Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 063

Wednesday, June 7 2000

• Re: "mitsvas yom hashvii"
• Slonimer Rebbe (was Avodah V5 #61)
• Re: Gezeirah Shava
• Re: Zoo Teruma
• Brisker derech
• Re:Brisker Derech
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Boruch Shem
• Negetive kavanah
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Brisker derech
• Re: Re:Brisker Derech
• Re: Boruch Shem
• Re: Boruch Shem
• Adam Before And After The Chet

In Avodah V5#62, SBrizel responded:
> leil SHabbos is the bechina of maaseh breishis, yom haShabbos is the bechina
of matan Torah and Seudah Shlishis is yimos HaMoshiach. <

As can be seen in the Amidah for lail Shabbos, Shacharis, and Minchah,
respectively.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: Zeliglaw    Subject: Re: Avodah V5 #61
> See Nesivos Shalom , Chelek Beis
> ... The Slonimer Rebbe, Yivadlenu lchaim, ..

The Slonimer Rebbe, Rav Sholom Noach shlita is BH alive. (AFAIK he needs a
Refuah Sheleimah BShChY)

SBA

In a message dated 6/6/00 12:15:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> "Moavi vilo mo'avis" is a hekesh from Amoni, which itself comes from "al
>  davar asher lo kidmu lachem" which was only a ta'anah on the men.

1) see the Gemara 77a (and Rashi D"H Ktano'ee) that there are 2 ways of to 
learn that Amonis/ Mo'ovis are permitted one by Amonee/Mo'ovee Vloi 
Amonis/Mo'ovis (just simple Teitch of the words) and the other based on the 
reason which is not applicable to men.

2) while in the Bavli it only gives the reason of Ein Darkoi Shel Ish WRT 
Kdima, the Yerushalmi continues on that the same applies to Schirus (this is 
also brought in the Ramban on the Possuk.

> See the
>  parallel Y'lmi, which quotes R' Meir and R' Le'azar (?) bei R' Shim'on on
>  our derashah calling it a "gezeirah shava bimakom shekasuv".

The discussion there is the GZ"S of Mamzeirim and Amonee/Mo'ovee.

>  
>  The word "hekesh" is not in the braisa that has R' Yishma'el categorization
>  of the middos shehatorah nidreshes bahem. I thought this was because hekesh
>  is a subcategory of gezeira shava.

There is such an opinion see E"R ERech Hekesh.

> This appears to be born out by the Y'lmi.

KaNa"L

  
>  As to whether this kind of g"sh is included in the braisa in Cheilek that
>  requires out belief that all gezeiros shava are miSinai is another 
question.
>  Perhaps it only refers to comparison by terminology.

It is Machlokes Rashi and Tosfos, and see above mentioned E"T.  


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In message , SBA <sba@blaze.net.au> writes
>An anonymous friend responded with:
>See Pesochim bottom of 32a and Tosfos Beitza 27b.

Thanks for the references.  The Pesachim is really helpful in extending
the matter to animals of a cohen, but then it seems (at least to me,
maybe your friend has another reading) that the Tosphos makes things
worse again.

To explain, the gemorra in pesachim seems to be discussing payment to a
cohen (eg if you eat his teruma), in particular payment to a cohen if
you eat his truma which is chametz on pesach - and it contrasts this to
teruma temaya, because teruma which is chametz there is an issur of
ha'naa (at least according to most opinions), while with teruma temaya,
the cohen can get hana'a from it and then he answers, but even for this
as if the cohen wants he can give it to his dog or burn it under his
food.

So that would seem to suggest that as an alternative, a cohen could give
it to his dog (and by extension, other animals).

But then Tosphos is discussing the question of moving tameh chala (and
then teruma) on yom tov (as the mishna says you cannot move the chala).
And Rashi explains this is because you are not supposed to burn kodshim
on yom tov - and tosphos expands on the matter, discussing the tircha of
burning but asks (inter alia) why he cannot put it in front of his dog,
as per the gemorra in pesachim as that would not be any extra tircha -
and (at least if I am reading him right) answer that the reason you
can't do this is because of the gemorra in shabbas that I originally
brought that it is a mitzvah to burn tamei teruma (and seems to be
distinguishing the case in pesach as referring not to teruma temaya, but
to teruma which is chametz, where giving it to his dog is a form of biur
(which would presumably mean he feels the whole discussion in pesachim
is about the time of biur chametz - which wasn't the way I was reading
the gemorra originally, but it does make sense, especially as the whole
dialog is repeated a few lines up, but there there is no suggestion that
there is an alternative for teruma tmeya besides burning).  So how is
the Tosphos helping?  (If anything the Rashi on that daf seems to be
more use, as he does refer to giving it to his dog as an alternative to
burning, and although he only goes on to discuss burning, and issues
surrounding burning, you could read him as including giving to his dog
as a part of that discussion).

>Don't know why the Rambam doesn't mention anything.
>

Still puzzled, but we may be getting closer

Thanks again for the sources

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

RYGB gave an example of a Brisker "shnei dinim" approach to an issue raised
in the 3rd perek of T.Y Nazir. He stated that the 2 "Brisker" dinim of
fulfillment of days vowed and fulfillment of nezirut do not fully explain
the mishneh. I, then, attempted the following explanation which is followed
by RYGB's question.


From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> ...                       If the nazir became tameh after his period but
> before the ceremony at the mikdash, then he has entered a special
> category.  He can not bring the korbonot nazir since there was an
> interval of tumah and the bringing of purification (from tumas mes)
> korbonot between the conclusion of his nezirut and the mikdash
> ceremony.  Yet, he did fulfill his vow of 100 days.  He, therefore, is

> given the 30 day generic periond of nezirut to fulfill before he can
> complete the process.

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
: The issue is why not, as R' Eliezer says in that mishna, only seven days?


I still don't have access to the mishna in question (could you give a more
specific reference?) but will attempt an answer anyway. Nesirut of 7 days
requires a specific vow to that effect. The nazir in question can not now
make that vow since such a vow would be a new one and he is still tied to
his current (100 day) nezirut which is now only missing the mikdash ceremony.
A 30 day nezirut, on the other hand, is generic and can be interpreted to be
consistent with the language of the nazir's original vow, that is, he vowed
1) nezirut, 2) for 100 days. Under his current circumstances, 2) was already
fulfilled and 1) will be fulfilled when the new 30 day nezirut period is over.

I don't know if this approach is consistent with what R'Chaim Brisker has
suggested, but it is a form of 2 dinim that is restricted, however, to a
particular circumstance.

Yitzchok Zlochower

> An classic Brisker Derech approach:

> The mishna in the third perek of Nazir (we are learning Y-mi Nazir now -
> zehr zehr geshmack!!!) say a Nazir that is nitma achar Yom Melos (i.e., day
> 101 of a 100 day Nezirus, prior to havo'as korbonos) is only soseir thirty
> days, not 100 day. Why?

> R' Chaim explains that there are two dinim in being soseir nezirus, being
> soseir the nezirus vs. being soseir minyan. A Nazir after 100 day is soseir
> his nezirus, not his minyan.

> This is a beautiful example of Brisker lomdus because the "what" has been
> defined so elegantly that you think you understand the "why". But if you
> consider a second time, the question begins to gnaw: "nu, yezt veis ich
> vohs, obber, fahr vohs"?

	As soon as the hundred days are over, his minyan is complete, and there
can be no stirah of that which is completed. His n'zirus, on the other hand,
is not yet complete until he brings his korbonos, and thus there can be
stirah of his n'zirus. Once it is, it requires a new n'zirus, the minimum
of which is 30 days.

	Better, we can say that the stirah of a n'zirus, where the minyan
is not nistar, does not require a new n'zirus. It is the growth of hair
that is required, in order to be mekayem tiglachas d'tahara. This is what
requires 30 days according to the Rabonon, but only 7 according to Rabbi
Elozor, as is explicit in Bavli 39b.

	(This is the type of discussion that I had hoped to find when joining
Avodah. Kain yirbu.)

Sadya N. Targum

I wrote:
: More relevently, based on the braisa in Avos 6:2 I want to distinguish between
: "oseik baTorah" and "oseik biTalmud Torah"....

One more observation, when Avos 6:2 places and "oseik biTorah tadir" above an
"oseik biTalmud Torah" -- and it doesn't mention an "oseik biTalmud Torah
tadir". Perhaps this says much about the original question. The mishnah
doesn't expect tedirus Talmud Torah, "only" in Torah.

-mi

	There was some discussion on Avodah some time back concerning whether or
not Boruch Shem Kevod... and Yehei Shmei Raba Mevorach were identical
except for the language.  Ayen sham.  

	My question now is,  how do you translate Boruch Shem:  if it is in fact
the same as Yehei Shmei,  it would have to be translated as "the Name of
Hashem __should be__  rather than "blessed is"  as is found in most
conventional translations.  Does this depend on how you interpret the
Boruch at the beginning of all brochos?

	Comments?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' Soloveitchik's practice of reciting the beracha of sefira w/ the chazan
is based on a diyuk in the Rambam (Berachos 1:11) that while shomea k'oneh
requires kavanah, there is a seperate din that 'h'oneh amain hrei zeh
k'mevareich' that is independent of shomea k'oneh and functions even sans
kavanah. A parallel de'ah can be found in the Shita Mekubetzet in Berachos
perek haRoeh.

(I asked R' Y. Sacks in Passaic who confirmed that that was the Rav's practice
based on this hesber).

-CB

In a message dated 6/7/00 5:00:54 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
: One more observation, when Avos 6:2 places and "oseik biTorah tadir" above an
: "oseik biTalmud Torah" -- and it doesn't mention an "oseik biTalmud Torah
: tadir". Perhaps this says much about the original question. The mishnah
: doesn't expect tedirus Talmud Torah, "only" in Torah.

Could that be the case because the topic sentence of that mishnah addresses
the woe that should befall mankind should it show contempt for the law? Avos
6:2 seems to address halacha in the regulatory sense -- not on the deeper
levels available to full-time scholars.

David Finch

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> I still don't have access to the mishna in question (could you give a more
> specific reference?) but will attempt an answer anyway. Nesirut of 7 days

Second perek of Nazir.

> requires a specific vow to that effect. The nazir in question can not now

One cannot make a seven day Nezirus. A person that vows even one minute of
Nezirus is locked into a thirty day Nezirus.

KT,
YGB

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

From: sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>
> Better, we can say that the stirah of a n'zirus, where the minyan
> is not nistar, does not require a new n'zirus. It is the growth of hair
> that is required, in order to be mekayem tiglachas d'tahara. This is what
> requires 30 days according to the Rabonon, but only 7 according to Rabbi
> Elozor, as is explicit in Bavli 39b.

How is what you are saying not the same as R' Chaim, without the nomenclature?

BTW, a very interesting Rogatchover end of 12the perek of Hil. Nedarim says the
right of a husband to be meifer his wife's neder by nezirus is a unique one,
distinct from the other rights of haforas nedarim. Thus, even if in other areas
we might pasken that the husband is okker l'mafrei'a, by nezirus it is me'kan
u'l'ha'ba - which is why of she became tameh during her interrupted (via hafara)
nezirus she still brings korbonos. Based on the pasuk of "v'heifer es nidra
asher *aleha*.

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

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> My question now is,  how do you translate Boruch Shem:  if it is in fact
> the same as Yehei Shmei,  it would have to be translated as "the Name of
> Hashem __should be__  rather than "blessed is"  as is found in most
> conventional translations.  Does this depend on how you interpret the
> Boruch at the beginning of all brochos?

Yes. RCV (R' Chaim Volozhiner) translates baruch me'lashon breicha (pool) and
berech (knee) - an enhanced shefa and extension thereof to the world.

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

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:44:28AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:      RCV (R' Chaim Volozhiner) translates baruch me'lashon breicha (pool) and
: berech (knee) - an enhanced shefa and extension thereof to the world.

In Appendix A of Ashira Lashem, which is on kavvanos for Birchas Avos, I note
three translations of "baruch".

1- RSRH: By committing ourselves to serve HKBH, we can increase how much
   influence His Ratzon has on the world. We therefore make that commitment,
   to create that beracha ("berachah lashon ribbui").

   This is akin to RCV's approach in that it's a call for us to act. RSRH
   phrases it as a physical causality -- we do His Will, therefore his Will's
   impact is increased. RCV sees the causality to be more metaphysical.

2- Avudraham (pg 33): "You are the source of all increase".

3- Radak (Seifer haShorachim /b-r-ch/); R' Yonah ibn Janach (Seifer haShorashim
   /b-r-ch/); Or Zaru'a (Hil K'rias Sh'ma); Chizkuni (Bereashis 24:27):
   It is a statement of Hashem's Infiniteness. (Is that a word?) Berachah
   is a lashon of increase, but as a statement of fact, not a wish. IOW,
   "You are infinitely increased."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  6-Jun-00: Shelishi
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 17b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

The Rambam (MN 1:2) writes that before Adam's chet he was an intellectual 
(philosopher?) who saw things objectively in terms of truth and falsehood.  
After the chet Adam saw things subjectively as good and bad.  That is why before
the chet Adam knew that intellectually there is nothing wrong with being naked. 
After the chet Adam subjectively thought that it was improper.

IF I understand this correctly:

1. What is wrong with walking around naked?  It is just our subjectivity that 
tells us that it is wrong.

2. Is there any way for Adam after the chet to see things objectively or are we 
doomed to be subjective because of our internal desires?  Is this similar to R. 
Elchanan Wasserman's vort that if one does not fulfill the Torah properly one 
can never see objectively?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

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


[ 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         ]