Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 245

Monday, January 3 2000

• Bes Din
• RE: Agunoth
• Rav Hirsch's Chilling essay: Telling 10 year olds about baseball
• Altalena
• Re: Altalena
• Gezeila on hefker
• Re: Moshe's bechira
• Re: Altalena
• Bes Din-Call to Action
• Re: Avodah V4 #244
• Re: Avodah V4 #244
• Yaakov Frimer Fund
• RE: Separation of religion and state in Israel (was Orthodoxy andreturn of l...
• RE: Agunoth

> > Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:19:50 -0500
> > From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> > Subject: Re: Bes Din

<<Actually, if you will look back to the beginning of this discussion,
you will see that it started not as a call to action, but as a request, 
although a strongly worded one, that a person who (later) admitted to
knowing NOTHING about the bias din' situation in America refrain from
persuading other uninformed individuals to blindly enter 'botai din'.

I do not remember posting or seeing a posted request for you to take any
action.>>

	It did not start that way,  but certainly Mr. Schwartz,  if not Mr.
Klagsbrun,  gave his reasoning for publicizing the issue as a call to
action on the part of the Jewish community at large or this list as a
representative thereof.  If there is no call to action,  I see no point, 
as I and several other posters have stated,  in perpetuating the lashon
hara. Since you deny even this to'eles, I shall drop the subject.

Gershon

[This has been going on for a while..so those who wish to skip over may
do so...though personally (as Carl himself said) I wish other people
(besides Richard and Michah) would join in).

Carl & I are getting someplace.(In passing...Carl it would be helpful if
you read the whole posting first and then comment on each part. For
example you state "YOu haven't yet brought sources" at the top of my
posting (when In fact they were brought later on). Let us examine what
Carl says about the Malbim which allows a person not granted a loan to
pray

>>>>>>>>>
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 
>>>>>>>>>>>
Fine...Now we have 2 clear issues. If I understand Carl correctly
----The Malbim/Sifrah says someone can pray(permissable)
----but it only applies to people who don't receive loans
----it only applies to praying for the money to be given (not for death)
Carl further adds
----the fact that he may die afterwards (as per the sifray) is irrelevant
to the permissability of him praying for death. 

So if I understand Carl correctly the Sifray is
---allowing a person who does not receive a loan before shmitah to pray
---allowing that person only to pray for compensation.
---The sifray informs us that the person might die as a result of the
prayer to get the loan.


Let us examine this. First of all, the Sifray/Malbim mixes the two cases
of
a) didn't receive a loan b) didn't receive his wages (as it learns from
the two posookim there). So I think Carl would apply the right to pray
(for restitution of money) to both the default on wages, didn't receive a
loan.

Carl does not like the way I generalized this. Fine. How would you (Carl
or anyone else reading this generalize this). Is that the real contention
between Carl and Me that I consider a woman whose brotherinlaw refused
Chalitzah to be at least as anguished as a person who didn't receive his
wages (And before Carl says on what basis, let him answer my
question...does he DISAGREE with my assessment (even if I don't have an
explicit source)


NExt...Carl says the sifray is only giving permission to pray for
restitution of money.!!

Really!! Do I need a sifray for that?? I could have done it anyway. The
sifray goes out of its way to PERMIT the person to pray. The Biblical
language is PRAY ON someone. Now maybe that doesn't mean EXPLICITLY pray
for death but can't Carl grant that e.g. the person who didn't get wages
or a loan has a right to eg pray "Please judge between so and so and me
for not giving me my wages". Again I emphasis the language PRAY ON.

To recap...I think these two issues are sufficient for now
----are we simply to say that this only applies to no loan and no wages
but somehow a woman who can't get her chalitzah is inferior? Do we need
sources as Carl suggests?

---Is it feasable that the Sifray permits praying for money when that was
permissable to begin with? Doesn't the phrase PRAY ON mean something

Russell http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

David Finch asks about Kollels and his 10 year old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

Yes they make sense to me. See Rav Hirsch's chilling essay AND THE
CHILDREN GREW UP that our Patriarch Isaac, made a mistake in trying to
make Esauv into a Kollelnick. Rav Hirsch directly blames Yitzchak for
trying to make Esauv something he was not. In other words Esauv (Rome
Hitler and everything else bad that came from him) happened because
Yitzchak would not let Esauv hunt with his 'friends' on nice warm days.

I don't know if I am sympathetic to David...but Rav Hirsch (who was frum
from birth) certainly is.

BUT..you can teach him all the halachoth dealing with baseballs. Now for
a riddle .... name 3 important halacoth about baseball.

Russell Hendel; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

> > 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?

It was after the State was declared. In the negotiations leading up to the
disaster, Begin made it clear that he recognized the legitimacy of the
official government. If, as certain members of the established government
alleged, the Irgun was planning a putsch, in the middle of a war, they
would certainly be rodfim (unless, of course, the putsch went so smoothly
that the new regime could take over without missing a beat...).

Rabin, in his Pinkas Sherut, writes that when he obeyed the orders to open
fire on the Altalena, he shared this concern. From the perspective of
thirty years later, he admitted error. It is still a matter of debate
which members of the government stoked the fires of suspicion that led to
the attack on the ship. Begin himself held that Ben-Gurion had been misled
by others, though this claim may have been self-serving, insofar as many
Ben-Gurion hasidim ended up transferring their allegiance to Begin.

Ultimately, people often believe what they want to believe, and those who
were looking for an excuse to eliminate a right wing opposition to the
government found the belief that served their purpose. The best Hebrew
equivalent for the excessive desire to find one's brethren hateful is the
old term sinat hinnam.

First of all, I looked up the Mikdash David on Avnei Beis Ha'Mikdash (1:6).
He discusses there stones that have not undergone "ba'u ba peritzim
va'yechaleluha."

> > According to the Maharatz Chiyus's sevara that a mored b'malchus is
chayav
> > misa because he is rodef Am Yisroel, it applies logically here as well.
>
> Where is the Maharatz Chiyus?
>

The Mahatz Chiyusis is in Toras Ha'Nevi'im perek 7, see also RSY Zevin's
L'Or Ha'Halacha p. 333 and the Bigdei Shesh BB he'oro 88.

> Huh? If there are halachic guidelines as to when we use the
> appellation "Hashem Yinkom Damo" it seems to me that they
> ought to cover this.
>
> -- Carl
>

Where do we find the guidelines?

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

<< The water WAS Hefker...but you can Acquire Hefker thru
 your utensils. >>

The shepards/daughters of Yisro drew the water using a public pail from a 
public well and put the water in a public trough.  Where is the kli?

<< 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.  >>

No.  Ratzon Hashem means G-d's expressed will.  If G-d had not expressed his 
desire as to what was the appropriate course of action how can you call it a 
violation of his ratzon?  

Punishment in this case is not due to a violation of G-d's will, but to a 
failure to realize a potential that could have been met.  Analogy: the A 
student who fufills the requirements of the course but who the teacher knows 
is capable of more.

In a message dated Sun, 2 Jan 2000  8:26:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.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?
> 
> It was after the State was declared. In the negotiations leading up to the
> disaster, Begin made it clear that he recognized the legitimacy of the
> official government. If, as certain members of the established government
> alleged, the Irgun was planning a putsch, in the middle of a war, they
> would certainly be rodfim (unless, of course, the putsch went so smoothly
> that the new regime could take over without missing a beat...).


What's worse, the infant state was desperate for guns and ammunition. While it's been quite some years since I was a tiron in Betar, I can still remember my mefaked remarking on how much more of aretz might have been in our hands in '48 had the Altalena been allowed to deliver her cargo. 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 20:23:18 -0500
> From: "S Klagsbrun" <S.Klagsbrun@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #238

<<I do not remember posting or seeing a posted request for you to take
any
action. >>

	I know that you lawyer folks would call this ex post facto,  but I will
quote in answer a post from Avodah 04/244 to answer your question of
04/242:

<<> 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.>>

This certainly sounds like a call to action.

To which I say,  and say again,  this cannot happen without some factual
information.  Nobody can lobby to, as you say,  fix the situation without
concrete knowledge that it is broken.

Gershon

> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 19:16:40 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Rav Dessler's Shita on Kollel

<<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? >>

	I think that it is important not to stress Torah learning to the
exclusion of all other pursuits when the child is of the age when "boys
will be boys".  If you do so,  and he is not ready for it  (very few boys
of that age are ready for it) you risk turning him off and against
learning,  maybe even worse.

	If his learning is up to par for his grade level i.e. he is doing well
in school,  and reviewing at home for a reasonable amount of time,  I
would allow sports or other recreational activities of a kosher/parve
nature.  His growing maturity,  combined with what he is taught in
yeshiva,  combined with what he sees at home (very important!) will lead
b'ezras Hashem to the right ends in the right time. And don'f forget the
Tehilim.

	I don't recall the source of the quote (it may have been Rav Pam) that
good children are 50% Shalom Bayis and 50% davening.

Gershon

In a message dated 1/2/00 9:42:48 PM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< If his learning is up to par for his grade level i.e. he is doing well
 in school,  and reviewing at home for a reasonable amount of time,  I
 would allow sports or other recreational activities of a kosher/parve
 nature.   >>

I hope that the kosher/parve sports include baseball, ice hockey, tennis, 
soccer, and basketball, not necessarily in that order. What would they not 
include?

David Finch

Dear Friends,
	Many have informed us that they would like to give a donation in
Yaakov's memory, and wondered whether we had a preference. Upon
consultation with his wife Shira, we have set up a special fund in
Yaakov's memory at Ezer MiZion's Oranit Hostel.
	A few words about Ezer MiZion and Oranit. Those who have been close to
cancer know that it is a living nightmare of operations, chemotherapy,
fever and pain, infection, nausea and vomiting, crisis, hopelessness and
depression, questions and doubts, and above all that constant fear….
	Several wonderful individuals and organizations came to Yaakov and
Shira's aid - but one stands out in particular: Ezer MiZion. They were
always there: supplying private ambulances for transportation to and
from the hospital, lodging at Ezer MiZion Hostel "Oranit" when returning
home was difficult or inconvenient, and above all friendship, assistance
and counselling when most needed. To help relieve the depression and sad
routine, Ezer MiZion arranges parties, concerts with leading singers,
trips and summer camps. These events help remove the patient and his
family from the constant preoccupation with the disease, and allow the
light of joy and normalcy to break through from time to time. 
	I have mentioned the Ezer MiZion Hostel "Oranit" - its importance to
the cancer patient and his family cannot be overemphasized. It serves as
a refuge and safe haven in time of need. A warm home away from home, one
short block from Schneider Children's Hospital, where Cancer patients
can find temporary lodging and where children with cancer find games,
toys, computers, books, TV and entertainment.
	Ezer MiZion and it's staff were always there for Yaakov and Shira and
their Twins Matan and Ariel when the need arose. Ezer MiZion deserves
our support and encouragement. Please consider becoming a partner in
their worthy and much valued endeavors.

	For those interested, kindly make your donations out to "Ezer MiZion",
and Mark the check (or add a note) to the effect that the funds should
be earmarked for the "Yaakov Frimer Fund at Oranit" (in Hebrew: "Keren
Yaakov Frimer be-Oranit"). Send you checks:

In Israel:
Ezer MiZion-Oranit
40 Rehov Kaplan 
Petach Tikva
(Mark the check: "Keren Yaakov Frimer be-Oranit")

In the USA:
Ezer MiZion
2772 Nostrand Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11210
(Mark the check: "Yaakov Frimer Fund at Oranit")

	Much Thanks in advance ve-Tizku le-Mitsvot.
		The Frimers (Cleveland and Rehovot)

> someplace, and the U.S. isn't a bad place to be.

Neither was Berlin in the '20s ans '30s.

> It's an especially good
> place to be a Jew, or at least to keep trying to be a Jew.

it's an even better place to assimilate. The idea of America as a melting
pot is a basis of American culture -- and the antithesis of Jewish culture.

> the year 2020? Any solution to the state of observant Judaism
> that excludes
> exposure to the outside world is doomed to failure.

Agreed.

>
> In other words, any form of religious compulsion that doesn't

Not allowing public shabbos violation *is not* the same as religious
compulsion. What people do in the privacy of their home is their business.

IOW, Protesting the public sale of cheeseburgers in downtown Yerusalayim is
*not* the same as telling people thay may not make a cheeseburger at home. I
have *never* heard of anyone in the charedi world here proposing the later.


Akiva




A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On 2 Jan 00, at 19:49, Russell J Hendel wrote:

Let us examine what
> Carl says about the Malbim which allows a person not granted a loan to
> pray
> 
> >>>>>>>>>
> 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 
> >>>>>>>>>>>

Let's finish what I said:

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.
******************************************************************************

> Fine...Now we have 2 clear issues. 

No, we have three. The third is that even if it may be permitted to 
daven for harm to befall someone else, davening in that manner 
may not be without consequence to the person doing the davening. 
I submit that it is not without consequence.

If I understand Carl correctly
> ----The Malbim/Sifrah says someone can pray(permissable)
> ----but it only applies to people who don't receive loans

or who have their salaries withheld

> ----it only applies to praying for the money to be given (not for death)

Correct.

> Carl further adds
> ----the fact that he may die afterwards (as per the sifray) 

The sifra never says this. See below.

is irrelevant
> to the permissability of him praying for death. 

Also correct. The decision that someone else deserves to die R"L 
is in the exclusive province of Hashem, and we have no right to 
pray for that.

> So if I understand Carl correctly the Sifray is
> ---allowing a person who does not receive a loan before shmitah to pray
> ---allowing that person only to pray for compensation.

Correct.

> ---The sifray informs us that the person might die as a result of the
> prayer to get the loan.

No, it does not. The Sifra tells us:

"Yachol mitzva likros? Talmud lomar 'v'lo yikro olecho.' Yochol im 
yikro alecha yihye b'cha chait v'im lo yikro alecha lo yiyhe b'cha 
chait? Talmud lomar v'haya b'cha chait [mikol makom. Im kein 
lama ne'emar v'kara alecha?] Memaher ani lifroa al yad koreh me'al 
yad she'aino koreh." 

The Malbim on the Sifra adds:

"umilashon v'haya b'cha chet *sheaino metzayen ha'onesh* 
[emphasis mine - C.S.] 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."

Where do either of them talk about death? Where do either of them 
talk about a heter for praying that the other person should die? 
Where do either of them talk about a heter to daven that your 
merits should be judged against those of the other person?

What form the onesh might take is an open question in the Sifra 
and in the Malbim, although one of the forms it might take is death 
to the person who did not give the loan R"L. It might also take the 
form of poverty or any other way that HKB"H decides is 
appropriate. Not for us to decide.

> Let us examine this. First of all, the Sifray/Malbim mixes the two cases
> of
> a) didn't receive a loan b) didn't receive his wages (as it learns from
> the two posookim there). So I think Carl would apply the right to pray
> (for restitution of money) to both the default on wages, didn't receive a
> loan.

Yes, one may pray for the restitution of money. Of course no one 
says where the source of that money might be. Not necessarily the 
person who didn't give it to you, although Hashem would know why 
you're praying for the restitution of money, and that's where the 
other person's punishment might come in.

> Carl does not like the way I generalized this. Fine. How would you (Carl
> or anyone else reading this generalize this). 

I wouldn't generalize it. You have no license to do so either. You 
cannot make up your own drashos. You are attempting to make a 
binyan av from the two cases specifically brought in the Medrash to 
all cases in which someone whom you deem to be a "miskein" is 
suffering. You provide no criteria for why one "miskein" is "worthy" 
of fitting into your category while another is not. And you provide no 
proof that the Medrash intended to include anyone else other than 
the people it specifically discussed. 

Furthermore, you are reading things into the Medrash with regard 
to the two cases that it DOES discuss that simply are not there. 
The Medrash never talked about death. The Medrash never talked 
about praying for someone else's death. And the Medrash never 
discussed praying that your merits should be judged against 
another person's.

And moreover, you are reading things into the Medrash in a manner 
which specifically goes against dvarim yeduim that Chazal said we 
are NOT allowed to do.

Is that the real contention
> between Carl and Me that I consider a woman whose brotherinlaw refused
> Chalitzah to be at least as anguished as a person who didn't receive his
> wages (And before Carl says on what basis, let him answer my
> question...does he DISAGREE with my assessment (even if I don't have an
> explicit source)

I don't know how we got from aguna to chalitza, but in any event, 
without a source, your contention is totally irrelevant. The Torah did 
not say that anyone who is anguished may cry out to Hashem on 
the person who brought them anguish. The Torah did not say that 
anyone who is at least as anguished as someone who had their 
wages withheld can cry out against the person who is oppressing 
them. The Torah said that these two specific people may cry out 
on the person (and not in the way you have argued) who brought 
them anguish. So whether or not a woman who is awaiting chalitza 
from her brother in law is "at least as anguished" as someone who 
did not receive wages (and I will concede that in some cases she 
may well be just as anguished) is irrelevant. Totally, completely 
and utterly irrelevant.

> NExt...Carl says the sifray is only giving permission to pray for
> restitution of money.!!
> 
> Really!! Do I need a sifray for that?? I could have done it anyway. 

Why do you say that? Maybe I'm obligated to be sameyach 
b'chelki. Maybe I'm obligated to say that Hashem will make that 
money up to me from another source. Maybe I would have 
otherwise thought that praying for the restitution of money shows a 
lack of bitachon in Hashem.

The
> sifray goes out of its way to PERMIT the person to pray. The Biblical
> language is PRAY ON someone. Now maybe that doesn't mean EXPLICITLY pray
> for death but can't Carl grant that e.g. the person who didn't get wages
> or a loan has a right to eg pray "Please judge between so and so and me
> for not giving me my wages". 

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! We are not permitted to ask Hashem to 
judge between us and anyone else. How do you know why the 
person refused you a loan? Maybe he refused you a loan because 
he is broke? Maybe he refused you a loan because he already lent 
out 50% of his income? Maybe he refused you a loan because he 
already more than fulfilled his obligation for tzedaka this year? 
Maybe he refused you a loan because he has expenses that you 
don't know about and that he needs every penny he has to meet? 
You have to be dan him l'chaf zchus (unless of course he is a 
rasha, in which case I don't understand why you would ask him for 
a loan in the first place). Can't you see that davening to be judged 
against a person who could be malei zchusim k'rimon is putting 
yourself in mortal danger? Can't you see that the person who didn't 
get the loan might even lose in the judgment?

Again I emphasis the language PRAY ON.

Pray on does NOT mean that you can seek to be judged against 
another person. It means that you can pray that he will lend you 
the money. It means that you can pray that you will find favor in his 
eyes so that he will lend you the money. It means that you can 
pray that someone else will lend you the money. But it does NOT 
mean that you can pray to have your merits judged against his - 
NO! NO! NO!

> To recap...I think these two issues are sufficient for now
> ----are we simply to say that this only applies to no loan and no wages
> but somehow a woman who can't get her chalitzah is inferior? 

Whether or not she is inferior is irrelevant. That passuk does not 
include her.

Do we need
> sources as Carl suggests?

Yes. We cannot make up Halacha as we see fit.

> ---Is it feasable that the Sifray permits praying for money when that was
> permissable to begin with? 

It wasn't necessarily permissible to begin with.

Doesn't the phrase PRAY ON mean something

Yes, but it most definitely does NOT mean what you said it means.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

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


[ 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         ]