Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 362

Friday, February 11 2000

• the SE and TuM - complexity
• Re: Kumatz Cuff Lamed vs.Cuff Cholom Lamed
• Re: "onu v'o'm'ru" in TaNaCh
• Re: Nissan and Vernal Equinox
• Re: Kumatz Cuff Lamed vs.Cuff Cholom Lamed
• Haaretz article
• Re: the SE and TuM - complexity
• Re: science and halakha
• Re: science and halakhah
• Austritt
• Re: gezel akum
• gezel akum - Shituf
• posthumous letters
• Re[2]: FW: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (
• Rov and chazaka
• Re: posthumous letters
• Seridai Eish
• Re: Austritt
• v'anu v'amru
• Re: SE and Other Gedolim

Let me share 2 shmuessen quoted to me by RSY Weinberg (NOT SE)

in one he said, anyone who is shomeir mitzvos bizman hazeh (circa 197) is a ben 
olam habo

in another he stated, I can't imagine anyone today getting olam habo!

What gives?  did he change his mind?

To me it's a matter of context, akin to Tomim hoyo bedorosov - yeish dorshin 
lishvach...

In the 1960's there was a low level of  kedushah.  R SY Weinberg was saying 
anyone who can overcome such gashmiyus nad pretizus and YH he surely must be 
deserving of great schar.

OTOH, anyone dwellling during the 1960's was probably not abel to come close to 
the level of observance and emuno that one had say in Radun circa 1930.  That 
our level of Torah and kedusho is SO LOW, it is hard to believe we are worthy of
consideration.

IOW, it's not a conflict, it's lookign at the same phnomenum from 2 angles and 
in 2 contexts and 2 speeches there is an pparaent contradiction.

This is - imho- the nature of comples individuals.  to re-examine the same 
scenario from totally different POV's.   Both R. Weinbergs no doubt were highly 
creative and highly imaginative and saw things differently from time to time.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibic.om



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: the SE and TuM 


BTW, I just bought the new version of the Shut SE (I did not own one till 
now). I note with dismay that his essays on historical figures, mussar, 
etc., are no longer there. Is this, too, revisionism?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

In Avodah 4#360, GFrenkel asked:
> Does anyone know what the difference is between Kumatz Cuff Lamed and
Cuff Cholom Lamed? <
There are a number of  nouns ("chodesh" and "kodesh" come to mind) with
komatz-koton forms (e.g. "chodshai hashanah", "kodoshim").  In your case,
the former is a form of the latter; in TaNaCh, the latter will always have
a ta'am and the former always will not (in that way, these two words are
similar to "es" and "ais" [both aleph-tav]).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah 4#360, MBerger posted:
> I can understand wanting to group "anu vi'amru" since that's a common
idiom in Tanach. However, I can't see how to translate the lines in
question that way. <
Side point: let's not get back into the "p'shat is not translation" thread
:-).
> I'd appreciate R' M Poppers explaining whether he means that we should
break with indicating grammar in our phrasing in order to make the
reference. Or, is it that the fact that chazal probably lifted the quote to
coin the nusach imply that they meant the phrase as a phrase, and I
misunderstood what they intended the sentence to say. <
Far more the latter than the former, yes.  I like Baer's approach of
examining all the available manuscripts in order to determine what the
variant nus'cha'os were getting at...and the result may mean an awkward
flow of translation to our ears.
> I couldn't translate either quote (Shacharis, Yotzeir Or, given the
nusach that says the noun "kedushah" after "besafah berurah uvin'imah"; and
Ma'ariv, Ge'ulah, "ze Keili amru viamru") if I assumed "anu vi'amru" is a
single idiom. <
"Couldn't translate" or "would have a hard time translating"?  I don't
think I've painted myself into the corner from which you would have me
extricate myself, and, WADR, I don't believe you're really incapable of
translating these cases once we leave the "idiom" out.  Please keep in mind
that "onu v'omru" in TaNaCH itself has no one translation -- just for
kicks, examine RavSRH on the D'vorim references -- so feel free to
translate that phrase in any of many possible ways; translation of the
remaining words is left as an exercise to the reader (and I'll be happy to
aid you in private if you *really* have trouble :-).

All the best (including wishes for a great Shabbos!) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 2/11/00 11:06:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> There is a machlokes whether that month needs to start AFTER spring, or 
just 
>  have Spring start within the month.
>  

This issue was discussed awhile back here on Avoda.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:45:28AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: this is a funciton of "semichus/semichut"

Sounds like es vs eis. Segol is to tzeirei as kamatz-katan is to cholam.

: w/ cholom it is "ALL"
: w/o cholom it is "ALL OF"

I wonder if our inability to distinguish between es and eis is because
English doesn't have a word for either. But otherwise, the same "of" would
be implied by "eis".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Feb-00: Chamishi, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

see today a fascxinating article in the Magazine section  ''if you wrong
us''   that entails the halachic wars between ashkenazim and sfardim ---
how different hilchot kashrut  and  taharat  hamishpacha  lend  to vast
separation in the chareidi communities.  Will we need separate hashgachot in
the beit hamikdash too?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 11:14:25AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: In the 1960's there was a low level of  kedushah.  R SY Weinberg was saying 
: anyone who can overcome such gashmiyus nad pretizus and YH he surely must be 
: deserving of great schar.

C.f. Rashi on "Noach ish tzadik tamim hayah *bidorosav*".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Feb-00: Chamishi, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:

<<<
> There is the treifa explicitly mentioned in the Torah 
>  "basar b'sadeh treifah" for the consumption of which one would be 
>  punished by the lash.  To qualify for this prohibition, the animal must be 
>  nat'ta la-mut mahmat makoteha, which means that it could not survive 
>  more than 24 hours.  

According to the wording in Sefer Hamitzvohs the only Treifa for Malkus is 
Drusah (there is discussion on this in the Ragitchover).
>>>

I don't understand this at all.  There is a chumrah of drusah, which is more
similar to basar b'sadeh treifah than the other treifot enumerated as
halakhot l'moshe mi-sinai, but there can be no makot unless the animal
is nat'tah lamut mahmat makoteha (to the exclusion of mesukenet).  Safek
d'rsuah is l'humrah whereas a safek in the others would be l'kulah.

<<<
WRT Treifos of human the Gemara (Reish Eilu Treifois), and Poskim discuss 
whether Treifos for human and animal are the same, there are poskim who say 
that human D'is Lei Mazla can be cured from conditions that by animals would 
be fatal.
>>>

Well this is what the Dor Revi'i had to say about that:

And many make themselves foolish (harbeh mit'tapshim) to say that adam d'it 
leih mazla is different.  And this is a complete mistake (ta'ut gamur).  Are we 
supposed to kill our brother [who killed a treifa] because maybe the mazal of the 
victim would have caused him not to die?  Furthermore, if that is the case,
what does an evaluation by the doctors that the deceased could not have
lived accomplsh?  Maybe because of his mazal, the victim would have 
survived.  We should therefore kill the one who killed him?  But it is as clear as
the sun that concerning a murderer that halakhah of the 18 treifot doesn't
add or detract, not to make more stringent or to make more lenient.  (Dor Revi'i,
p'tiha 22b)

He goes on to say

A wise person will easily see that it is impossible that fixed rules about all types
of living things, young and old, strong and weak, cannot be built on medical
science, becasue wisdom and clear thought (seikhel ha-bari) contradict this. 
For there is no comparison between one injury and another, and between one
injured and another, and one species and another that they should all be 
alike unless we go the farthest extreme to say that no animal can be cured of 
a missing heart or liver.  But this halakhah [of the 18 treifot] perforce did not 
come to permit what would have been forbidden by the evaluation of the 
physicians, but to forbid by these rules what would have been allowed by 
an evaluation in a particular case.  As our eyes seen that a small hole in 
almost any of the inner organs causes the animal to be forbidden, as does
a break in one of the bones of the outer limbs, which are conditions that 
are cured every day both in humans and in other animals.  (Id.)

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Micha Berger wrote:

<<<
:                      The treifot that are subsumed under the heading 
: of halakhot l'moshe mi-sinai are not derived from the verse in the Torah 

By definition, no?
>>>

I agree, but I am suspicious of any conclusion derived from a definition.

<<<
: These treifot therefore constitute a chumra over and above the explicit 
: Biblical law of treifa.  As chumrot, it is irrelevant whether in any specific
: case, the particular treifa would in fact have resulted in death within a
: 12 month period.

I have another language quibble, as you seem to imply that the halachah l'Moshe
miSinai (HlMmS) post-dated the issur in the pasuk.
>>>

Logically anterior to, not temporally subsequent to.

<<<
I would like to rephrase your statement in a way that also avoids the question
of the presence in machlokes in this HlMmS.

An animal that is about to die is a treifa. (This eliminates my "homonymity"
idea.) 
>>>

Not quite.  It must be because of some sort of injury or bodily defect.
As opposed to m'sukenet which is nat'ta lamut, but technically 
permissible to eat if slaughtered.


<<<
However, it is HlMmS that in cases where we can only ask treifa haya
o eina haya we rely on rules (chazkos?) and presume yes only if it has one
of a known list of conditions -- and not on medical knowledge and rov.

This eliminates the "homonymity" idea.

The substance of the rules may not have been in the HlMmS. While this sounds
strange, I don't think it's any odder than shevisa on chol hamo'ed being
d'Oraisa, but the definition of what not to do is diRabbanan.
>>>

The HlMmS is needed because there is a verse that commands us to
eat a haya.  This creates an issur aseh not to eat a treifa.  If it were not
for the HlMmS, we would have relied, as in the case of a murder on
imud ha-rofim to determine what is haya and what is not haya.  The
HlMmS substitutes fixed categories for imud ha-rofim, which is 
generally a chumra, because imud ha-rofim would not determine that
all the technical treifot of the HlMmS would result in the death of the
animal.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

If I remember correctly, when the Aguda was founded, the German side (I
think one of the leaders was R' Shlomo Breuer) insisted that its charter
contain a clause limiting membership to those who were part of
separatist communities, and excluding the "Gemeinde Orthodox."  They
were opposed on this by Eastern European Gedolim (including Rav Chaim
Brisker, I believe), and the Austritt clause was never adopted.  In his
book, Marc Shapiro tries to explain why Austritt was not so much a
priority to the Eastern Europeans.
By the way, Shapiro also tells about a Rav Landau, whose point of view
the SE agreed with.  Rav Landau told a rabbinic convention in Warsaw, in
1902, that they had to establish formal schooling for girls, but they
didn't act on this.

Daniel Schiffman

I don't have immediate access to the Noda-bi-hudah. But is it not
possible that there is a distinction between whether Christianity which,
unlike, say Islam or Unitarianism, (and l'phi shitas Agudas Harobinim
d'America, Conservative Judaism), involves a forbidden belief in shituf
which makes it avodah zarah from the standpoint of Jews but not
necessarily from the standpoint of gentiles who may not be commanded not
to believe in shituf.Is this the basis of the Meiri's position that
Chrisitanity is not Avodah
Zara? And by the way if the Rama holds that Christianity is not Avodah
Zara,how can the Meiri's position be characterized as a da'at yahid?

In Shoalin vedorshin (from Rav Unna, the rav (Gemeinde) of Mannheim
before the war, he deals with the following she'ela:  A small
community's church burnt down, there was a collection from the entire
town to rebuild it, and the Jews asked whether they were allowed to help
rebuild it.  If not, there was a problem of eyvah.  He is mattir for
several reasons.  Among them the following:

As the problem with Christianity is shittuf, and shittuf is muttar to a
ben noach (rama), the Christian is not over any lav by worshipping, so
we have no issur in helping him worship, even though that worship is
assur to us.

By the way, the characterization of the Meiri's position by some as a
da'at yachid, whose adoption involves an attack on the torah, is itself
highlyproblematic, as Rav Henkin and the SE both accepted it.  Is there
any comparable gadol of their or a later generation who explicitly
rejected it?

Meir Shinnar

I've heard of this, where is this cited?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: gezel akum 
<snip>

As the problem with Christianity is shittuf, and shittuf is muttar to a 
ben noach (rama), the Christian is not over any lav by worshipping, so 
we have no issur in helping him worship, even though that worship is 
assur to us.

<snip>
Meir Shinnar

Ra v Bechhofer has now apparently agreed
1) Letters of deceased rabbanim may be examined for hiddushe torah
2) The hiddushe torah may be published unless there is an explicit hava
amina that he would have objected.
3)  The problem with the letters of the SE published in Torah uMadda is
that they involve personal rather than halachic matters.

I remain confused.

1), I think that CDRG would prohibit my publishing a hiddush torah that
Rav Bechhofer sends me by private mail without his consent, and for sure
prevent a neighbor from even examining this hiddush without our mutual
consent.  Yet, this issur disappears after death.  Therefore, herem
derabbenu Gershom seems to disappear after death.  After all, why does
the umdana only apply after death? Therefore, what is the source of the
issur for the other letters??

2) The distinction between hiddushe torah and personal behavior is not
clear, as we learn from the action of gdolim (sichat hulin of avot
greater than halachot, and the ma'asiyot in the gemara about hiding to
learn behavior (torah hi, velilmod ani tzarich.  I think that the doubts
and problems expressed by the SE are also torah, even if it is
uncomfortable torah.

3) It seems that this issur of posthumous publication has been violated
many times (letters of the CI, Chaim ozer, Iggerot bet levy, etc).  Even
Rav Weingort, the talmid muvhak of the SE, published in his sefer
hiddushe haseride esh, letters, many of which deal with personal
matters.  I think that there have been letters of the Rambam to his
brother which have been recently published from the Cairo geniza,
without any noticeable outcry.  Indeed, these letters from the Seride
Esh are the first time that I have seen anyone suggest an issur.
Why the vituperation against torah umadda? perhaps, Torah umadda is not
the only one with an agenda.

4) RYGB has argued that the hiddushe torah mentioned in the letters are
assur to use.  However, he now agrees that the hiddushe torah in the
letters could have been published, albeit separately.  As  publication
of the hiddushe torah themselves would not violate any issur, what is
the issur of using them??  If, say,  someone would publish a tshuva of
the hatam Sofer in a volume of academic Judaica with some articles of
real  kfira, would I not be allowed to use it? (the fact that i can
suspect its reliability is a different issue.

Meir Shinnar

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote: <<< EG, we were taught at Belz school some proper
phrasing and diction etc. but we are also told, let's face it Yossele
Rosenblatts' Yaaleh tachnanunei-nu-nu-nu would not work mi'leil. <smile>
After all, if you can't exercise poetic license when reciting poetry, when
can you? >>>

I am glad this was said with a <smile>, and I hope that it was intended to
be critical of such singing, rather than supportive of it. I clearly
remember studying and writing poetry in elementary school, and we learned
that one of the main features of poetry is the rhythmic beat of the accented
syllables. Remember "iambic pentameter" and all that? We were marked wrong
if the accent of the word did not match the accent of the peom.

Think of any English song you like, and note how in all the multi-syllable
words, the normal accent of the word matches the beat of the music
precisely. In the rare case where it does not, the song sounds very wrong
and off-beat. Personally, I find that it even makes it difficult to figure
out the lyric. Yes, I'll admit that even good songwriters employ this poetic
license occasionally, but they do it far more sparingly than your typical
chazan.

Compare that to what happens when we put Shir Hamaalos or Musaf Kedushah to
the current chart-breaking tune. The hamon am loves it, but it breaks the
ears of anyone who knows how to speak Lashon Hakodesh properly. Aargh!
Often, these errors are so very easy to fix, but the public writes us off as
dikduk nerds for even trying. Here's a simple example:

Shabbos morning, returning the Sefer Torah to the Aron, we sing "Havu
lad*noy, b'nei eilim..." and the shul puts the accents like this: "*HA*-vu
la-*D0*-n0y ...". But that's not G-d's name! The accent should be on the
"NOY". And this is very easily accomplished simply by starting the song just
one beat before the music. Start the music on the "VU", and everything will
work out almost perfectly.

PS: Another pet peeve of mine is in Kaddish. Mishna Brurah 59 points out
that "b'alma di vra chirusay" should have a pause after it, because it is
connected to the previous phrase, not to what follows. Try it, you'll see.
Or look in any translation.

[[[ Personal note to Star Trek fans out there: Remember when Dr Pulaski
spoke to Data, and pronounced his name as "Dah-ta"? He corrected her, that
it is pronounced "Day-ta". She asked "What's the difference?" and he
answered, "One is my name, and the other is not." ]]]

and a good shabBOS to all!

Akiva Miller

[response to Micha's post, which I accidentally deleted. Sorry.]

Please cite sources according to which halacha is binary oser/muter. I find 
this difficult to believe. For one thing, the SA is full of halachic 
qualifications like "mitsve min hamuvkhar" or that something is mutar, but 
one would not receive a skhar for it (e.g., work on Purim). For another, 
what's mutar in one place can be assur in another. To distinguish between 
them is the job of the posek, right?

Also, I think it's a mistake to characterize rov as a quantum state merely 
because it's sort of an "in-between." Quantum states are precisely as 
well-specified as macroscopic states are, it's just that we are doomed 
(probabilistically speaking) to average everything out via observation to 
fractional states. Rov is different: the observation IS a fractional 
(proportional) one -- it's not our probabilistic measurements that make it 
that way.

Gut-shabes
Sholem Berger
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

So many distortions of my position in one e-mail!

----- Original Message -----
From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:21 PM
Subject: posthumous letters


> Ra v Bechhofer has now apparently agreed
> 1) Letters of deceased rabbanim may be examined for hiddushe torah

No, they may not.

> 2) The hiddushe torah may be published unless there is an explicit hava
> amina that he would have objected.

Not necessarily.

> 3)  The problem with the letters of the SE published in Torah uMadda is
> that they involve personal rather than halachic matters.
>

No. The problem is that they contain very negative and critical comments
that the SE would undoubtedly not wanted published.

> I remain confused.
>

I hope I have clarified matters.

> 3) It seems that this issur of posthumous publication has been violated
> many times (letters of the CI, Chaim ozer, Iggerot bet levy, etc).  Even
> Rav Weingort, the talmid muvhak of the SE, published in his sefer
> hiddushe haseride esh, letters, many of which deal with personal
> matters.  I think that there have been letters of the Rambam to his
> brother which have been recently published from the Cairo geniza,
> without any noticeable outcry.  Indeed, these letters from the Seride
> Esh are the first time that I have seen anyone suggest an issur.
> Why the vituperation against torah umadda? perhaps, Torah umadda is not
> the only one with an agenda.
>

Stam Lashon Ha'Ra! Have you asked the publishers that you know there was no
permission?

Be that as it may, I have noted that those are a different type of letters.
There is no comparison.

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

The debate about the Seridai Eish Z.T.L. echoes the dispute after his
petira about where he should be buried.  I lived in Brookline at the
time and came to the home of Rav Soloveitchik Z.T.L. to attend a shiur.
He was visibly upset and explained that he had just heard about the lack
of kavod hames shown for the Sereidai Eish as a struggle had taken place
over whether to bury him on Har Hazeisim or Har Menuchos.  The choice of
location of burial place was somehow going to establish to which group
he truly belonged.
Clearly Rav Weinberg was not easily characterized.  Gedolim often are
not reducible to followers of one camp.
Sincerely,
Yosef Blau

In a message dated 2/11/00 12:35:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
das54@columbia.edu writes:

<< If I remember correctly, when the Aguda was founded, the German side (I
 think one of the leaders was R' Shlomo Breuer) insisted that its charter
 contain a clause limiting membership to those who were part of
 separatist communities, and excluding the "Gemeinde Orthodox."  >>

Whats Gemeinde Orthodox?

Jordan Hirsch

Why can't the words be understood as follows?
"Zeh keli," anu v'umru, "Hashem yimloch . . ."
Lest this be interpreted as applying an English construction to l'shon
hakodesh, we find such a construction in the Talmud: "Lech  lech,"
amrinan linzira, "l'karma lo sikrav."  Indeed, it is found in
Tanach:"Va'ani zos brisi . . . mipicha umipi zaracha," amar Hashem,
"me'ata v'ad olam."

Likewise (albeit without examples), we can combine the "onim v'omrim" of
k'dushas yotzer by understanding it to mean "(this) k'dusha they all onim
v'omrim simultaneously with trembling: kadosh. ." 

Parenthetically, on the question of whether to say "bin'ima; k'dusha
kulam" or "bin'ima k'dosha," Rashi on the posuk in Y'shayahu clearly says
the former.

Elazar M. Teitz
________________________________________________________________
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.

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> n a message dated 2/10/00 6:18:44 PM US Central
> Standard Time, 
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> 
> << OK, which of you is commissioning the essay and
> how much are you paying? 
> I'm
>  game. >>
> 
> I'll commission it. I won't pay anything, but RYGB
> should write it anyhow.
> 
> First, he's eminently qualified to do it. Second,
> he's a superb prose 
> stylist. Third, his insights on the issues relevant
> to the SE would be 
> wonderful to read. 
> 
> Finally, RYGB can use the essay to overcome his
> biggest problem. During the 
> past couple of hundred years, the greatest of the
> great Gedolim have 
> frequently been popularly renamed after the titles
> of the written works by 
> which they first established or cemented their
> reputations, right? That means 
> that unless RYGB comes up with something new -- like
> an important essay on 
> the SE, for example -- RYGB will be known in the
> centuries to come as the 
> "Contemporary Eruv." This appelation is neither
> fitting nor entirely 
> flattering. If he chooses the title of his essay on
> the SE very carefully, 
> RYGB can reserve for himself a much more appropriate
> name.

RYGB already has such an appelation... He's "The
Bigdei Shesh." (based on his sefer on Bava Basra of
the same name)

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.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         ]