Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 049

Wednesday, May 24 2000

• Re: What constitutes a zibbur
• Re: Esav sonei liYa'akov
• Re: Esav sonei liYa'akov
• He'ara on the Daf
• Lag Ba'Omer Ramblings
• Keepsakes
• Re: Lag Ba'Omer Ramblings
• Re: He'ara on the Daf
• re: Rav Cardozo's article on Bach and Spinoza
• Re: He'ara on the Daf
• Re: He'ara on the Daf
• Techilaso b'Ones Sofo b'Ratzon - Kesuvos 51b
• Re: Sanhedrin
• Re: mah inyan shemitah etzel har sinai?
• Re: He'ara on the Daf
• Lag B'Omer
• Re: Esav sonei liYa'akov
• Re: Lag B'Omer
• Re: Chasurei mechsara
• Re: Keepsakes
• Re: Chasurei mechsara
• Re: Keepsakes
• hechsherim

On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 03:08:04PM +0300, Daniel M Wells wrote:
:                                           Most people would put these
: terms in a hierachical order: Am->Edah->Tzibbur. However a closer look at
: reality would appear to have the order: Am->Tzibbur->Edah.

WADR, I think that it's not hierarchical. Edah and Tzibbur are orthogonal
concepts. In practice, there was a de facto hierarchy where a tzibbur was
localized to a subset of an edah. Similarly, it is possible for an edah to
be entirely contained within members of one tzibbur, or that the two are
overlapping groups of people.

The shift that occured after WWII was halachically possible for the
very reason that the two have no mandatory correlation.

-mi

On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 02:24:04PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: The Ntziv on the Sifri Teitchs it Halacha = Gmiri = tradition.

I have also seen gemiri to mean "we have a masorah". But why? Ligmor is
to conclude. Gemara (see Rambam Hil Talmud Torah) is the art of making
deductions of reaching conclusions. Where do we get to "tradition"?

-mi

On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 09:51:18PM -0400, TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:
: Your point about R' Shimon Bar Yochai would fit into Barry Schwartz's 
: approach to Church-Jewish relations.

If it were not for two open questions:

1- Do we hold like RashBY? What Rashi says is that even according to RaShBY,
   who holds that Esav has an intrinsic hatred of Yaakov, this particular
   hug and kiss was lishmah. Kal vachomer everyone else would understand the
   pasuk to mean Esav meant it. So the statement has parshanut value
   regardless of our position.

2- Does the statement carry pragmatic content? I suggested one possibility,
   that the statement is existential, and is therefore need not be reflected
   in the layers of psyche the person builds up around that essence. Or, even
   if it does mean that Esav has a tendency to hate us, does that give us
   permission to treat him any differently? (Except perhaps, with greater
   caution.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-May-00: Shishi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 8b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In case any of you missed it, I wanted to point out an interesting 
Shita MeKubetzes on Ksuvos 50a, which Rav Bertman mentioned 
in the Daf shiur. 

The shita brings Rashi on the Gemara and a medrash from this 
past week's parsha which he says proves that the limit of 
"hamevazbez al yevazbez yoiser m'chomesh" does not apply to 
money contributed for hachzokas haTorah. IIRC Rav Bertman 
suggested in the shiur that the reason for this is that you are being 
koneh a chelek in their Torah (Yissachar and Zvulun). The shita 
also brings a Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona who says that the chomesh 
limit does not apply to sh'as misa R"L, and one is free to be 
mechalek his entire estate to aniyim, although he should leave over 
something on which the dinim of yerusha can be chal.

For those who want to see it inside, the shita is in Ksuvos 50a, s"v 
HaMevazbez.

-- 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

The midda of Lag b'Omer is Hod (HVD). Ka'yadu'a, the opposite of HVD is
Davah (DVH). The Vav is the shevil, the tzinnor uniting olomos elyonim and
tachtonim. The Heh represents the four olomos plus the kutzo shel yud - the
olom of Adam Kadmon, the sefira of Kesser, the Yechida in the Neshomo. The
Daled represents the four lower olomos, sans the hashpo'o from the unity
with Hashem (Yechida), sans that which is beyond the grasp of the human and
transcends man's limited nature - the Kesser (on the head), sans the purpose
that stems from the ancient masterplan that preceded the Beriah (sof ma'ashe
b'machashovo techila) for thr tachlis of Mankind.

 In HVD, the full, transcendant shiur komma is mashpi'a to the limited,
metzi'us of this world (in Maharlian terms, the four directions are united
by a nekuda emtzo'is?) the HVD she'b'HVD is that inner illumnation that
leads to external majesty (HVD v'Hadar Levusha). The opposite is DVH - there
the hashpo'o is from the finite world to the infinite - the building of
barriers rather than the scaling thereof. A Davah is isolated  ("Niddas
Devosa") - Hashem is metzitz at Am Yisroel even then - but achar kosleinu
min ha'charakim. There is a ma'amar Chazal (Yevamos 62b) that the world was
shamem ("nesanani shomeima, kol ha'yom davah" Eicha 1:14) ad she'ba R'
Akiva -the Rebbe of Rashby - who revelaed the mistorin - the HVD to
counteract DVH.

Yish'ma'u Chachomim v'Chaverim l'Avodah v'yosifu Lekach!

May we all be zocheh to HVD she'b'HVD.

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

During a discussion on things that can be Avnei Negef on the road to
Kirva LaHashem, I was told that we shouldn't keep keepsakes (brochures
of kids plays, pictures the kids painted for us, poems written for us
under special circumstances, photos of events etc.) as they act as
Mechitzot behind which we hide as we go to them when we want to feel
good, instead of approaching Hashem and remembering that He loves us.

Could anyone please comment on this?  (sources, ideas etc.)

Thank you.

Shoshana L. Boublil



All work that is done, should be done out of love.
Then it ceases to be difficult, or boring, or embarrassing.
Even a cup or a plate can be washed with devotion until they shine,
out of aspiration for  perfection and completion.
                            Rav A.Y. HaCohen Kook

Oh, and Lag Ba'Omer is the  is the tikkun of DVH as it comes out D weeks V'H
days in the Omer.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 11:57 PM
Subject: Lag Ba'Omer Ramblings


> May we all be zocheh to HVD she'b'HVD.
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>

In a message dated 5/23/00 5:47:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< 
 The shita brings Rashi on the Gemara and a medrash from this 
 past week's parsha which he says proves that the limit of 
 "hamevazbez al yevazbez yoiser m'chomesh" does not apply to 
 money contributed for hachzokas haTorah. IIRC Rav Bertman 
 suggested in the shiur that the reason for this is that you are being 
 koneh a chelek in their Torah (Yissachar and Zvulun). 
=============
Interesting, did he specifically refer to Yissachar and Zeveulun?  IIRC R' 
Moshe held that this only worked if it were a true Y/Z "partnership," not if 
you just gave money to a Yeshiva.  While we're on the topic, IIRC he also (as 
did many others), refer to the "age old" practice of taking money for 
learning/Raabanut. It seems to be in the category of a permanent horaat 
shaah.  Since we have many new list members since the last time we discussed 
this, does anyone know of any sources where this is brought down (not quoted 
as saying as this is what must have happened but actually contemporaneous 
with the horaah)? Any sources on if times change (e.g. modern technology lets 
you work 30 minutes a day and you can support yourself, would the horrat 
shaah still apply for you?)
==============


The shita 
 also brings a Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona who says that the chomesh 
 limit does not apply to sh'as misa R"L, and one is free to be 
 mechalek his entire estate to aniyim, although he should leave over 
 something on which the dinim of yerusha can be chal.
++++++
How does this square with the gemora on 53 which warns against shifting 
inheritances?
+++++++

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich
  >>

I sent the two letters written by the two composers to Rav Cardozo,
and received the following reply.   The article by Podhoretz should
make for interesting reading (see below).

Shlomo Godick

============================================================

Dear Shlomo,

Thank you very much for sending me the two letters on Bach Beethoven. I
really enjoyed them and learned a lot and I thank both writers for that.

Still I believe that they did not completely understand what I was trying to
convey.  I thinks that they missed some subtleties in my article and
suggest that they read it once more.  It is indeed true that I am not a
musician (although I used to  play piano for many years) but I am a very
carefull listener as a religious thinker and hear things which musicians do
not hear as much as I do not hear a lot what they hear. While I am sure that
the authors are absolutely right from the perspective of the musical tone, I
believe that the philosopher hears something entirely different. On top of
that several  english words have different meaning in both  languages.

From a philosophical point of view the words "Innovation" is something
totally different from the word "original" "Breaking and  not breaking rules
is not the same  as being a greater musician or not , neither does this mean
than one blindly follows or not. It is a little bit more complex than that.

In any way my purpose was not so much to judge  Bach or Beethoven, I wanted
to show a religious philosopher's observation of what is different between
these two  and how that could be of help when understanding the nature of
Halacha. Important is to mention that Halacha is indeed a most creative
process but in my understanding more in the tradition  of Bach than
Beethoven.

Finally I should mention that some friends of mine send me a essay by Norman
Podhoretz the    chief editor of the famous Commentary magazine in  the USA
who wrote  an article called: Was Bach Jewish? in which some similar
observations as mine were made but much more extensive. If you or the
writters are interested in reading the article, please send me your fax
number or address.

Please be so kind to send this answer to your friends and thank them in my
name. All the best, Nathan Cardozo

On 23 May 2000, at 8:12, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> The shita 
>  also brings a Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona who says that the chomesh 
>  limit does not apply to sh'as misa R"L, and one is free to be 
>  mechalek his entire estate to aniyim, although he should leave over
>  something on which the dinim of yerusha can be chal.
> ++++++
> How does this square with the gemora on 53 which warns against
> shifting inheritances? +++++++

I think that gemara is referring to shifting inheritances among your 
children (i.e. by giving one child or another extra matonos) and not 
to shifting them outside the family.

-- 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.

The Chafetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed lists those and a few more exceptions to the 
rule of "hamevazbez" which essentially limit it to very few cases.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

Interesting Seridei Eish (Chiddushim p. 306), likens:

1. Misrapeh me'Avoda Zara according to the Rambam that is patur.
2. Someone who placed a dough in an oven on shabbos and is prevented from
removing it by the issur d'Rabbonon of Redi'as ha'Pas.

to the Gemara in Kesuvos hana"l.

Not sure I agree with #1, but #2 sounds good.

Fascinating Meshech Chochmo in Ke Tetzei explains, based on said Gemoro, the
reason why the pesukim focus on city vs. field.

Does anyone remember a Posek that shtells tzu the sugya to the parameters of
oness to permit tefillas tashlumin?

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

Kirs Sirote wrote:

<<<
I would like to ask a serious question.

What would need to happen before the Sanhedrin can be reestablished?

Please don't answer Mashiach; for argument's sake let's go with the Rambam's
approach of a natural redemption, and establishing the Sanhedrin is not on
his list of Mashiach's responsibilities.

I know that one thing that has to happen is that the majority of Jews have
to live in Israel.  What else?
>>>

Actually the Dor Revi'i wrote that our own davening shows that the restoration
of the Sanhedrin is not contingent on the arrival of the Messiah since
the blessing of hashiva shofteinu precedes the blessing of et zemah David.
The same reasoning shows that the ingathering of the diaspora is also not
contingent on the arrival of the Messiah. On the other hand the reasoning
does not prove that the return of the diaspora is a prerequisite for the
reconstitution of the Sanhedrin. That seems only to require the reinstitution
of formal semiha. But

that requires a much more demanding requirement, the agreement of all the
sages of Israel to select one of their number as the leader upon whom they
would collectively confer semiha who then in turn would be authorized to confer
semiha on his colleagues. A serious movement to reestablish a Sanhedrin was
actually attempted in, I think, the 16th century, but was unsuccessful because
there were some holdout rabbis who refused to cooperate with the effort.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

The question that Rashi asks at the beginning of last week's
parasha may be the most famous question Rashi ever
asked.  The answer he gives is to quote the Torat Kohanim
that the words b'har sinai come to teach us that just as 
the mitzvah of shemitah was given at har sinai with all
"klaloteha, p'rateha, v'dikdukeha" so too were all the
mitzvot.  Am I wrong or is this usually interpreted to refer
to the torah she-ba'al peh?  We usually think of the
pratot and the dikdukim as being part of the Torah
she-ba'al peh?  So the standard interpretation (or the
straw man that I'm calling the standard interpretation) says
that the whole Torah she-ba'al peh (well almost the whole
Torah she-ba'al peh) was actually given to Moshe Rabbeinu
at Sinai.

But Rashi goes on to say (I'm paraphrasing now since I don't 
have a Rashi in front of me) that the point is that even the 
mitzvot that are only recorded in sefer D'vraim were originally 
given at Sinai just as the mitzvah of shemitah was even though 
the other mitzvot were not mentioned at all or in detail until 
D'varim which records the mitzvot that Moshe enumerated at 
Arvot Moav in detail.  

Thus, Rashi himself seems to be going out of his way to 
avoid the standard interpretation of the Torat Kohanim and to
relate it to Torah she-bikhtav and not to Torah she-ba'al peh.
According to my reading, the specific content of the Torah 
she-ba'al peh transmitted at Sinai remains (even according to 
Rashi) undefined and unknown.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On 23 May 2000, at 9:35, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:

> The Chafetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed lists those and a few more exceptions to the 
> rule of "hamevazbez" which essentially limit it to very few cases.

That was brought down in the shiur also. IIRC it was 2:20.

-- 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.

Does anyone know the reason for shooting bows and arrows on Lag B'Omer? 

In a message dated 5/22/00 8:31:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 1- Do we hold like RashBY? What Rashi says is that even according to RaShBY,
    who holds that Esav has an intrinsic hatred of Yaakov, this particular
    hug and kiss was lishmah. Kal vachomer everyone else would understand the
    pasuk to mean Esav meant it. So the statement has parshanut value
    regardless of our position.
 
 2- Does the statement carry pragmatic content? I suggested one possibility,
    that the statement is existential, and is therefore need not be reflected
    in the layers of psyche the person builds up around that essence. Or, even
    if it does mean that Esav has a tendency to hate us, does that give us
    permission to treat him any differently? (Except perhaps, with greater
    caution.)
  >>
No, I absolutely agree with these points. The point Barry seemed to be making 
was to extrapolate a more universal, monolithic approach to Church- Jewish 
relations, at least in terms of the institutional relations. Your point is 
well taken.

Jordan
 

Vav ha'chibbur's :-) .

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Markowitz, Chaim <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:30 AM

> Does anyone know the reason for shooting bows and arrows on Lag B'Omer? 




Note from Micha:

One should note that an arrow is a kli zayin. Zayin = 7, and is therefore
intimately connected to sephiras ha'omer -- sheva shabasos temimos.

In all seriousness, I heard it suggested that R' Akiva's talmidim died
supporting Bar Kochva, and that the "lung condition" was merely a code
word to avoid reminding the Romans of a failed rebellion. In which case,
the bows and arrows make sense. I'm not sure I buy the theory, I'm just
presenting it for discussion.

-mi

I heard an interesting insight as a possible explanation as to why sometimes 
it's ikkar chaser min hasefer - in order to aid memorization  the mishnayot 
had to have a particular beat. Has anyone heard of this , or any other smooth 
explanation of chasurei ( other than that the gemora was trying to fit what 
only later became the halacha back into a mishna that varied)?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Reb. Shoshana Boublil wrote:

>>During a discussion on things that can be Avnei Negef on the road to Kirva 
>>LaHashem, I was told that we shouldn't keep keepsakes (brochures of kids 
>>plays, pictures the kids painted for us, poems written for us under special 
>>circumstances, photos of events etc.) as they act as Mechitzot behind which we
>>hide as we go to them when we want to feel good, instead of approaching Hashem
>>and remembering that He loves us.
     
I used to think that way but now I realize that if we don't have pictures or 
keepsakes then we will simply forget our lives.  I have trouble remembering how 
different my daughter was when she was a baby, before she started playgroup, 
during playgroup, during nursery,...  The pictures help me remember the changes 
my children have gone through and gives me insight into their personality today.
They also give me insight into my wife's and my own personality.  Our 
experiences shape who we are and if we forget them we forget how we came to be 
who we are.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

One thing that wasn't clear to me as a kid. "Tanya, amar R' ..." doesn't
mean "It says in a braisa, R' ... says..." Rather, "It was repeated that
R' ... says..." Yes, there is a different term for someone who repeated a
Mishnah (capital "M") than for someone who repeated other material of that
period. However, the word itself isn't a reference to a compilation.

We often find "Tani tanna kamei diR' ..." where the rav hearing it is an
amorah. A "tanna" in gemara-speak is the person who memorized and repeated
the words of the earlier generations, not (as we used the word now) the
Rabbanim they quoted.

"Chasurei michasrah vihachi katani" therefore literally means "There are
words missing" from the way it was repeated "and this is how it ought to
be repeated".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

<< Reb. Shoshana Boublil wrote:
 
 >>During a discussion on things that can be Avnei Negef on the road to Kirva 
 >>LaHashem, I was told that we shouldn't keep keepsakes (brochures of kids 
 >>plays, pictures the kids painted for us, poems written for us under 
special 
 >>circumstances, photos of events etc.) as they act as Mechitzot behind 
which we
 >>hide as we go to them when we want to feel good, instead of approaching 
Hashem
 >>and remembering that He loves us. >>

Pum fakert - for example, a rememberance of a beloved parent gives us the 
ability to understand on our limited level the love of HKB"H (anu kbanim)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

With regard to the recent thread on hechsherim, please see Iggerot Moshe 
Choshen Mishpat 2:40:a (p. 248). Tshuva dated kislev 5739.

rough summary of case - mashgichim (a)who complained that another hashgacha 
(b)were spreading rumors about  hashgacha a, and refused to allow the places 
under their (b)hashgacha to use hashgacha a's meat, trying to get the 
slaughterhouse to be under their (b) hashgacha. 
Rav Moshe paskens:  
1) There is issur hassagat gvul for trying to change hashgacha
2) the rav hamashgiach is a kinyan lemisra
3) Even without parnassa issues, there is an issur of being motzi shem ra and 
bizayon gadol in stating that the hashgacha is problematic (I believe that 
this issue was raised...)
4) Therefore, it is forbidden to forbid, either directly or through 
stratagems the meat from hashgacha a.(!!!!)
5)  If there are legitimate claims against the first hashgacha, these claims 
have to be brought to a bet din and in front of the rav hamachshir.  and 
there should be a psak din from the bet din.
6) If the hashgacha is changed to b  because hashgacha refused to allow the 
use of hashgacha a, then one is not allowed to use the hashgacha of b on the 
slaughterhouse.

I don't believe most issues on  hashgachot that people question have been 
decided by a bet din, so according to this tshuva the issur of motzi shem ra 
should apply.  In addition, if a restaurant or manufacturer changes hashgacha 
because people don't "trust the hashgacha", there seems to be an issur of 
hassagat gvul against the people in stating that the hashgacha is "not 
reliable".   

Meir Shinnar

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


[ 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         ]