Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 118

Monday, September 11 2000

• gesher
• 3 questions
• RE: Areivim V5 #276
• Lo L'ydei Matnas Bosor Vodom...
• Re: Rav Ovadia's idea of Gilgul
• Re: 3 questions
• RE: Shemitta
• noisy minyanim
• RE: Avodah V5 #117
• RE: Areivim V5 #276

with all of the discussion about Shemittah conversion, I thought that it 
would be worthwhile to alert the olam that at least one organization tries to 
deal with the secular-religious divide in an intelligent manner.I have 
emailed the recent haaretz article profiling Rabbi Daniel Tropper's excellent 
organization for your review.
                                            Steven brizel
                                            Zeliglaw@aol.com
                                            

Three questions:
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

1. I think I recall having seen posters/fliers around the YU Bet Midrash
around Elul or `aseret yeme teshuvah recommending students learn certain
perakim from either .Hovot ha-Levavot or Sha`are Teshuvah based upon
the advice of Reb Dovid Lifshuetz zzl. Can anyone verify my (sometimes
faulty) memory? And, if so, do you remember the specific sefer/perakim?

2. A popular yeshiva zemer for Shavuot and/or Sim.hat Torah is, so I've
heard, a contemporary Rosh Yeshiva's (Rav Dessler? Hutner?) adaptation of
words which, I presume, originate in the Ra'aya Meheimna in Zohar II:40b
(otherwise known as the beginning of the RM on parshat Bo). At least,
that's the closest I've come to a source. Is there any yeshiva-leit
(or otherwise!) out there who a) may know with which Rosh Yeshiva the
story is associated? b) the actual source of the words, if my guess is
wrong. While I will appreciate any and all relevant anecdotal testimony, I
was hoping for a written source as proof. So that there is no confusion,
I include the words of the song (a la Mordecai Ben David--if anyone
knows of *other* versions of the music, I would like to know as well):
"Kad yatvin Yisrael ve-`askin be-sim.hat ha-Torah, Kudsha Brikh Hu
omer le-famalia di-leh: '.Hazu, .hazu! Banai, .havivai! De-mishtak.hin
mi-tsareh dil-hon, ve-`askin be-.hedvata di-li.'"

3. Almost the same question as above: this time in regards the popular
(year-round) zemer "Bi-levavi mishkan evneh..." which is based on a piyut
(one of four; this one begins "Omar shirah lifnei yotsri be-eimah")
in R. Eliezer Azkari's *Sefer .Haredim*. Again, I've heard the zemer
is a contemporary Rosh Yeshiva's adaptation of the essence of the above-
referred piyut. A) Who is the Rosh Yeshiva in mind? B) Sources: anecdotal
or, preferably, written.

Many thanks in advance! 
Yisrael Dubitsky

[Moshe:]
> Consequently, b'sha'as hadchak one may rely on the heter. But this
> implies that where there is no sha'as ha'dchak it's not totally assur,
> merely not recommended.

[Carl:]
> Again, I missed the leap of logic there. Rav Kook was only
> speaking to a sh'as ha'dchak. As was Rav Yitzchak Elchonon.

The logic would be as follows:

1. The sale "works", i.e. it may be haromah but shmitth is d'rabanan so it
works.

2. Sale of land in EY involves issur losachaneim.

3. Due to the Shaas Hadchak we rely on the status of Yishmaelim, etc. The
Shaas Hadchak has nothing to do with the efficacy of the mechira, it either
works or it doesn't. The Shaas hadchak is needed, I assume, to justify the
reliance on the leninent position on the (colateral) losachaneim issue.

I heard this novel P'shat today - b'shem Rav Yecheskel Levenstein zt'l -
Ponovitz Mashgiach.

In Benchen: "...V'noh Al Tatzrichenu H' E' Lo L'ydei Matnas Bosor
Vodom..". he said he was Mechaven that he be healthy and never come to
the need (Lo L'ydei Matnas...) of an organ transplant (Bosor) or a
blood transfusion (Vodom)...

A Gutten Shabbos
SHLOMO B ABELES

RM Berger wrote:
: OTOH, the tinok shenishba is given clemency because he is judged in relation 
: to his upbringing. In addition, how is it that a child who follows his 
: parents aveiros is punished more harshly for it, while a ben soreir umoreh 
: who refuses to follow his parents' upbrining is punished more harshly for 
: that as well?

: What I guess I'm asking is: when does Hashem look at the individual, and 
: matches expectations because of context, and when does Hashem look at
: the culture, and needs to judge the person more harshly in order to 
: uproot the chut hamshulash?
     
[Thinking out loud]

I think these are separate cases, although related.

The first is a matter of sechar ve'onesh for the parent. As a
punishment to the parent, the child (even as an adult) is punished for
the parent's sins. This is the converse of zechus avos. Just like a
child (even adult) can be rewarded for the parent's righteous deeds,
a child (even adult) can be punished for the parent's sins. However,
so as not force the child into this position, one can break out of the
punishment by not following in the parent's sins. I'm not sure if one
can break out of zechus avos. Perhaps here too midah tovah merubah.

The second case is not a matter of punishment for the parent's sins but
for the child's sins. Did this child have bechirah chofshis? In my
mind, the question still remains, how much bechirah does this child need?
Lichora, even a little bechirah is sufficient for this child to be liable
for punishment. Is it necessary for the child to have been brought up
lechatchilah to perform mitzvos or just need exposure to the idea of
shemiras mitzvos? I think this is a machlokes rishonim.

Gil Student

RY Dubitsky wrote:
> 1. I think I recall having seen posters/fliers around the YU Bet Midrash 
> around Elul or `aseret yeme teshuvah recommending students learn certain 
> perakim from either .Hovot ha-Levavot or Sha`are Teshuvah based upon
> the advice of Reb Dovid Lifshuetz zzl. Can anyone verify my (sometimes 
> faulty) memory? And, if so, do you remember the specific sefer/perakim?

It was Sha'arei Teshuvah, but I don't remember which chapters.

> 3. Almost the same question as above: this time in regards the popular 
> (year-round) zemer "Bi-levavi mishkan evneh..." which is based on a piyut 
> (one of four; this one begins "Omar shirah lifnei yotsri be-eimah")
> in R. Eliezer Azkari's *Sefer .Haredim*. Again, I've heard the zemer
> is a contemporary Rosh Yeshiva's adaptation of the essence of the above- 
> referred piyut. A) Who is the Rosh Yeshiva in mind? B) Sources: 
> anecdotal or, preferably, written.

I heard that it was R. Elchanan Wasserman.

Gil Student

On 8 Sep 00, at 10:25, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote to Areivim:
>> 1. Rav Kook felt that the heter works but that it involves a problem of lo
>> saichoneim.  We rely on the fact that Yishmaaelim are not ovdei avidah zara
>> and that there is no isur lo saichaneim as to them only b'shaas hadchak.
> 
> They also rely on their only selling the land temporarily, only selling the 
> trees with the necessary land to nourish the tree, and selling on condition
> that the trees be cut down (even though they won't, it is part of the
> contract). These three conditions (I think established by RYY Diskin,
> Maharil Diskin's son) are based on minority opinions that permit selling land
> in EY to gentiles under those circumstances.  Because they are da'atei
> yachid, they can only be relied upon in she'as hadechak.

Almost. The following comes from Sefer HaShmitta, P. 60-61 (translation
mine):

"And then (before Shmitta 5656 - C.S.), the problem reached a new 
turning point. Rav Naftali Zvi Hertz, the Rav of Yaffo and the 
settlements, found it necessary to call to the attention of the 
Rabbanim of Yerushalayim the reality of the situation. He came to 
Yerushalayim just before the Shmitta to consult with the two 
Geonim, Rav Yehuda Leib Diskin and Rav Shmuel Salant, and 
these two Geonim who in the previous Shmitta (5649-1889 C.S.) 
signed a letter forbidding (use of the heter mechira - C.S.), not only 
did not forbid him to try for a heter, but they also paid attention to 
the conditions of the heter. The Gaon Rav Shmuel Salant, who did 
not want to be the Moreh in such an important matter, answered 
Rav Naftali Zvi Hertz that he should listen to the idea of Rav Yehuda 
Leib Diskin, and if he (RYLD - C.S.) will agree, then he will have on 
whom to rely. And after listening carefully to RNZH, RYLD was 
interested in the conditions of the sale. The main obstacle that 
stood before RNZH was the issur of lo s'choneim, and the heter of 
the Shemen HaMor (YD 4) to sell the land temporarily, for example 
for two years - did not satisfy him because it was no better than a 
lease, which is assur at least d'Rabbanan. And [RNZH] suggested 
to RYLD the sale of the trees on condition that they be cut down 
such that there would be no issur of lo s'choneim (Avodah Zara 
19b), and he added further to sell the trees with sufficient land to 
nourish them (from all the stories I have heard this idea came from 
RYLD himself, but from what I saw in the letter from RNZH to the 
Gaon the Aderes zt"l that was printed by his son in law, Rav Yosef 
HaLevi at the end of his sefer Horoas Shaa, this idea also came 
from RNZH). And when RYLD agreed, RNZH wrote a contract 
based upon the following three heterim: 1. A temporary sale. 2. 
Sale of the trees with enough land to nourish them. 3. On condition 
that the trees be cut, *and if they are not cut by the beginning of 
Shmitta, then the sale will apply to the land itself for two years, i.e. 
the trees and the land needed to sustain them.*"

This, of course, was well before Rav Kook became the Rav Roshi. 
Rav Kook's first Shmitta as Rav Roshi was 5670 (1910). But it was 
always contemplated that the trees may not be cut.

Rav Tukichinsky then goes on to describe how the heter was to be 
re-examined with each Shmitta.... See Mishpat Kohen 63.

-- 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

A young associate of mine asked me a very good question during a discussion
concerning picking a community to live in.  How is it that there are such
things as noisy minyanim(ie why doesn't the mora datra take a stand) I
pointed out to him that there is plenty of blame to go around(ourselves, our
schools, our lay leaders etc.) and shared my poor insights with him, but I'd
be curious as to how others would answer the question.

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

In reply to my post on tinok shenishba, several responses.
Dr. Backon wrote
The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah Siman Bet s"k 16) indicated that in his day
we no longer *danim din mumarin v'epikorsim* with regard to *moridin
velo ma'alin*. To extrapolate this to everyone being a tinok shenishba
is highly dubious.

1) I didn't extrapoloate from the Chazon Ish, but rather heard someone who
said in the name of the Chazon Ish.  I don't know whether that rav
extrapolated from the Chazon Ish's written psak (I agree, it is quite a
stretch) or whether there was another statement circulating.., and was
asking if anybody else had heard this shitta.  The reason behind the shitta
I heard, while it has similar (although more far reaching) practical effects
to the published psak, is actually quite different than that behind the
published psak.

2) The concept of nebbich epikoros as suggested by R Chaim was suggested as
opposing that of the Radbaz.  My understanding of nebbich epikoros is
actually quited different - that one doesn't have to be a talmid chacham in
order to become an epikoros.  That doesn't address the question of someone
who intellectually comes to a different conclusion with regard to ikkare
emuna, although R Chaim may well have viewed him as an epikoros.
The radbaz views such a person as anus, an interesting reflection on the
weight he gives to reason (somehow, I doubt that many today would view
someone whose reason contradicts emunah as anus)

3) A shitta similar to the radbaz by the ikkarim was brought, who, however,
requires torah min hashamyim.
 (Note that this is not a discussion about the acceptability of these
statements, rather, whether someone who holds them because of faulty
reasoning is technically a kopher.) I haven't seen the ikkarim about torah
min hashamayim.  However, while the radbaz gives room for one's reason, the
notion of torah min hashamayim (at least in some  form) would seem needed
unless torah umitzvot becomes (r"l) folk customs. However, (to avoid kfira
according to the Radbaz) the strict construction of torah min hashamayim may
not be required.

3) The issue of tinokot shenishbu for karaites  was raised.  I think that
there is a fundamental difference between the Radbaz's question  on kphira
and the question of the karaites.
The person with intellectual error is still part of the community, and keeps
torah umitzvot.  The question is whether the fact that his faulty reasoning
is ones him to err on an intellectual question, even though he keeps torah
umitzvot, is enough to make him a kopher.  
This is not the position attributed (wrongly) to R Mendelson's that the
Torah requires no beliefs, but a statement that someone whose reason causes
him to have wrong beliefs is still part of the community.
In the case of the Karaites and the anusim, he claims that the continuous
exposure of the Karaites to the halachic community is enough that they no
longer have the status of tinokot shenishbu in order to justify their
nonobservance of halacha.  The issue of whether their denial of any ikkare
emuna becomes kfira or is justified by their being anus by their reasoning
therefore never really arises.  They have enough exposure that the Radbaz
feels that they should be judged as members of the community.  

Meir Shinnar

On 7 Sep 00, at 21:54, Sheldon Krause wrote:
> 1. The sale "works", i.e. it may be haromah but shmitth is d'rabanan so it
> works.

> 2. Sale of land in EY involves issur losachaneim.

> 3. Due to the Shaas Hadchak we rely on the status of Yishmaelim, etc. The
> Shaas Hadchak has nothing to do with the efficacy of the mechira, it either
> works or it doesn't. The Shaas hadchak is needed, I assume, to justify the
> reliance on the leninent position on the (colateral) losachaneim issue.

So you're positing that even though it's assur to do it, it still works? 
How can the Rabbanut give a hashgacha on that basis?

-- 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

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


[ 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         ]