Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 364

Monday, February 14 2000

• technical correction
• Re: Why does loshon ha'kodesh have final letters?
• Re: Posthumous letters
• Re: Posthumous letters
• Re: science and halakha
• Re: Why does loshon ha'kodesh have final letters?
• Re: halacha lemoshe misinai
• What moral qualms?
• Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• diyukim
• Re: SE
• Shittuf
• Forthcoming Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest Regional Conference in Chicago
• Shittuf
• Re: diyukim
• Re: Forthcoming Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest Regional Conference in Chicago
• The Nature of Chesed]
• Re: The Nature of Chesed]
• Re: What moral qualms?
• Re[3]: FW: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (

The story about the argument that occurred at the burial of the Sereidai
Eish is unfortunately true .  However one detail that I mentioned is
inaccurate.  The burial took place in 1996 and Har Hazeitim was still in
Jordanian control.
Sincerely,
Yosef Blau
P.S. I thank Carl Scherrer from bringing this to my attention

The gemara in Shabbat 104a states that: "MANTZAPACH [final: mem, nun,
tzadi, peh, kaf] tzofim amrum" (were instituted by the neviim).

Josh

In a message dated 2/12/00 11:23:44 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< I looked again at the letters over Shabbos. They are, in reality, worse 
than
 I had remembered, out of context and selectively excerpted. They are,
 without doubt, gnai gammur.
  >>

What if all the letters were assembled chronologically and made available to 
scholars in their original form?

David Finch

Good question.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <DFinchPC@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: Posthumous letters


> What if all the letters were assembled chronologically and made available
to
> scholars in their original form?
>
> David Finch
>

In a message dated 2/11/00 12:03:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
DGLASNER@SIRIUS.FTC.GOV writes:

> 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. 

My point was that even within the 8 Treifois Drusoh is Mfurosh in the Possuk, 
what the Nafko Mina is Lhalacha see Klei Nosim begining of Hil. Treifois.

>  <<<
>  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:

For many of the opinions see Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech Treifoh (odom) 
(also Baalei Chaim), the Halachic ramifications of Treifa by man is not 
limited to Retzicha (see ET ibid, there is also Nafkoh Mina Linyan Aguna and 
the Sugia in Yevomos of a Mgu'yad etc. and see Shut from Baal Hatanyoh 
printed at the end of his S"A page 911 D"H V'ulom).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/12/00 10:59:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
aviva613@hotmail.com writes:

> Why does loshon ha'kodesh have final letters?

The Talmud in Shabbos 104  explains the meaning of the final Mem (open and 
closed, things that one is permitted or prohibited to discuss publicly) Nun 
(a person should be humble and bent line a plain nun his reward will be that 
he will stand tall and straight Losid Lovoi - in the end) Peh (open and 
closed mouth) Tzadik (the same as Nun but a greater amount of humbleness), 
there are also Kabbalistic reasons brought in different places.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/12/00 3:07:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

> > 
>  > > two types of halachah leMoshe misinai. 
>  > 
>  > See Tosfos Yom Tov end of Eduyois, and his refrences (There is much 
> written 
>  > on this subject).
>  > 
>  Can you please give some more references.

See Encyclopedia Taalmudis, also Sdei Chemed Kllolim Hei 32, 35, (WRT Amon 
Umoiov the Rambam in his Hakdama to Pirush Hamishnayois counts it amongst the 
HLL"M the Radvaz has beautiful Pshat on this), also see Toras Nvi'im from the 
MaHaRaTZ Chayus Perek 4 Mamar Torh Sheb'al Peh (and many other places in his 
Seforim).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> Third, R. Weinberg's moral qualms regarding certain halakhot were
> expressed in other forums as well, as I recall, including published
> articles.  I believe this was documented in the following issue of the
> TuM Journal.

In writings published earlier in his lifetime, R. Weinberg states or
implies
1) that he approves of the Meiri's general view;
2) that relying totally on Meiri's view as the basis of our hashkafa is
apologetic, so that in the final analysis we simply recognize that halakha
is not identical with enlightened opinion (just as in the time of Tanakh,
the prophetic vision of universal peace was out of line with the
enlightened opinion of that age). After all is said and done, and with all
due respect to enlightened opinion, there will always be something in
Torah that stands apart from it.
3) (I'm pretty sure that he discusses Rabbenu Tam's view on yehareg ve-al
yaavor for biat akum without editorial comment.)

In the newly published letters he says that he can understand why non-Jews
would resent certain positions in halakhic literature, such as the
aforementioned Rabbenu Tam.

I don't see the inconsistency in any of this.

"Christianity" is a term which encompasses many different religions, held
together by the fact that they treat one particular individual, who lived
about 2000 years ago, as very special. But they vary quite widely in the
exact beliefs they have about that person, and in many other aspects of
their beliefs and practices. If a person is going categorize a religons
as being Avodah Zara or not, then he must take those differences into
account.

I suspect that in the post below, the word "Christianity" should be
corrected to read "Roman Catholocism", or perhaps some other variety of
Christianity. This can be proven by the first paragraph, which contrasts
Christianity with Unitarianism, which is illogical, because Unitarianism
is one of the many subsets of Christianity.

Singling out Unitarianism *is* appropriate, as I understand it to be
perhaps the most monotheistic of the many forms of Christianity, as its
name would suggest. The many other forms, however, run the gamut of
variations, differing from each other in many subtle ways, and I think
that it would be wrong to paint them all with the same brush, to say that
they *all* cross the line to be unacceptably polytheistic.

If someone is faced with a shaalah on a halacha l'maaseh, and wishes to
use the below-cited Shoalin Vedorshin as a source, then he should
investigate the degree of shituf in the religion in question. But
otherwise, there's very little practical value in spending the time to
determine which religions fall on which side of the line; just because
Avraham Avinu's Maseches Avodah Zara had 400(?) perakim doesn't mean that
*we* need to study them that deeply! Suffice it to name Catholicism as
one of the most clearly polytheistic, and leave it at that.

Akiva Miller

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:51:23 -0500
> From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
> Subject: Re: gezel akum
>
> 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 highly problematic, 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
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

________________________________________________________________
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.

Does anyone have other diyukim in davening similar to the recent "onim
ve'omrim" issue?

Gershon

RCS wrote (Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:45; <sherer@actcom.co.il>; Volume 04 :
Number 363)

<<If it's heh heh, that usually means, "HaChaver HaNichbad" here, 
 and it's not much of an honorific (it's very commonly used and 
 nowhere near the honorific that HaRav HaGaon would be).>>

R. Carl was kind enough to send me his he'arah, so I will post the
response I sent him.  

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.  The Heh-Ches-Heh-Shin came after
HaRav HaGaon
 (HRH"G).  It clearly said HaRav HaGaon, I just wasn't sure what the
HCH"S following it was.

 There is absolutely no question, though, that the SE uses equally
effusive, friendly and praiseworthy salutations for the Roshei Yeshiva
as he does for the scholars (R's Lieberman, Chavel, Urbach, Atlas...). 
I don't know what this implies (if anything regarding his
"allegiances").  I don't think we can so simply (simplistically) box him
into a category.

 Sincerely, 
 David Eisenman

RRW ( richard_wolpoe@ibi.com) asked (Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:12; Avodah V4
#363)

<<(Regarding shittuf shem shamayim im davar acher for a goy, if I
understand the question correctly) I've heard of this, where is this
cited?>>

It is not so pashut (lest that come as a surprise).  Here are some
mekoros:

1. Tosafos Sanhedrin 23b, d"h Assur (Rosh, sham)
2.  Tosafos Bechoros 2b, d"h Shema
3.  Sefer HaYashar (R. Tam) Siman 523 (Tuf-kuf-chaf-gimel) [these first
three are to try to clarify Rabbeinu Tam's position]
4.  Remah, Orach Chayim 156 (kuf-nun-vav), and commentators sham.
5.  Shu"t Nodah BiYehuda, M"T, Chelek Y"D, Siman 148 (kuf-mem-ches).

I hope this is what you were looking for.

BTW, the notion that- from a Jewish perspective- it is a good thing for
a Christian to worship k'darcho with shittuf, was a fundamental element
of Franz Rosenzweig's Jewish philosophy in the Star of Redemption (the
so-called "dual covenant").  You won't find too many halachic sources in
his shita, though.

Sincerely,
David Eisenman

All Chavrei Avodah/Aishdas are cordially invited to attend a special Shalosh
Seudos with List Moderator R' Micha Berger, to take place this coming
Shabbos, Parashas Tetzaveh, at Cong. Bais Tefila (3555 West Peterson Ave. -
Peterson and Central Park) in Chicago. Mincha is at 4:45 p.m., Shalosh
Se'udos follows a short Mesillas Yeshorim shiur immediately after Mincha.
Shalosh Seudos will IY"H be sponsored by Avodah Chaver R' Shaul Weinreb. For
more information, and if you feel the need to make (unnecessary)
reservations, please contact me.

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

I wrote <<Tosafos Sanhedrin 23b, d"h Assur (Rosh, sham)>>

Sorry about the citation error.  The Tosafos in Sanhedrin is 63b
(samech-gimel), not 23b.  I misread my own handwriting.

Sincerely,
David Eisenman

On 13 Feb 00, at 16:43, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> Does anyone have other diyukim in davening similar to the recent "onim
> ve'omrim" issue?

Well, there's always the machlokes in where "v'ishei Yisrael" in 
"R'tzai" goes.... (Does it go with "lidvir beisecha" or with 
"u'sfilasam")? IIRC, RYBS felt very strongly that it goes with "lidvir 
beisecha." 

-- 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 13 Feb 00, at 19:41, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:

> All Chavrei Avodah/Aishdas are cordially invited to attend a special Shalosh
> Seudos with List Moderator R' Micha Berger, to take place this coming
> Shabbos, Parashas Tetzaveh, at Cong. Bais Tefila (3555 West Peterson Ave. -
> Peterson and Central Park) in Chicago. Mincha is at 4:45 p.m., Shalosh
> Se'udos follows a short Mesillas Yeshorim shiur immediately after Mincha.
> Shalosh Seudos will IY"H be sponsored by Avodah Chaver R' Shaul Weinreb. For
> more information, and if you feel the need to make (unnecessary)
> reservations, please contact me.

Anyone sending (plane) tickets? :-) 

-- 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

What exactly is chesed?
I had always thought that if one does more than the Torah requires, vis
a vis ben adam
l'chavero, then that is chesed.  Kind of a chumra to be extra nice to
other people.
However, it has been argued that doing acts of chesed is a Torah
obligation.  A strong
support for this view is the mishnah which we say each morning, "These
are the things
which have no set amount...acts of chesed..."  The implication is that
there is an
obligation, but no set amount.
If this latter view is correct, then what should we call what I
[mistakenly?] call chesed?


Moshe Nugiel

On 14 Feb 00, at 10:08, Moshe and davida Nugiel wrote:

> What exactly is chesed?
> I had always thought that if one does more than the Torah requires, vis
> a vis ben adam
> l'chavero, then that is chesed.  Kind of a chumra to be extra nice to
> other people.
> However, it has been argued that doing acts of chesed is a Torah
> obligation.  A strong
> support for this view is the mishnah which we say each morning, "These
> are the things
> which have no set amount...acts of chesed..."  The implication is that
> there is an
> obligation, but no set amount.
> If this latter view is correct, then what should we call what I
> [mistakenly?] call chesed?

I would define chesed as being anything we do for another without 
any expectation of payment in return. 

In this regard, kvuras ha'meis R"L is referred to as chesed shel 
emes, because it is a type of chesed in which it is unquestioned 
that we will NOT receive anything in return for that chesed from the 
meis.

-- 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.

On 13 Feb 00, at 16:30, Shalom Carmy wrote:

> 2) that relying totally on Meiri's view as the basis of our hashkafa is
> apologetic, so that in the final analysis we simply recognize that halakha
> is not identical with enlightened opinion (just as in the time of Tanakh,
> the prophetic vision of universal peace was out of line with the
> enlightened opinion of that age). After all is said and done, and with all
> due respect to enlightened opinion, there will always be something in
> Torah that stands apart from it.

How are you (or the SE) defining "enlightened opinion?"

-- 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.

Perhaps I was being critical of the critics? <smile>

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: FW: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/11/2000 2:01 PM


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. 

<smile>
Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]