Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 007

Monday, April 10 2000

• Re: Inflammatory language about secular Zionists
• neo pagan Canaanites
• relation to secular Jews
• Re: neo pagan Canaanites
• Sazria-Tazria
• Re: Sazria-Tazria
• Inflammatory language about secular Zionists
• Dor Revi'i and Satmar Rov
• Pharoah & Beilin
• Re: Pharoah & Beilin
• Re: aniyei ircha
• r. scheinberg pesach rules
• Dor Revi'i and Satmar Rov (2)
• Re: Dor Revi'i and Satmar Rov
• Re: Pharoah & Beilin
• Re: aniyei ircha
• RE: Avodah V5 #4
• RE: Avodah V5 #6
• Chiyuv of Mah Nishtana
• Re: aniyei ircha: (ATT vs TTA)
• Re: Avodah V5 #4

On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Carl M. Sherer wrote:

> the bridge at this point. Those who appreciate what civil liberties 
> are supposed to mean have, in many cases, said that this is not a 
> matter for the police or the courts. There is a (well-based IMHO) 
> perception on the right here that the right, Charedim and 
> Sephardim are treated differently than the leftist "intelligentsia." An 
> opportunity to change this perception has been missed at least 
> three times in the last month (ROY, the Ezer Weizmann 
> investigation, the Netanyahu investigation). 

When I referred to "political" realities, I was deliberately ambiguous as
to whether this meant "political" in the legitimate sense, i.e. upholding
the law, or "political" in the practical sense of what enough people with
enough power want.

> 
> One wishes that he controlled his crowd-pleasing rhetoric a bit
> > better, but if I were Barak I would say, "R. Ovadia too is Israel."
> 
> I assume you mean Ehud Barak and not Aharon Barak. I agree 
> with you, but at this point, I think it is out of Ehud Barak's hands.

I thought of writing "Sarid," but unfortunately the work of putting myself
in his shoes was too much for me this morning. Whoever's hands it is in
may be capable of practical common sense. It is not too much to pray for.

> For 4 years, I went every Motzai Shabbat to the Rav's Shiur at Maimonides.
> In 1968, he called secular Israelis "neo-pagan Canaanites". It was only
> that year when I graduated and went to Israel did I understand what he
> was referring to.

1. There was a small but influential group in Israel that actually called
themselves "Canaanites." They would not have objected to being called "Neo
pagan."

2. The term "pagan" has a precise technical meaning in the Rav's thought.
In unpublished writing he discerns elements of neo paganism in certain
Zionist leaders. If he used these terms in oral discourse, it was
presumably in this context. And his audience was not likely to be heated
up by his language. To the contrary, most were probably challenged and
puzzled by it, until, if ever, they "went to Israel" and had the
opportunity to think for themselves.

> 
> For 4 years, I went every Motzai Shabbat to the Rav's Shiur at Maimonides.
> In 1968, he called secular Israelis "neo-pagan Canaanites". It was only
> that year when I graduated and went to Israel did I understand what he
> was referring to.
> 
I don't think these comparison are fair.
When RYBS or others used these terms they were talking to a specific
audience who understood the references.

Today R. I. Yosef knows very well that the media is in the audience
waiting for the next such outburst. Today's newspaper carry the headlines
that he called the AG Rubinstein a "fox".
Obviously these comments are carefully thought out with their impact
on the general Israeli society which was certainly not the intent of
Rav Soloveitchik and most other rabbis.

Eli Turkel

Sorry, I could not resist...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <avodah-digest@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 11:33 AM
Subject: neo pagan Canaanites


> 2. The term "pagan" has a precise technical meaning in the Rav's thought.

Kind of like the term "valid" in R' Norman Lamm's thought... :-)

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

>"Hama'ayan" for "Sazri`a" quotes the...

I thought someone would pick up on a certain error that I have witnessed
every year on the MMG"H listing, but now that someone has used the word
in an actual posting, I feel the need to speak up.  

The posuk says "Isha Ki Sazria...".  The word is spelled
Tav-Zain-Reish-Yud-Ayin.  The Tav is pronounced by Ashkenazim as a "T",
with a dagesh, at the beginning of a word, except when the preceding
trop-connected word ends with a vowel.  This is the rule for BeGeD KeFeS.
 That is why the word is leined "Sazria".  However, the parsha is called
"Parshas Tazria".  

Lo L'khvodi, v'lo l'khvod veis aba.....

Raffy Davidovich
________________________________________________________________
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.

On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 07:33:57PM -0400, raffyd@juno.com wrote:
: The posuk says "Isha Ki Sazria...".  The word is spelled
: Tav-Zain-Reish-Yud-Ayin.  The Tav is pronounced by Ashkenazim as a "T",
: with a dagesh, at the beginning of a word, except when the preceding
: trop-connected word ends with a vowel.  This is the rule for BeGeD KeFeS.
:  That is why the word is leined "Sazria".  However, the parsha is called
: "Parshas Tazria".

A similar issue could be raised with Bimidbar vs. Bamidbar. The first is the
actual word in the pasuk, but only because of semichus to the following
word: "Bimidbar Sinai". As the word "Sinai" isn't in the name of the parashah,
the concept of semichus doesn't apply.

As you pointed out, most call them "Tazria" and "Bamidbar."

However, the name of the parashah is the first significant word in the
parashah lifted to make a proper name. And that word is "Sazria" (or Bimidbar).
I'm not sure why an analysis of the grammar is relevent. To take the grammar
argument to the absurd, perhaps we should call Avraham's eldest on "Shama'el"
in lashon avar.

What makes things even more complex is that we're trying to decide whether
the word begins with a taph or saph when the rest of the sentence isn't even
Hebrew. So, while it may be inappropriate for the phrase "Parashas S/Tazria"
(and I still think it is proper), I'm not sure about what belongs in the
MMG"H calendar.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 22a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 25

From Shlomo B Abeles

>Shalom Carmy wrote:     Subject: Inflammatory language about secular Zionists

>....The language used by R. Ovadia on the recent occasion, and
>quite often in the past, is certainly unfortunate. Both the Rav
>and R. Kook...were very careful not to engage in excessive rhetoric...

Is the thrice-daily tefillah, Velamalshinim - "unfortunate" and/or "excessive rhetoric"?
And what about "Arurim Kol Hareshoim" in Shoshanas Yaakov?

>R. Ovadia is probably ...
probably!?
>...a greater posek.....but if I were Barak I would say, "R. Ovadia too is Israel."

Are you saying "Af al pi *SHELOH* chotoh - Yisroel Hu"...?

SBA

------------------------------

>Micha Berger  wrote:          Subject: Re: Dor Revi'i and Satmar Rov
>
>It would seem that the Satmar Rav himself thought of the Dor Revi'i as a ba'al dovor.

Ba'al Dovor!!!???
- Or maybe you mean Bar Plugtoh?

SBA

From Jerusalem Post Sunday 9 April
  > Beilin: Cancel large-family payments

>   Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, made a  mistake
>  when he decided to grant special payments to  families with four children
> or more, Justice Minister Yossi Beilin said this morning.

>  These payments should now be cancelled, Beilin told  Israel Radio,
> since they are causing a heavy financial burden to the state.

> Ben-Gurion's idea was to increase the Jewish birthrate.
>Most of  the families that receive the large-family allowances
> today come from the haredi sector.

Has Beilin considered Pharaoh's system - throw
the Haredi babies into the sea...

I wonder if there is another nation - anywhere -
where the Justice Minister would get away with such a comment.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Part 2 of the Beilin Plan
is to introduce China's one-child-per family policy..

Over to you, Carl Sherer.

SBA

On 11 Apr 00, at 1:33, SBA wrote:

> >From Jerusalem Post Sunday 9 April
>   > Beilin: Cancel large-family payments
> 
> >   Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, made a  mistake
> >  when he decided to grant special payments to  families with four
> >  children
> > or more, Justice Minister Yossi Beilin said this morning.
> 
> >  These payments should now be cancelled, Beilin told  Israel Radio,
> > since they are causing a heavy financial burden to the state.
> 
> > Ben-Gurion's idea was to increase the Jewish birthrate.
> >Most of  the families that receive the large-family allowances
> > today come from the haredi sector.
> 
> Has Beilin considered Pharaoh's system - throw
> the Haredi babies into the sea...
> 
> I wonder if there is another nation - anywhere -
> where the Justice Minister would get away with such a comment.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Part 2 of the Beilin Plan
> is to introduce China's one-child-per family policy..
> 
> Over to you, Carl Sherer.

Just because I think it's a mitzva to live here, doesn't mean I have 
to defend the Poodle (not my name - Yitzchak Rabin z"l called him 
that). 

Interestingly, the interview about this on yesterday's radio news 
was not with a Charedi MK, but with Sylvan Shalom of the Likud 
(probably the up and coming star of the younger generation). 
Shalom urged Beilin to retract the statement.

I'll keep the rest of my thoughts to myself since the list is not 
meant to discuss Israeli politics....

-- 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

In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>> For somebody like Carl Sherer, the answer seems pretty simple.  Those
>> people who cannot afford the shabbas chickens down the block (and
>> presumably, m'pnei darchei shalom, local Arabs in a similar
>> circumstance).
>
>Actually, no. While I would not refrain from giving money to an 
>organization that does not discriminate between Jews and Arabs 
>(e.g. Israel Cancer Society), I do not feel obligated to either seek 
>out local Arabs to whom I can give tzedaka "mipnei darchei 
>shalom," nor do I feel obligated to give specifically to organizations 
>whose purpose is specifically to help Arabs. 
>

Without getting into the question of whether or not you should, I was
actually thinking of the more limited case, as per the mishna in Gitten
(59b) which prohibits withholding in cases where, say, the poor were
queuing up for chickens and a poor Arab joined the queue.  That is not a
question of targetting Arabs, but of not rejecting there application
when they come forward - similar to the Israel Cancer Society, but I
would assume that a similar halacha would be operating vis a vis your
chicken distribution tzedaka.  Admittedly, if you are running a gemach
out of a charedi neighbourhood, you probably don't get that many Arabs
queuing (and, if the most recent statistics published in the Jewish
Tribune, the Aguda paper here in England are true you may not have
nearly so much need.  The Trib was writing about one of these new, post
kollel colleges, under the auspices of Haifa or the Technion or some
such, but with classes geared to charedim, separate etc, and apparently
with the haskoma of a whole range of chareidi gadolim, including Rav
Eliashev - and it stated some statistics, which if I have remembered
them correctly went as follows - 54% of the charedi community is below
the poverty line, compared with 23% of Arabs and 7% of secular Jews.  I
don't know into which category they were placing datiim (although if
past statistics published in the Trib are anything to go by, into the
category of secular Jews).  In which case, the percentage of the needy
would seem to be well under half.

>My understanding of mipnei darchei shalom (which admittedly I 
>have not researched extensively - on the list to do) is that it only 
>requires me to help non-Jews in the event that my failure to do so 
>would cause a lack of shalom or would otherwise be a chilul 
>Hashem. 

That is not my understanding, although my understanding is more of an
obligation on the gabbai tzedaka who are distributing the tzedaka, than
on the individual giving it (unless you are doing the distributing by
means of giving at your door - or are the owner of the field from which
the poor are collecting) to also sustain the goyishe poor of the city
(along with providing for their burial, and other such needs - although
the obligation to visit the goyishe sick and make hespedim doesn't fully
gell with that communual understanding).

I was, however, assuming that you do not hold with those (like Rav
Hertzog, whom I seem to be quoting a lot lately) that the Israeli Arab
falls into the category of ger toshav. For those who do so hold, then
there is a d'orisa mitzva to sustain him, and  hence there would
presumably be an obligation to seek out charities that specifically
target the Arab.


>- -- Carl

Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

if anyone has an electronic copy of rav scheinberg's
pesach cleaning rules, could you send them to me?

many thanks

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

I wrote:

>Micha Berger  wrote:          Subject: Re: Dor Revi'i and Satmar Rov
>
>It would seem that the Satmar Rav himself thought of the Dor Revi'i as a ba'al dovor.

>Ba'al Dovor!!!???  - Or maybe you mean Bar Plugtoh?

Giving it some further thought - after posting, I now realise how "Ba'al Dovor" and
"Bar Plugtoh"  can Takeh have the same meaning.

My first impression of Ba'al Dovor had been in the context of
Yetzer Horah or the Samech-Mem (as I have often heard them described).

SBA

On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 01:29:17AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: Ba'al Dovor!!!???
: - Or maybe you mean Bar Plugtoh?

Maybe I do. I thought "ba'al davar" means a person of substance, including
a "bar plugtah" (if you disagree with that substance).

To get back to the point, though, if the Satmar Rebbe thought the Dor Revi'i
was worth his time, then at least in his eyes they were in the same ball park.
Of course, it says nothing about which venue he thought they were comparable
in, whether it be Torah, getting a following, both, etc...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 22a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 25

The connection between this topic and Avodas Hashem is...?

At least with R' Ovadiah Yosef and Sarid, the thread often touches on relevent
issues. I wish it would stay on them, but conversations don't work like that.
But this thread lacks that potential.

-mi

On 9 Apr 00, at 21:14, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> Without getting into the question of whether or not you should, I was
> actually thinking of the more limited case, as per the mishna in Gitten
> (59b) which prohibits withholding in cases where, say, the poor were
> queuing up for chickens and a poor Arab joined the queue.  That is not a
> question of targetting Arabs, but of not rejecting there application
> when they come forward - similar to the Israel Cancer Society, but I
> would assume that a similar halacha would be operating vis a vis your
> chicken distribution tzedaka.  Admittedly, if you are running a gemach
> out of a charedi neighbourhood, you probably don't get that many Arabs
> queuing 

All correct. In fact, most Jewish neighborhoods anywhere in Israel 
do not have Arab residents (and vice versa), so the case that 
Mishna speaks about would be very unusual in Israel today.

The Trib was writing about one of these new, post
> kollel colleges, under the auspices of Haifa or the Technion or some
> such, but with classes geared to charedim, separate etc, and apparently
> with the haskoma of a whole range of chareidi gadolim, including Rav
> Eliashev 

That college was the subject of the story on salon.com whose URL 
I posted yesterday.

> >My understanding of mipnei darchei shalom (which admittedly I 
> >have not researched extensively - on the list to do) is that it only 
> >requires me to help non-Jews in the event that my failure to do so 
> >would cause a lack of shalom or would otherwise be a chilul 
> >Hashem. 
> 
> That is not my understanding, although my understanding is more of an
> obligation on the gabbai tzedaka who are distributing the tzedaka, than
> on the individual giving it (unless you are doing the distributing by
> means of giving at your door - or are the owner of the field from which
> the poor are collecting) to also sustain the goyishe poor of the city

Actually when it comes to your door, if a goy comes alone there is 
a machlokes rishonim whether or not you have to give him. If he 
comes with a group of Jews, you are required to give him because 
of darchei shalom. And I would also argue that darchei shalom 
does not require me to give as much to a goy as I do to a Jew. The 
requirement of "v'hechzakta bo" (which according to the Aruch 
HaShulchan only applies to a gabbai tzedaka, but that's another 
story) only applies to Jews as far as I know.

> I was, however, assuming that you do not hold with those (like Rav
> Hertzog, whom I seem to be quoting a lot lately) that the Israeli Arab
> falls into the category of ger toshav. 

On what basis did he hold that (I don't have access to his tshuvos 
AFAIK)? Wouldn't being considered a ger toshav require kabbala of 
the sheva mitzvos bnei Noach?

-- 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 Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:54:33PM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> : The chachamim must hold they are independent chiyuvim
> : because otherwise how could you be yotzei by eating
> : matzah and maror seperately?
> 
	Micha Berger replied :
> Why do you assume a mitzvah needs to be done bivas achas in order to be
> a mitzvah? Teshuvah includes vidui and azavas hacheit, I doubt they need
> simultinaety. Or all the things that require multistep procedures: milah
> (although separating the steps more than toch kidei dibbur may violate
> tza'ar
> ba'alei chaim, I don't think it inviolates the milah), korbanos, etc.. (Is
> hatavas haneiros two mitzvos or 1?) And what about eirusin and nissuin?
> 
	I am not sure what your question is. No one is saying that a mitzvah
must be done bivas achas to be considered a mitzvah. Rather the issue is
whether one can do both mitzvos at the same time and still be yotzei both
mitzvos or would we invoke the rule of mitzvos ain mevatlos zeh es zeh.
Furthermore,in all the cases you listed (teshuva,mila & korbanos),even if
you  would say that each step is a different chiyuv and not just part of one
mitzvah with many steps, you are not doing the different steps at the same
time. For example-in korbanos the various steps (shechitah, kabbalah,
hagasha and zerikah are done one after the other. Therefore, I don't think
you can compare it to eating matzah and marror at the same time.
		One last point, why do you assume that seperating the steps
in milah violates tzar baalei chaim. Toch kidei dibbur is more of a halachah
in hefsek or gemiras daas. Maybe you can argue that if you unnecessarily
draw out the milah process you are causing unnecessary suffering to the
child-but if you perform the milah in a normal manner even if it takes
longer than a few minutes why should yopu be over on tzar baalei chaim?

> Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote :
> 
	>>Okay, so I need to back off a bit. Although, there is still no
indication
	>>that just because the gemara invokes mamze"z that it counts the
mitzvos
	>>>as separate elements of the 613.

	if you apply mitzvos ein mivatlos zeh es zeh to koreich  isn't this
saying that matzah and marror are 2 seperate mitzvos?
	Furthermore, if chachamim hold you can eat them seperately doesn't
this also imply they are 2 seperate mitzvos?

> An interesting question that might be impacted: does anyone say that one
> needs to eat a kezayis of koreich, not a ketzayis of each element of the
> koreich? If it's one chiyuv then there's only one achilah, so one k'zayis
> would be sufficient.
> 
	The Shagas Aryeh sort of discusses this issue-if b'zman hazeh we
need kzayis of marror in koreich. 
	There is a whole diyun in the shittas harosh who holds that the only
reason marror needs a k'zayis is to make a brachah but not for achilah
purposes. (Not having gone through the Shagas Aryeh I am not prepared to
extrapolate to your kasha but it's probably I good place to start :-) )

The other day someone pointed out to me an interesting chakirah in Mah
Nishtana. There is the famous "brisker" vort that one of the main
differences between sippur yetzias mitzrayim and zichiras yetzias mitzrayim
is that sippur must be done in question and answer form . The shailah is do
the questions have to take the form of Mah Nishtana and if not you are not
yotzei in haggadah or is the Mah nishtana just a starting point to help
formulate the questions and really you could ask any type of question
relating to yetzias mitzrayim. I didn't see the Rambam inside but supposedly
there are some who want to be midayik that the Rambam holds like the second
tzad. 

RM Berger wrote:

>>I know "communism" has become a dirty word, but I don't want to prejudge the 
subject. How do we know halachah doesn't aspire to communism? (I know that in my
father's day, religious Zionism promoted communism and kibbutzim.)>>

RYBS discusses this in an essay published in Tradition titled "The Community".  
It's available in Hebrew in his Divrei Hagut Veha'arachah.

He says that halachah is neither Libertarian nor Communist; it's somewhere in 
between.  Communism focusses solely on the community and libertarianism focusses
solely on the individual; halachah focusses on both.

RC Sherer wrote:

>>If halacha aspired to communism, I think we would be required to give a lot 
more than maaser, and we would not say "hamevazbez al yevazbez yoser 
me'chomesh.">>

I think Ma'aser only applies when there are no immediate needy people.  If there
is an ani who needs money and comes straight to you then I believe that you are 
obligated lehachayoso.  The only heter for us is that the ani'im do not rely 
solely on any one of us.  The Aruch HaShulchan offers your sevara for ma'aser 
but I believe other poskim (e.g. R. Chaim Kaniefsky) disagree.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
: 	I am not sure what your question is. No one is saying that a mitzvah
: must be done bivas achas to be considered a mitzvah. Rather the issue is
: whether one can do both mitzvos at the same time and still be yotzei both
: mitzvos or would we invoke the rule of mitzvos ain mevatlos zeh es zeh.

I wanted to offer a third possibility, just to make sure you covered all
the bases. Ammended to take care of one of R' Chaim Bron'ws objections, I
would now suggest they are both the same mitzvah (in the technical sense of
taryag mitzvos). The Chachamim could then hold that mitzvos einum mevatlos
zeh es ze (MEMZEZ) applies even to different peratim in the same chiyuv,
while Hillel could hold that they don't.

I then suggested a possible nafka minah lihalachah -- whether one is required
to eat a kizayis each of matzah and marror to fulfil the zeicher of koreich,
or if a kizayis of the sandwich as a whole would be sufficient. While the
former would prove nothing (as it could be explained either way), the latter
would show that Hillel saw the two as a single chiyuv of achilah.

All of this would require, however, that the Chachamim hold that it's possible
to do the same mitzvah at different times. RCB's other objection to my
suggestion *was* on the grounds that the Chachamim didn't require eating
both bivas aches.

: 		One last point, why do you assume that seperating the steps
: in milah violates tzar baalei chaim. Toch kidei dibbur is more of a halachah
: in hefsek or gemiras daas.

It is also the definition of "bivas achas". No? At least, that's why I raised
it.

:                            Maybe you can argue that if you unnecessarily
: draw out the milah process you are causing unnecessary suffering to the
: child-but if you perform the milah in a normal manner even if it takes
: longer than a few minutes why should yopu be over on tzar baalei chaim?

For the very reason you state -- because doing so causes unnecessary suffering.
I'm missing what you're trying to say here.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 22a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 25

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


[ 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         ]