Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 475

Saturday, April 1 2000

• Re: Pot Roast
• Re: aniyei ircha
• Mitzvas Matzah and Korech
• Re: Dor Rivii
• Shimshon, TV and the Drug Dealers
• Fw: Matzas Mitzva & Simcha
• Re: Shimshon, TV and the Drug Dealers
• Re: nevuah
• Re: aniyei ircha
• 13 Iranian Jews
• [none]
• Re: aniyei ircha
• Re: Rav Herszog

In a message dated 3/31/00 1:59:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, sambo@charm.net 
writes:

> What does the SA"H say?
>  
In 476 discussing eating roast meat on Leil Pessach for those who have custom 
not to use roast at all even chicken, he discusses pot roast and he says that 
if it is roasted without adding any water or other liquids, rather it is 
roasted in the gravy that comes out of itself, it should not be used doe to 
Ma'aris Hoayin, (even if it was first cooked with water and then pot roasted).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

GStudent wrote:
>> Aniyei ircha KODMIN.  You don't ignore, you PRIORITIZE your own family,
community, and nation. <<
and, in Avodah 4#474, DGlasner replied:
> You are suggesting that there is an absolute lexical ordering of
priorities.  In other words, until we absolutely discharge a higher
priority to the nth degree, we may not devote any resources or effort to a
lower level priority. <
If I may interject tuppence, David: there is a difference between
one thing being "kodem" to another and between
one being "ikar" and the other "tafel."  "Derech eretz kodmah
laTorah" doesn't mean that DE is more important -- it means
that DE is a prerequisite -- while the reverse applies to "Torah im
derech eretz."  If you accept this analysis re "kodem," please
apply it to "aniyai i'r'cha ko'd'min"....

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

>> I would have thought (speaking theoretically now) that it would be okay to
>> count the matzah and marror of koreich toward the shiurim for motzi-matzah
>> and marror -- iff you finish koreich within kidei achilas piras of
>starting
>> matzah.
>>
>> After all, those who disagree with Hillel hold that pesach matzah and
>marror
>> can be eaten separately -- not that they MUST be.
>>
>> OTOH, you need a complete shiur for koreich in order to do the zeicher
>> limikdash keHillel. So why can't you just have a little bit more for the
>> earlier steps. (Again, subject to time constraints. OTOH, how long does
>> it take to eat that little bit?)
>>
>> Any flaws before I run off to my poseik with this one?
>>
>> -mi

According to RYBS, Motzi Matzah is a kiyum of "be'erev tochlu matzos", a
de'oraiso,  while Korech is a kiyum of "al matzos umerorim yochluhu", a
derabonon. It would therefore seem that this would be another reason that
you could not be mitztaref the two for purposes of completing a kezayis,
aside from the ta'am issues brought forward by previous posters.

Arnie Lustiger

Toby Rubinson wrote:

<<<
David Glasner has recently made a number of posts using the Dor Rivii as his 
source. The Dor Rivii was unquestionably a tzadik and a Gadol, but the fact 
remains that in his positions on numerous issues he remains a daas yachid 
among gedolei yisrael. David is surely entitled to follow his distinguished 
ancestors positions and advocate that others do so as well, but that does not 
mean that these thoughts and practices are normative. The normative position 
is that one may not save a non-Jew for any reason other than Eivah and that 
one must lose all of his money rather than transgress a negative commandment, 
and the Dor Rivii's argument is addressed and refuted by the Bach. Again, the 
dor rivii is a legitimate position because of his gadlus, but to argue that 
it is normative is just to use apologetics to reinterpret parts of the Torah 
with which we are uncomfortable. 
>>>

First, I appreciate your kind words about the Dor Revi'i, but I am afraid that I am 
having trouble with your use of the term "normative."  On the one hand you say 
that I am allowed to argue on behalf of the positions or opinions that the Dor 
Revi'i espoused on the other hand, you say that because he remains a daas 
yachid, his position cannot be normative.  I would be the last one to say that 
because the Dor Revi'i said something, it must be right.  Actually that's not
true.  The Dor Revi'i would be the last one to say that because he said 
something, it must be right.  (I will spare you a quotation of the passage I am
thinking of, but it's in the hakdamah.)  But I do say that if the Dor Revi'i said
something, what he said cannot be beyond the pale.  If it's not beyond the
pale, then I can also say it and argue for it and try to convince others, and if 
others accept it, hinei mah tov u-mah naim, and if not, not.  I never said that you 
must accept my position, but you seem to be suggesting that my position must be 
rejected as a matter of principle (though you seem to be willing to grant me 
special dispensation based on a great-grandfather clause).

Nor do I understand what you mean by your reference to using "apologetics
to reinterpret parts of the Torah with which we are uncomfortable."  First,
what does anything I said have to do with apologetics?  Second, we must
always be prepared to reinterpret the Torah if reinterpretation is necessary 
to solve a difficulty in our current interpretation.  Otherwise, how could anyone 
be m'chadiesh anything?  One of course also has to make a judgment about 
how great the difficulty is and how reasonable, in light of the rest of our
background knowledge, the reinterpretation seems to be.  The point is
you can't just dismiss an opinion by putting a label on it, you have to 
make an argument.  A label is not an argument.  

Let me also reiterate (see my last posting on aniyei irkha) that although I 
cited the Dor Revi'i on a particular narrow point, that the broader
argument that I made about darkhei shalom was not taken from him
and should not be attributed to him.  I alone am responsible for any 
errors of fact or interpretation.  And I beg mehila from the chevra
and from the Dor Revi'i if I have created any confusion about who is
saying what here.

Finally, I would be grateful if you could provide a citation for the Bach to which 
you are referred.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

R' Jordan Hirsch wrote:
> were they too naive to know the evil with which they were associating

I haven't had time to post of late, and this isn't the sort of thread which 
usually interests me, but I just came across a relevant Midrash.

Bamidbar Rabbah (10:5) explains the need for Shimshon's mother, Tzlelponi, to 
adhere to the strictures of Nezirus during her pregnancy. The Midrash informs 
us that HaShem knew Shimshon would follow his eyes, and so He had Shimshon 
abstain - even prenatally! - from elements which could distract him.

I see two lessons here:
1. HaShem considers it better to have a person stay away from anything which 
could bring him to trouble, even if this is at the expense of failing to 
immunize him.
2. This advice can fail, as it did for Shimshon. Nonetheless, it is the 
Torah's advice.

Mordechai Torczyner
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Matzas Mitzva & Simcha


> >>>I have hunch this is a Brisker/Telzer thing: A Brisker cannot take
simcha as
> an emotion, that's not quantifiable, so it must be defined by its kiyumim.
A
> Telzer would take simcha as a state of mind, the kiyumim are only the
hechei
> timztei's.<<<
>
> The Rav defined simcha, aveilus, tefilah, etc. as a ma'aseh mitzva with a
> kiyum b'lev.  I believe R' Ahron Lichtenstein has noted that was coined by
> the Rav and not earlier Briskers.
>
> But you shouldn;t need Brisker lomdus here - the gemaras quantify the
mitzva
> as achilas korbanos (Chagiga 8) or drinking wine (Pesachim 109) - the
> chiddush of the Rav was that that the ma'aseh miztva alone is insufficient
> unless the joy permeates the lev.
>

In a message dated 3/31/00 11:59:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, Pawshas@aol.com 
writes:

<< Bamidbar Rabbah (10:5) explains the need for Shimshon's mother, Tzlelponi, 
to 
 adhere to the strictures of Nezirus during her pregnancy. The Midrash 
informs 
 us that HaShem knew Shimshon would follow his eyes, and so He had Shimshon 
 abstain - even prenatally! - from elements which could distract him.
 
 I see two lessons here:
 1. HaShem considers it better to have a person stay away from anything which 
 could bring him to trouble, even if this is at the expense of failing to 
 immunize him.
 2. This advice can fail, as it did for Shimshon. Nonetheless, it is the 
 Torah's advice.
  >>

Interesting Midrash. I was not actually advocating  particular position 
regarding engagement with society or not as a means of immunizing against its 
evils. I felt it was enough to outline particular points of discussion.
Another point might be discussing the Rivkah-Yitzchak disagreement as to who 
would better serve as the succesor to the mantle of leadership. Yitzchak 
favored the more worldly  son, Esau, despite his shortcomings. Rivkah knew 
that it was preferable to have the more "naive" son, who remained pure, in 
the Bais Medrash.
Only problem is that before he could take over, Yaakov had to go into the 
world and deal with some pretty unpleasant situations. What does that tell us 
about engagement with the world, and indeed, with unsavory characters. Didn't 
Rivkah know what Yaakov would be exposed to in the house of Lavan? And yet, 
after putting him forward as the heir to the legacy of Avraham Avinu 
precisely because he was pure, she sends him there.

Jordan Hirsch

Where does R. Kaplan say this?  R. Yaakov Kaminetsky says something similar in 
his Emes LeYaakov Al HaTorah to Shemos 7:22.

RM Berger wrote:

>>R' Aryeh Kaplan tied the loss of nevu'ah to imprisoning the yeitzer hara (YhR)
for avodah zarah (AZ).

1- Both were in the days of Anshei Kinesses haGdolah.
2- By losing both, the balance between tov and ra, and therefore bechirah 
chafshi, is preserved.
3- It took fighting the challenge of the yeitzer hara in order to develop the 
kisharon for nevu'ah.
4- They are both the same inyan -- one used litov, and the other lira. Which is 
why the YhR for AZ emerged from the Kodesh haKdashim. According to R' Aryeh 
Kaplan this "inyan" involves meditation, but I can accept his argument without 
that nekudah.>>

RD Glasner wrote:

>>On your specific point, I would just note in my own defense that Rav Kahati in
his introduction to masekhet Avodah Zarah quotes the Meiri's commentary on the 
Mishnah which distinguishes between hard core ovdei avodah zarah and more 
enlightened gentiles who are not hashudim on sh'fikhut dam, arayot, or avodah 
zarah.  I recall that you have expressed skepticism about this position of the 
Meiri, but I have no qualms about relying on it.>>

The Seder Ya'akov on maseches Avodah Zarah expresses extreme surprise that R. 
Kahati neglected so many rishonim and poskim in favor of the Meiri.  There is no
question that certain halachos do not apply today in Western countries, like the
halachah against having gentile school-teachers due to fear of mishkav zachar (I
wrote it in Hebrew for RYGB) and child abuse [I believe the Gra explicitly 
matirs it].  However, it has yet to be shown that pikuach nefesh applies to 
nochrim.


>>On the other hand, if you mean by universalism that I believe that every human
being is created in the image of G-d (aka tzelem elokim) and therefore has 
innate dignity and is loved by G-d, which means that I must also in my own 
limited way strive to love and care for him too, treat him with respect, unless 
by his own actions he forfeits the right to be accorded such respect and 
dignity, then I do believe in universalism.>>

I think we can agree on that.


>>In other words, to put it in very crass terms, how many gentile lives would 
you be willing to sacrifice to put a 
chicken on the table of one more poor Jewish family for one more Shabbos?  I am 
not suggesting that I know what the right answer is to that question, or even 
that there is a right answer, but I would still hope that the number is less 
than 4 billion.>>

Consider the proportional value of your dollar when directed to Jewish causes 
compared to when directed to general causes.  There are billions of gentiles out
there in the world but not too many Jews.  Consider also that, of those Jews, 
most of them are not supporting frum causes like Ezras Torah and OHEL.  The loss
of your dollar has minimal marginal impact to March of Dimes but to Ezras Torah 
it is more noticeable.  We take care of each other because no one else will.  
That's what family does for each other.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

I was just told that the Moetzes Gedolai haTorah of Agudath Israel have
called for for people to daven for the welfare of the 13 Iranian Jews who
will be standing trial for treason in the near future.

In particular, they call on shuls to say the selichos for Yom Kippur Katan
Wed erev Rosh Chodesh Nissan (April 5th, 1999).

-mi

In Avodah #466, a story is mentioned from a book entitled "Love Your
Neighbor," quoting a book called "Righteous Lives," about Rav Aharon
Kotler and Henry Morgenthau.  The story begins by mentioning that Reb
Aharon, as soon as he arrived in the US at the beginning of WWII, founded
Vaad Hatzalah to rescue European Jewry.

This is an example of revisionist history in the extreme. The Vaad
Hatzalah was founded by the Agudas Horabonim in 1939, which I believe was
before Reb Aharon set foot in the US.  Indeed, he may have been a
beneficiary of the Vaad Hatzalah, but he certainly was not its founder.
________________________________________________________________
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 3/31/00 1:29:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

<<  The loss
 of your dollar has minimal marginal impact to March of Dimes but to Ezras 
Torah 
 it is more noticeable.  We take care of each other because no one else will. 
 
 That's what family does for each other.
 
 Gil Student
 gil.student@citicorp.com
  >>
Perhaps a balance:
im ein ani li me li  vs.  uksheani latzmi mah ani

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

In message <H00013ad05c33fdf@MHS>, Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes
>C/H Luntz wrote:
>
>>>Given that Rav Hertzog's beis din passed takanot to:
>
>a) forbid a father marrying off his minor daughter (a power specifically given 
>to the father by the Torah) and>>
>
>Really?  What does he do with the concept made famous by the Taz (but found also
>in rishonim) that Chazal cannot forbid anything explicitly permitted by the 
>Torah?
>

I can't find him dealing with the Taz explicitly (do you have a cite,
BTW), but in his general discusion he brings the gemorra in Yevamos
(90a-b) regarding the power of Chazal to make takanot forbidding one to
carry out a positive Torah mitzvah (eg taking lulav or blowing shofer)
in a situation where it is a shav v'al ta'aseh (inter alia, he quotes
the Ran in Sukkah 42b on this point).  If one agrees that Chazal has the
power to forbid people to carry out a mitzvah, then I would have thought
that a mere reshus was reasonably obvious (how does the Taz deal with
this gemorra?)

(Of course, on this particular example regarding a ketana, he has Chazal
to back him up, see Kedushin 41a and Even Hazer siman 37 "asur l'adam
shekidesh et bito katana" - and Tosphos's support for the prevailing
minhag, as brought by the Rema there is only on the basis of the
heaviness of the galut).

BRW the list of takanot appears to be as follows:

1943-44
a) regarding the amount of the ketuba;
b) an obligation on the brothers to provide mezonot to a shmirat yibum
c) an obligation on the father to provide support for male and female
children until 15;

1949-50
d) a prohibition on getting married in Israel without chuppa, a minyan,
and the permission of the Rabbanut;
e) a prohibition on marrying a ketana;
f) a prohibition on marrying more than one wife (without the permission
of the Rabbanut);
g) a prohibition on yibbum (and rather a requirement of chaliza).

(clearly the last two were primarily aimed as Sephardim, as Ashkenazim
were keeping them already).

As RET has indicated, he argues quite strongly for a takana regarding
inheritance by women, but found no support for doing so (funnily enough
though, as he points out, one of the places that Chazal actually cite
the principle of hefker beis din hefker giving them power to make
takanot is regarding yerusha - as they instituted that, in a case where
a ketana is married off by her mother or brothers (which is only
rabbinic) they instituted that the husband inherits her, even though,
min haTorah, it should be those aforementioned brothers). 


>Gil Student
>gil.student@citicorp.com
>

Shavuah tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ 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         ]