Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 061

Monday, June 5 2000

• occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Gezeirah Shava
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Zoo Teruma
• Re: Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: marranos
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• "Mitsvas yom hashvii" in bentshing
• Re: "Mitsvas yom hashvii" in bentshing
• sheseq/loquats
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: Brisker Derech
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Interesting Maharsha
• Re: Definition of Self
• Re: Interesting Maharsha
• Re: Interesting Maharsha
• Re: Interesting Maharsha
• Re: Negative kavanah

From: "Stein, Aryeh E.    Subject: Re: occupy yourself with Torah
> I am currently listening to a R' Reisman ("RYR") tape in which he discusses
> this very issue...
> RYR also mentioned that R' Yaakov Emden says something to the same effect in
> his siddur (in his "hilchos talmud torah" (siman ches) located in the siddur
> after shachris), but RYR wouldn't speak it out in public (and I haven't yet
> been able to find his siddur yet.  Perhaps one of the chevra has it handy).

I checked it out (well - I had a VERY quick browse) and towards the end found
that RYE writes about a "Boor" which he seems to define as someone who has
difficulty in delving into Taamei hamitzvos etc should learn Halochos Pesukos,
Midrash, Agodo and Mussar (sometime during) both day and night.

The rest of the time he should earn money to support Talmidei Chachomim or
to ensure that his children will be T.CH.

SBA

In a message dated 6/2/00 1:55:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

> : aiui a gezeiro shovo MUST have  mesorah, but other middos are lav davka.
>  
>  See Rashi on Rus. In Boaz's day, you could learn "moavi vilo moavis" 
without
>  a masorah. Which is why I imply in another post that there must have been
>  some change, parhaps a loss of knowledge about when a gezeira shava is 
valid
>  and when not.

AIUI "moavi vilo moavis" is not a Gezeira Shava, and see Yevomos 76b-77a.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 2 Jun 00, at 5:18, millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:
>> But what about his wife and children left without a husband and father
>> for 12 years. Are we "somach al ha nes" that they will not be emotionaled
>> impaired by his absence. Derech hateva we knowthat this is not certainly
>> not a healthy situation for a family?

> See the Maharsha 62b s"v azal yasiv.

The Maharsha says that the years from marriage at 18 until age 30 are the
best for learning Torah before the husband need take care of his kids.

The cases brought in the Gemarra are of Amoraim who first had a child and
then left for one or 12 or 24 years to learn Tirah.

Is the Maharsha that you referred us to teaching us that a child does not
need his father until age 12?


And again what of his wife, left alone for 12 years? 

Learning from 18-30 without "coming home" is certainly great for the the
talmid chacham.


My question is about his responsibility to his wife (even if she ageed)
and the effects of his absence (al pi ha teva) on his child,

Reuven Miller
|  E-mail: millerr@mail.biu.ac.il       |
*****************************************

An anonymous friend responded with:
See Pesochim bottom of 32a and Tosfos Beitza 27b.
Don't know why the Rambam doesn't mention anything.

In a message dated 6/2/00 1:55:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> <<Would it not be better (in terms of the _overall_ picture) for him to
>  marry  _after_ the 12 years of limud?>>

>   Machlokes benei Bovel and bnei Ma'arava.  

Kiddushin 29b, (and see S"A Horav Hil. T"T 3:1-2).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

There is a machlokes whether the "gentile" descendants of an apostate's
kiddushin is good. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 44:9) paskens that it is.
The Ba'er Heitev (8) quotes some early acharonim who disagree. The Otzar
HaPoskim (29) has an extensive treatment of the topic and concludes that
there are very few who hold that the kiddushin would not be good.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com

On 4 Jun 2000, at 13:13, millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> > On 2 Jun 00, at 5:18, millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:
> >> But what about his wife and children left without a husband and
> >> father for 12 years. Are we "somach al ha nes" that they will not
> >> be emotionaled impaired by his absence. Derech hateva we knowthat
> >> this is not certainly not a healthy situation for a family?
> 
> > See the Maharsha 62b s"v azal yasiv.
> 
> The Maharsha says that the years from marriage at 18 until age 30 are
> the best for learning Torah before the husband need take care of his
> kids.

Correct.

> The cases brought in the Gemarra are of Amoraim who first had a child
> and then left for one or 12 or 24 years to learn Tirah.

IIRC there's no indication that was the case with Rabbi Akiva, but it 
is true of Rav Chachinoey and Rav Adda (IIRC that's who it was).

> Is the Maharsha that you referred us to teaching us that a child does
> not need his father until age 12?

We're probably talking 11, but I think what the Maharsha was 
saying was that *at that time* it may have been less important for 
the father to be around. I think there is also a bit of an undercurrent 
there with respect to Rav Oishiya and how his father was envious of 
Rav Oishiya's learning until he realized it was his own son.

> And again what of his wife, left alone for 12 years? 

She consented. The Gemara is quite clear they could not have 
done this otherwise.

> Learning from 18-30 without "coming home" is certainly great for the
> the talmid chacham.
> 
> 
> My question is about his responsibility to his wife (even if she
> ageed) and the effects of his absence (al pi ha teva) on his child,

I'm not sure you can impute our concept of teva to the type of 
person who is ready to leave his wife alone for twelve years and 
spend all of his time learning Torah day and night. Nishtana 
haTeva....

-- 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.

A short question. When we say "Retsey vehakhalitseynu ... bemitsvoytsekho, 
uvemitsvas yom hashvii hashabos hagadol...", what mitsve [loshn-yokhid] are 
we talking about when we say "mitsvas yom hashvii"? Zakhor? Shamor? Oneg? Or 
is there some mitsve that most emphasizes shabes as zeykher lemayse breyshis 
(hence "yom hashvii") that we are meant to focus on?

A gutn khoydesh
Sholem Berger
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

R Sholem Berger (I think that we have on Avodah a Sholem Berger and a Shalom 
Berger) wrote:

>>A short question. When we say "Retsey vehakhalitseynu ... bemitsvoytsekho, 
>>uvemitsvas yom hashvii hashabos hagadol...", what mitsve [loshn-yokhid] are we
>>talking about when we say "mitsvas yom hashvii"? Zakhor? Shamor? Oneg? Or is 
>>there some mitsve that most emphasizes shabes as zeykher lemayse breyshis 
>>(hence "yom hashvii") that we are meant to focus on?

I've seen two nuscha'os - "mitzvas" and "mitzvos".

Which mitzvah (or mitzvos)?

"Lishbos bo velanuach bo..."

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

When learing Daf Yomi Rosh Hashana, someone mentioned that there is a
problem regarding the taking of terumah and ma'aseer of sheseq/loquats.
The tree flowers before and after Tu b'shvat. The person mentioned that
there are rabbanim who require taking terumah on each fruit.

Does anyone know who are the machmirim, the mekeelim and their arguements?

thanks

In a message dated 6/5/00 3:57:00 AM US Central Standard Time, 
millerr@mail.biu.ac.il writes:

<< 
 Learning from 18-30 without "coming home" is certainly great for the the
 talmid chacham.
 
 
 My question is about his responsibility to his wife (even if she ageed)
 and the effects of his absence (al pi ha teva) on his child,
  >>

In the old, old days, the years 18 through 30 comprised the years of mature 
adulthood through the middle of middle age. Today, 18 through 30 is a period 
of extended adolescence. Wouldn't it make sense to say that in today's world, 
the ideal period for learning Torah falls between 35 to 60, give or take? In 
addition to having packed away enough real-life adult experience to be able 
to understand Torah, older men needn't worry as much about being diverted 
from their responsibilities to their wives and children.

David Finch

In a message dated 6/5/00 4:59:45 AM US Central Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<<  And again what of his wife, left alone for 12 years? 
 
 She consented. The Gemara is quite clear they could not have 
 done this otherwise. >>

Another question: What is the halachic importance, if any, of leaving one's 
wife or children "alone" during a period of Torah study? As a practical 
matter, during the age of the Chazal (and perhaps also during the age of the 
great European Torah academies) one had to travel to participate in a serious 
shiurim. Today, such shiurim are available all over the place, including such 
backwaters as Chicago and Los Angeles. Does Gemorrah require that a bucher 
leave his family, or does it merely assume that he will do so in order to 
travel to a place of study? Aren't there educational as well as practical 
reasons to try to keep the bucher at home with his wife and children while he 
is studying Torah?

David Finch

From: <TROMBAEDU@aol.com> Jordan Hirsch
> Is not this a rather typical technique of R' Chaim, who applied the
> distinction between the "what" and the "set of what" in other areas, such as
> Sefiras Haomer, and the halachos of Tashlumin for the set of daily tefillos?

> I am curious to know other examples you could offer to further enlighten me
> as to how this sort of distinction plays out in other sugyas.

> Nice to see an elegant Shtick lomdus online.....

Absolutely!

Have you seen my "cup of tea" analysis?

Here it is again:

An Analysis of Darchei HaLimud (Methodologies of Talmud Study)
Centering on a Cup of Tea

I am attempting to define the differences between the major classical Darchei
Halimud in the 19th-20th century Yeshiva world, focusing on a well known jest.
This is an albeit light-hearted, but hopefully illustrative example.

In Brisk they would mockingly say that in Telshe one would klerr (analyze)
the following chakira (problem):

What makes tea sweet, is it the sugar or the spoon stirring?

Now, the truth is that in Telshe, there were two derachim, that of Reb Chaim
Rabinovitz (Reb Chaim Telzer) and that of Reb Yosef Leib Bloch & Reb Shimon
Shkop. This chakira captures the hallmark of the former (Reb Chaim Telzer's)
derech - Contingencies - but not the latter, which we'll explore later.

Let us now go through how the various darchei halimud would approach this
important conundrum:

Brisker Derech: Intrinsic Categorization and Definition - There are two
(tzvei) dinim in sweetening tea: The cheftza (substance), i.e., the sugar;
and the pe'ula (activity), i.e., the stirring with the spoon. Everyone knows
that Lipton is the "Brisk" tea bacause it has a double (tzvei dinim) tea bag.

Poilisher Derech: Brilliant Novelty (pilpul) - Neither. It is the tea
itself, as the heichi timtsei (sine qua non - medium) for making the tea
sweet,which makes the tea sweet, for if there was no tea, there would be no
sweet tea either.

The Rogatchover's Derech: Combination of the Two Previous Derachim - There
are three dinim in sweetening the tea: The cheftza, the peu'la and the niph'al
(the impacted entity), i.e., the tea itself.

Hungarian Derech: Extrinsic Resolution - Since wine is sweet and it is
not stirred, it follows that the stirring is not what makes the tea sweet,
but the sugar.

Reb Yosef Leib & Reb Shimon's Derech: Abstraction to an Essence - It is
the Hitztarfus (Fusion) of tea molecules and sugar molecules that makes the
tea sweet.

Sephardi Derech: Uncomplicated Grasp - The Sephardi would walk away from
the argument that the six Ashkenazim were engaged in over the tea shaking
his head in disbelief about how silly these Ashkenazim were - obviously the
sugar stirred into the tea is what makes the tea sweet!

Another, more serious example of the difference between the Brisker and
Reb Yosef Leib/Reb Shimon Derachim is in the area of Shee'abud HaGuf
(personal liens). The Briskers are satisfied to explain Shee'abud as a
"partial acquisition" (a "miktzas kinyan"). They classify all such amorphous
transactions in a category known as "chalos" (roughly: "transaction"). They
concentrate on defining "What." Reb Shimon, on the other hand, feels
compelled to explore the "Why." He therefore explains that Shee'abud is a
logical construct of the social contract between individuals which precedes
Halacha. He draws an analogy between Shee'abud and Emuna in the existence
of G-d - which also, perforce, must precede the acceptance of Torah, and is
based on logical constructs.

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

On 5 Jun 2000, at 10:45, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> Another question: What is the halachic importance, if any, of leaving
> one's wife or children "alone" during a period of Torah study? 

I don't think the question is one of leaving the wife and children 
alone as much as it's a question of being able to study without 
distraction. 

As a
> practical matter, during the age of the Chazal (and perhaps also
> during the age of the great European Torah academies) one had to
> travel to participate in a serious shiurim. Today, such shiurim are
> available all over the place, including such backwaters as Chicago and
> Los Angeles. Does Gemorrah require that a bucher leave his family, or
> does it merely assume that he will do so in order to travel to a place
> of study? Aren't there educational as well as practical reasons to try
> to keep the bucher at home with his wife and children while he is
> studying Torah?

Clearly the set-up then was very different than it is today. 

-- 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 5 Jun 2000, at 10:32, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In the old, old days, the years 18 through 30 comprised the years of
> mature adulthood through the middle of middle age. Today, 18 through
> 30 is a period of extended adolescence. Wouldn't it make sense to say
> that in today's world, the ideal period for learning Torah falls
> between 35 to 60, give or take? In addition to having packed away
> enough real-life adult experience to be able to understand Torah,
> older men needn't worry as much about being diverted from their
> responsibilities to their wives and children.

I don't think it's a question of life expectancy. The Gemara talks in 
many places about girsa d'yankusa and how you retain things you 
learn when you are younger better than you retain things you learn 
when you are older. I would argue that 18-30 (and especially 18-25) 
are the prime years for Torah study, because they are the years 
when one has his greatest strength, and one is mature enough not 
to let every little distraction take him away from his learning. 

At our age, we are losing brain cells already :-) 

-- Carl (on the path to retirement kollel IY"H nevertheless....)


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.

In Avodah V5#59, MBerger responded:
>>>AES>>> Aside from a melech yisroel,.... <<<
>>MP>> and RaShBY (see BT Shabbos 33)? :-) <<

> I thought the gemara concludes that most of us can't succeed in RaShBY's
derech. <

I was merely, half seriously, adding onto AEStein's categorization of who
has to spend every free moment in learning. Re the rest of us....

>>> Masa umattan kehalachah requires constantly thinking about Torah as
well. <<<

>> I.e. you're interpreting the Mishna such that "business activities" is not
mutually exclusive with "occupy...Torah." Right?  See BT B'rachos 35. <<

> After the bit I referred to earlier about trying to act like RaShBY vilo
alsa biyadan, the gemara refers to making your learning keva and your work
ara'i. <

I mentioned the sugya _in support of_ your position -- sorry if that wasn't
clear. The question I had for you, however, is whether this _Mishna_ (in
Avos) implies what I understood you as saying -- on the surface, I would
suggest it does not, yet the interesting wording, with root ayin-samech-kuf
being used for both the "business activities" noun and the "occupy" verb,
could arguably suggest it does (i.e. there is an intersection of these two
"sets"). What do you think?

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 03:19:43PM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:        The question I had for you, however, is whether this _Mishna_ (in
: Avos) implies what I understood you as saying -- on the surface, I would
: suggest it does not, yet the interesting wording, with root ayin-samech-kuf
: being used for both the "business activities" noun and the "occupy" verb...

I wasn't suggesting that "eisek" in the mishnah referred to business. What
I meant was that "eisek baTorah" doesn't necessarily mean sitting down
in front of a seifer. One can be "busy in Torah" in other ways.

I think that fact that "eisek" can mean "business activities" is an
acknowledgement of the fact that for far too many of us, that's the keva in
our lives. It flows from the other definition. Same reason why in English
the word is "occupation", also from "occupy".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:34:44PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:                                            The Maharsha 
: answers that there are three ways to fulfill a mitzva. One is to do it 
: properly with all of the proper kavanos. A second way is to fulfill it 
: with no kavana at all or with a kavana that is irrelevant. The third 
: way is to fulfill it davka with the wrong kavana. For example to 
: enhance one's own kavod.

This reminded me of RYBS's position on "mitzvos einum tz'richos kavanah".
While you can be yotzei a mitzvah without kavanah, having bidavkah negative
kavanah, IOW making a point of deciding not to be yotzei, would invalidate
the mitzvah.

RYBS then continued to say that he couldn't bring himself to choose not to
be yotzei a mitzvah, and therefore couldn't see having kavanah not to be
yotzei when the chazan says a birchas hamitzvah -- e.g. before Hallel or
counting Omer. So, RYBS and many of his students (and, via my father, myself)
say the berachah along with the chazan, therefore eliminating the need
for negative kavanah.

OTOH, I wondered why saying "baruch hu ubaruch shemo" (BHuBS) wouldn't
suffice. This isn't a choice for RYBS, who shares the Gra's view that 
BHuBS is a minhag ta'us, but for the rest of the olam... We don't say
it by kiddush because it would be a hefsek. So saying BHuBS would eliminate
the need for negative kavanah for those who do say it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

In one post RYGB writes:
: Your nefesh remains attached to your body (even, it seems, after death -
: that is how Ov works). The neshomo comes and goes.

Your last sentence reminded me of an observation I made. In the few texts I
saw, gilgul is consistantly discussed in terms of neshamah. Since ruach is not,
it would seem that there is no connection of identity between lives.

I ask public mechilah from R' Saadia Gaon for even mentioning this subject.

In another post he quoted me and writes:
:> As you suggest that my thoughts are further than you would go, you piqued my
:> curiousity as to what you think on the subject.

: It just mean one whose soul is more elevated.

That would imply that the Ch"S is willing to apply a pasuk written about
anavim to a group of people with un-elevated souls. Your position would be
more derogatory of the anav than mine!

I agree, though, that there is little indication the Ch'S used nefesh in
a Naran-particular sense.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-Jun-00: Levi
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 17a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 6/5/00 3:42:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:
> OTOH, I wondered why saying "baruch hu ubaruch shemo" (BHuBS) wouldn't
> suffice. This isn't a choice for RYBS, who shares the Gra's view that 
> BHuBS is a minhag ta'us, but for the rest of the olam... We don't say
> it by kiddush because it would be a hefsek. So saying BHuBS would eliminate
> the need for negative kavanah for those who do say it.

I recall learning that BHuBS would not bdieved keep you from being yotzeh.
Perhaps that is the reason (but what if you just talk shtut during the bracha?)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS Do you think most people know that they should have negative intent. In
any event I'm not sure why anyone not having RYBS's minhag wouldn't answer
BHuBS, yet I haven't seen that as the common custom.

On 5 Jun 2000, at 14:41, Micha Berger wrote:
> OTOH, I wondered why saying "baruch hu ubaruch shemo" (BHuBS) wouldn't
> suffice. ...                                             We don't say
> it by kiddush because it would be a hefsek. So saying BHuBS would eliminate
> the need for negative kavanah for those who do say it.

Just for the fun of it....

Would it eliminate the need for negative kavanah, or would it constitute a
positive act that indicates that one actually has negative kavanah? I think
the latter....

-- Carl

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.


Micha's 2 cents: The first dozen times you do it, I'd agree. For me, it
would eventually become rote, r"l. And if I'm in a hurry on Rosh Chodesh
morning, I think I wouldn't have any kavanah behind why I'm inserting it.

In a message dated 6/5/00 3:42:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

> RYBS then continued to say that he couldn't bring himself to choose not to
>  be yotzei a mitzvah, and therefore couldn't see having kavanah not to be
>  yotzei when the chazan says a birchas hamitzvah -- e.g. before Hallel or
>  counting Omer. So, RYBS and many of his students (and, via my father, 
myself)
>  say the berachah along with the chazan, therefore eliminating the need
>  for negative kavanah.
>  
While the advice not to be Yotze is brought in Poskim, the downside of saying 
at the same time is taking away the posibilty of answering Omein (Gzeilas 
Haonee).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

: RYBS then continued to say that he couldn't bring himself to choose not
: to be yotzei a mitzvah, and therefore couldn't see having kavanah not to
: be yotzei when the chazan says a birchas hamitzvah -- e.g. before Hallel
: or counting Omer. So, RYBS and many of his students (and, via my father,
: myself) say the berachah along with the chazan, therefore eliminating the
: need for negative kavanah

1. To be yotzei through shmiya of someone else necessitates shomea k'oneh
indpendent of the requirement of mitzvos tzrichos kavanah - e.g. see Mishna
R"H 3:7 regarding tekiyas shofar. You don't need negative kavanah to avoid
the issue - lack of positive kavanah suffices to break the shomea k'oneh.

2. By mitzvos of amira b'prat kavanah is necessary acc. to all dayos -
see R' Yonah at the end of first perek of Berachos, so you wouldn't need
negetive kavanah, just lack of positive.

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


[ 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         ]