it themselves"

I would say the same thing about a women whose brother in law
refuses to give her a get. The argument (Brought by Carl and
Richard) that 'her sins will be examined first' can be
answered by stating
	>she HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDGED--she is a living widow
Things really can't get worse for her. Hence the effect
of her prayer is that the brother in law will be judged but
not her. (THe above is a bit stronger than the source that
Micah brought...needless to say...I agree with Carl Richard
that we shouldn't advise her to BEGIN WITH to pray if we
can go to a Beth Din..but if she is anguished with signs of
depression and withdrawal she should be so advised)

RE: Carl's request for sources
---See sifray on Dt 15:9
---Disclaimer:WHen I say "see sifray" I mean "with malbim"
---Malbim EXPLICITLY says (what Carl asked for) (Footnote 138)
	>at any rate it is permissable to pray or not to pray
RE This Malbim I should explain that the Malbim cites the sifray
which contrasts 
	Dt 15:9---He will call to God
	Dt 24:15--He will NOT call to God
The Sifray asks 
	"He will call to God"--Is it obligatory?
	ANSWER: No because it says "HE will not call to GOd"
In other words from the two verses (HE WILL and HE WILL NOT)
we infer that all that is being denied is that it is 
obligatory however everyone agrees it is permissable.


Finally regarding Carls' question "It is permissable for
WHOM? to call" I would say
---people who don't get loans near shmitah year (Dt 15:9)
---Workers with witheld wages (Dt 24:15--Carl...the sifray
and Malbim EXPLICITLY combine the two chapters showing
that the laws apply to both).

I then assume that any case AT LEAST AS BAD as no loans and
witheld wages can pray----certainly if you can pray on a
witheld wage you can a fortiori pray on a witheld get.
(Carl responded 'are you an emorah'--but it appears that his
criticism does not a) apply to the midrash (which comes from
the malbim) nor does it apply to generalization(which I
think is straightforward)

Hope this clarifies everything
Russell http://www.shamash.org/rashi

I need to find an article on donating and/or loaning a Sefer Torah to a
shul.
Can any list-member help?
Kol Tuv
steve

In a message dated 1/2/00 1:26:27 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> From their
>  perspective, Etzel (the Irgun) was mored b'malchus, and, thus b'geder
>  rodfim.
>

This was before qom ha-medina, so does that mean the Jewish Agency
at that time or the Hagana had a din of malchus?

If so, does that mean that Dr. Dehan and Rav Zonnenfeld were mordim
b'malchus during their clandestine visit to King Abdullah of Jordan?

KT,
Shlomo Godick

On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Shlomo Godick wrote:

> This was before qom ha-medina, so does that mean the Jewish Agency at
> that time or the Hagana had a din of malchus? 
> 

Actually, I believe it was right after kum ha'medina. If it wasn't, in any
event the Jewish Agency was already the governing body.

> If so, does that mean that Dr. Dehan and Rav Zonnenfeld were mordim
> b'malchus during their clandestine visit to King Abdullah of Jordan? 
> 

I am not familiar with the meeting, so I cannot comment. Care to expand?


YGB

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

RCB quotes me and writes:
: >>>I don't understand. If in the ideal Moshe should have taken initiative,
: then his *choosing* to receive a directive was (lulei dimitztafina hayisi
: omer) an incorrect use of his bechirah. <<<
:                                    ... to answer your question, bechira is
: freedom to disobey G-d's will.  For example: to say Moshe didn't have
: bechira doesn't mean he couldn't choose to have peanut butter instead of
: tuna fish for lunch - it simply means he could not act in violation of
: ratzon Hashem.  Since G-d had not expressed his will as to how to solve the
: problem of the lack of water, whatever choice Moshe made, it could not be a
: choice in violation of ratzon Hashem.

I still don't get it. Moshe Rabbeinu had two options, one of which was wrong
enough to warrant punishment. It was therefore NOT ratzon Hashem that he
follow that choice. Even if only because it was the lesser of two good
choices.

To put it another way, I don't see how you can consider this choice arbitrary,
like his choice of lunch, and yet still say the mistake was significant, never
mind significant enough to warrant onesh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Dec-99: Chamishi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 2 Jan 00, at 10:08, Russell J Hendel wrote:

> RE: Michah's citation of the verse "The Jews screamed out"
> that "it was accounted as if they did it themselves"
> 
> I would say the same thing about a women whose brother in law
> refuses to give her a get. 

I don't think a brother-in-law can give a get these days. The way I 
learned Yevamos, the only thing a brother-in-law can give is 
chalitza unless of course he was first meyabem her in which case 
she becomes his wife for all purposes. Of course, we don't do 
yibum today....

The argument (Brought by Carl and
> Richard) that 'her sins will be examined first' can be
> answered by stating
> 	>she HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDGED--she is a living widow
> Things really can't get worse for her. Hence the effect
> of her prayer is that the brother in law will be judged but
> not her. 

I don't understand where you are getting this from:

1. You still have not shown a single source that says that an 
Aguna can daven for the death of anyone who is making her an 
Aguna. As much as she has a horrible situation, as much as all of 
us would agree that we must do all we can to help her resolve that 
situation, that doesn't give us poetic license to go make up our own 
drash. I don't see anything that says that we can tell this woman 
that it's okay to daven for her husband's death, and I know that 
Micha wasn't saying that either.

2. Al tiftach peh lasatan. Things can almost ALWAYS get worse 
R"L. There was an incident in Yerushalayim 5-6 years ago where a 
husband walked out of the house because he couldn't cope with a 
brain damaged child, and then refused to give his wife a get. He 
did, however, try to throw the wife and children out on the street. 
He eventually agreed to give her the get provided the community 
forked over $20,000 within some ridiculous amount of time (a few 
days - no more) to pay him off. We all held our noses and paid. 
When are you going to decide that it's okay for an aguna to daven 
for the husband's death? And on what basis? You articulate no 
standard for that whatsoever.

3. How do you leap to the conclusion that because her situation is 
so bad, the brother in law (I still don't know why you said brother in 
law) will be judged and she won't. On what basis do you make that 
decision? Since you're (apparently) big on Malbim, why don't you 
tell us why you think the Malbim in Mishlei 24:18 would not apply 
here?

(THe above is a bit stronger than the source that
> Micah brought...needless to say...I agree with Carl Richard
> that we shouldn't advise her to BEGIN WITH to pray if we
> can go to a Beth Din..but if she is anguished with signs of
> depression and withdrawal she should be so advised)

And on what basis do you decide that she is anguished enough? I 
know it when I see it? 

> RE: Carl's request for sources
> ---See sifray on Dt 15:9
> ---Disclaimer:WHen I say "see sifray" I mean "with malbim"
> ---Malbim EXPLICITLY says (what Carl asked for) (Footnote 138)
> 	>at any rate it is permissable to pray or not to pray
> RE This Malbim I should explain that the Malbim cites the sifray
> which contrasts 
> 	Dt 15:9---He will call to God
> 	Dt 24:15--He will NOT call to God
> The Sifray asks 
> 	"He will call to God"--Is it obligatory?
> 	ANSWER: No because it says "HE will not call to GOd"
> In other words from the two verses (HE WILL and HE WILL NOT)
> we infer that all that is being denied is that it is 
> obligatory however everyone agrees it is permissable.

Alright, let's put the whole Malbim on the table instead of citing part 
of it. The Malbim says:

"v'gabei meilin schar sachir tofas halashon (lekaman 22*) 'vlo yikra 
alecha' ki b'meilin sachar yesh lo alav taana, ub'vaday yikra, omar 
ten scharo bichdei shelo yikra, aval b'mniyas hatzedaka [recall that 
this pasuk deals with one who will not lend money just before 
shmitta - C.S.], ein svara sheyikra el Hashem, amar sheim yikra, 
b'chol zos yihye b'cha chet. Al kol panim mevuar shereshus b'yado 
likro o shelo likro, umilashon v'haya b'cha chet sheaino metzayen 
ha'onesh rak ma shechata v'zeh lo yishaveh al y'dei hakriya ki gam 
shelo yikra harei chata, umuchrach shema shekosav ki yikro 
v'haya b'cha chet haynu she'az yisgaleh onesh ha'chet takef 
v'yimaher lifroa." 

* The citation "lekaman 22" is apparently a taus sofer, and it 
should refer to Dvarim 24:15.

Al kol panim, let's look at some of the things the Malbim does not 
say.

1. He discusses neither tenants nor agunos.
2. He assumes that the employee whose salary has been withheld 
will call out. But he does not say that employee will call out for 
revenge against his employer. Rather, that employee could be 
calling out to have his schar paid. He can call out to Hashem to 
make the employer pay the schar, and to the extent that the 
employer is at fault for not paying the schar, then the employer 
would be harmed derech agav. This fits in with the maamar chazal 
we find in many places that one is not permitted to daven for the 
death of his enemies. He is not davening for something bad to 
befall his employer - only for his salary to be paid. If Hashem 
decides to punish the employer for withholding the schar, that is 
Hashem's initiative.
3. Even if one is permitted to daven in a certain way, doesn't mean 
that he should or that it will not have adverse consequences 
against him if he does. There are many things that I am permitted 
to do that Chazal tell me not to do. I can eat like a gargaran and I 
am not necessarily over an issur in doing so, yet Chazal say that I 
should not. I can have relations with my wife three times a day, and 
assuming that she is tehora I am not over an issur, but Chazal tell 
me I should not. So too, it may be that I can daven that something 
bad happen to my employer for withholding my salary, but Chazal 
have told me that I should not.

> Finally regarding Carls' question "It is permissable for
> WHOM? to call" I would say
> ---people who don't get loans near shmitah year (Dt 15:9)
> ---Workers with witheld wages (Dt 24:15--Carl...the sifray
> and Malbim EXPLICITLY combine the two chapters showing
> that the laws apply to both).

Subject to the above (i.e. that I would hold that they can daven that 
their employer should pay them or that they should receive a loan, 
but NOT for the death or for puronus to befall the employer/lender), 
I would agree with that.

> I then assume that any case AT LEAST AS BAD as no loans and
> witheld wages can pray----certainly if you can pray on a
> witheld wage you can a fortiori pray on a witheld get.

On what basis? How are you deciding (and who are you to decide) 
what is "at least as bad" as no loans and withholding wages? The 
Torah didn't make that kviya. Chazal didn't make it. How can you 
make it? I don't think any of us can decide or quantify how bad a 
situation is. See the example I brought above. Was that woman's 
situation worse than a typical aguna? On what halachic basis are 
you making that determination? 

Suppose my makolet has been extending me credit. One day he 
decides that he is over-extended and that he is not extending credit 
to anyone anymore. So when I send my kids to buy milk in the 
morning, he says "tell your parents they have to send you with 
cash." I don't have any cash; payday isn't for another week. Is that 
"as bad as" withholding salaries. Can I pray for his death R"L? On 
what basis do you decide?

> (Carl responded 'are you an emorah'--but it appears that his
> criticism does not a) apply to the midrash (which comes from
> the malbim) 

Actually the Medrash stands on its own - the Malbim quoted and 
explained it. I just think we need a clear understanding in what the 
Malbim is (and is not) saying.

nor does it apply to generalization(which I
> think is straightforward)

How are you deciding that your generalization is straightforward? 
How can you make up a binyan av as you see fit? Am I (and the 
person who wrote me privately about this earlier today) the only 
one who sees a problem with this?

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 2 Jan 00, at 14:45, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Shlomo Godick wrote:
> 
> > This was before qom ha-medina, so does that mean the Jewish Agency at
> > that time or the Hagana had a din of malchus? 
> > 
> 
> Actually, I believe it was right after kum ha'medina. 

Actually, it SHOULD have arrived right around the time of kum 
hamedina (in May 1948), but the Hagana prevented its arrival until 
June. (Begin: The Revolt, Chapter XI)

If it wasn't, in any
> event the Jewish Agency was already the governing body.

And why would they have a status of malchus? Who elected or 
appointed them and how did that election or appointment imbue 
them with the status of malchus?

> > If so, does that mean that Dr. Dehan and Rav Zonnenfeld were mordim
> > b'malchus during their clandestine visit to King Abdullah of Jordan? 

I think it would make everyone who criticizes the government a 
mored b'malchus. Pretty scary thought.

I am reserving further comment until I have had a chance to see the 
Tzitz Eliezer inside (the Batei Medrash in the neighborhood don't 
have it). If someone has it and wants to fax it, please drop me a 
line off list.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

===================================================
Mrs. Gila Atwood
We are pixels in G-d's imagination.
You are welcome to browse my website at:
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/gila/main.html
a little Torah, nature, humour, environmental concerns and memoirs.

----- Original Message -----
From: <BDCOHEN613@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 8:50 PM
Subject: Women and "mayim achronim"


> In vol.30 #49 Joseph geretz wrote:
>     << Rebbetzin Feinstein informed me that women do not wash
> Mayim Acharonim >>
>     Does this mean that we can actually learn halacha from the statements
and
> actions of the wife of a Gadol?? (sorry, can't help beating this horse,
but
> you can't have it both ways--if you're learning Mayim achronim from a
> Rebbetzin, why not hair covering or any other halacha?)
>     David I. Cohen

I learned that it's a custom that women don't wash mayim achronim formally
at the table with the men- (btw the usual mayim achronim sets are inadequate
if you hold by the shita of washing to the knuckles- where fingers meet
hands  ). However, there is an assumption that women will rinse the hands
betzniut in the kitchen on the last of our visits. At any rate,  acc. to one
of our LORs-  Rav Elazar Barclay-  mayim achronim is an equal chiuv for
women and one should not talk between MA and benching.   GA
>

SNIP... when an innocent goes to an
> overly intensive yeshiva, which is so dead-set on producing chachamim
> that it does not mind producing a few off-the-derech types as well. This
> (it seems to me) is quite literally a Michshol -- a stumbling-block
> before the blind.)
>
> Akiva Miller
>
Yasher co'ach!
It's a major spiritual crisis.  But what takes the blame?  The internet,
movies, modern literature, computer games....

In charedi Jerusalem ALL extra curricular groups were requested to close
down-   (including a local woodworking chug which was producing stuff like
mezuza covers. )  Football is frowned upon. Boys playing outdoors is frowned
upon. etc etc. Many boys are bored, frustrated and uninspired.  Not all
Talmud Torah Rebbes can inspire every pupil to love Torah, and with no
outlets for their psychological needs and need for physical exertion  the
boys will hang out on the streets or find friends with computers equipped
with video discs.  The videos (I'm talking about nice, family friendly
movies) seriously distract them from their uninspiring (to them at their
age) learning and declarations appear decrying the "poison in our homes".
So let them have a frum boy scouts at least-  something to motivate them and
make their learning "lema'aseh"-  make it real.   Chabad has Tzakos Hashem-
perhaps some of you are familiar with these groups?

I'm talking about Talmud Torahs but the same problems are found through
yeshiva katana to yeshiva gedola and collel.  If you're fortunate enough to
get an inspiring teacher, wonderful.  If you don't, and/or you're a
different kind of personality,  you're caught up in the factory of conveyer
belt talmidei chochomim and you might fall well through the cracks   -
become, "nebach" a shopkeeper or, chalila, "chozer bishaila".  Hashem
ya'azor.
OK, I'm emotional, I admit it.  I'm the mother of several boys.
> .
> ________________________________________________________________
> YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>

In a message dated 1/2/00 6:03:15 PM US Central Standard Time, 
gatwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< OK, I'm emotional, I admit it.  I'm the mother of several boys. >>

I understand and agree entirely. I have a ten-year-old son. As a ba'al 
teshuva (or something perhaps very loosely akin to it), I'm not sure what my 
responsibility is. My son is learning Torah. His Hebrew is pretty good. He's 
also a athlete (he had the best ERA in his Little League age division last 
year in the Chicago suburb where we live). What am I supposed to do? Tell him 
that sports are forbidden? Make him read Torah on warm spring afternoons when 
his friends are playing pick-up baseball in the park across the street? Tell 
him that this is my understanding of G-d's undeniable commandment? Do I even 
have a right to tell him such a thing, were I to believe it? How could I 
inflict such a restriction on him -- pain, really -- no matter what I did or 
did not believe?

Do these concerns make sense to those of you who, excuse the expression, have 
been frum from birth? 

David Finch

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


[ 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         ]