Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 119

Tuesday, September 12 2000

• RE: Shmitta
• Shemita
• RE: Shmitta
• Lo L'ydei Matnas Bosor Vodom...correction
• Vidui Maaser (2)
• Eicha question
• Mashiach In Tosafos
• Re: psak and maaseh
• Re: Vidui Maaser (2)
• Re: Avodah V5 #118- kad yasvin
• RE: Shmitta
• RE: Shmitta
• RE: Shmitta
• Re: Mashiach In Tosafos
• Beliefs (MM)
• Re: Kaddish nusach
• Rav Ovadia Yosef & gilgul
• Re: Vidui Maaser (2)
• Re: Rav Ovadia Yosef & gilgul
• Re: Rav Ovadia Yosef & gilgul
• Re: "Lo Dibroh Torah Eloh Keneged Yetzer Horah"
• Re: Avodah V5 #118

I had said that if the "problem" with the heter mechira was not the validity
of the sale but the problem of lo saichaneim, the logic of the Rabbanut
continuing to rely on the heter would be as follows:

Carl asked:
> 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?

My response:

In light of the exigency the Rabbanut is relying on the various shitos that
there is no lo saichaneim--i.e. that the sale is intended to be temporary,
that there is no issur lo saichanem for sales to Yishmaelim, etc. Again, if
one holds that shmitta is deoraisa or that the sale is simply "laitzai
laitzonus" then this logic doesn't hold. I know that there ore other issues
regarding issur sefichim and avoda b'karka as well.

For a fascinating exposition on Shemita, check the Ikrei Dinim (of
the Maharit) [it's in the back of Yoreh Deah Chelek Gimmel under Hilchot
Orlah, Kilaim, U'Shevi'it 32 # 8]. It describes how shemitah was observed
in Eretz Yisrael 400 years ago and quotes a great many Acharonim.

Josh

On 10 Sep 00, at 12:11, Sheldon Krause wrote:
> In light of the exigency the Rabbanut is relying on the various shitos that
> there is no lo saichaneim--i.e. that the sale is intended to be temporary,
> that there is no issur lo saichanem for sales to Yishmaelim, etc. 

But Rav Kook himself did not hold that there was no issur of lo
s'choneim. Aderba, he engaged in halachic acrobatics to avoid violating
the issur as much as possible.

Rav Kook writes in Chapter 12 of the Introduction to Shabbat HaAretz,
his treatise on Hilchos Shmitta published in 5670 (1910):

"B'inyan 'lo s'choneim,' she'assur limkor le'goy karka b'eretz Yisrael,
yafeh he'ir echad mibei dina, HaRav HaGaon R.Z. Shach N"Y, d'yesh
lomar d'b'goy she'be'lav hachi yesh lo chania ba'karka ain ha'tosefes,
mah she'mosifim aleha atta assura min haTorah; v'yoser nachon l'fi zeh
livchor b'goy she'kvar yesh lo karka b'eretz Yisrael. Af al gav d'yesh
lomar she'im yikneh mimenu Yisrael ha'karka ha'kodemes az ha'lo teitzei
ha'chaniya mi'tachas yado, v'nimtza az she'b'karka zo ha'nimkeres lo
ka'es nitna lo chaniya ba'karka. Mikol makom yesh lomar d'basar hashta
azlinan, v'achshav hoo aino nosein lo chaniya ba'karka, she'harei kvar
yesh lo mikodem, v'hu m'kushar l'eretz Yisrael b'lav hachi al y'dei
karka sheyesh lo mikvar."

So to put it in Kodshim terms, Rav Kook did not hold that the issur of
lo s'choneim was hutra (as you imply above), but only that it is dchuya
in light of the pikuach nefesh which prevailed at the time when he wrote
his sefer. This is totally consistent with Rav Kook's view of the heter
mechira as a horoas shaa. As Rav Tuckichinsky writes in Sefer HaShmitta
at the bottom of Page 62:

"V'gam HaGaon Mori HaRav Avraham Yitzchak Kook zt"l she'himshich le'hanhig
es maasei ha'mchira - haya noheig gam hoo lichtov u'le'farseim, b'chol
mchira, she'ha'heter na'asah LO B'OFAN KAVUA ELA SHUV 'L'ZROECH SHAA,'
b'ofan she'b'chol erev Shmitta al beis din la'sheves u'l'ayein im
kvar hi'gia zman kiyum mitzvas ha'shmitta l'frateha oi she'yesh adayin
hechreiach l'chadesh es ha'mchira. V'lo od ela she'hu haya m'oded mi'tzido
es kol ha'ikarim ha'chareidim she'omru lishmor es ha'shmitta k'hilchasa
b'divrei idud v'seeyua v'haya mi'myasdei 'keren ha'shmitta' le'esof ksafim
l'ezras shomrei ha'shviis, v'gam pirseim maamarim al godel erech kiyum
mitzvas ha'shmitta v'al ha'zchiya ha'gdola she'yizkeh am Yisrael im [with
an alef - C.S.] Eretz Yisrael tirzeh es shabsosehoh." [Emphasis mine].

Doesn't sound to me like a man who thinks there's no issur of lo schoneim.

And in Mishpat Kohen 58 he writes:

"Omnom yesh le'fakpek al heter ha'arama kazos, mipnei she'nikar
ha'davar she'hi haarama. Aval rauy le'tzaref heter zeh im svara d'la'el
she'ha'yishmaelim ainam ovdei avodah zara, u'mutar limkor lahem. V'im
yefakpek adam ba'davar [i.e. if you hold like the Rambam (see below)
- C.S.], nomar d'issur Torah leika b'chi hai gavna she'mocher le'tovas
Yisrael, v'im kein b'midei d'Rabanan [which I think everyone other than
the Ramban would hold is true with respect to shmitta b'zman hazeh -
C.S.], *bimkom dchak gadol kazeh* yesh leilech l'kula." [Emphasis added].

In other words, Rav Kook himself requires that the sale be "l'tovas
Yisrael" AND "bimkom dchak gadol." But the issur of lo s'choneim is not
hutra, only dchuya, and it's ready to come back into action as soon as
the reason for the dichuy (i.e. the sh'as ha'dchak) is gone. I submit
that for the most part, the reason for the dichuy no longer exists.

Moreover, the Rambam apparently holds that Lo Schoneim is d'oraysa, even
today. The Rambam in Avodah Zara 10:6 writes: "Assur lanu le'haniach oved
cochavim beineinu, afilu yoshev yeshivas arai oi oiver mi'makom le'makom
b'schora, v'lo yaavor b'artzeinu ad she'yekabel alav sheva mitzvos bnei
Noach she'neemar 'lo yeishvu b'artzecha' v'afilu l'fi shaa. V'im kibel
alav sheva mitzvos harei zeh ger toshav; v'ein m'kablim ger toshav ela
b'zman she'hayovel noheg aval shelo b'zman ha'yovel ain mekablim ela
ger tzedek bilvad."

Again, if
> one holds that shmitta is deoraisa 

I think that's the Ramban's shitta. But I don't know of other Rishonim
who hold that way.

or that the sale is simply "laitzai
> laitzonus" then this logic doesn't hold. 

But my point is that the heter should not be valid today, not only
according to those who hold that it was never valid l'chatchila, but
even according to Rav Kook and those who hold b'shitoso that it was
valid 100 years ago, there is no longer grounds for it to be valid today
(except MAYBE for exports, and even that I'm not sure about).

I know that there ore other issues
> regarding issur sefichim and avoda b'karka as well.

See my post yesterday on doing mlachos d'oraysa even l'shitas ha'matirim.

-- 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

> 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)...

Sorry. The vort is from Rav Yecheskel *Abramsky* zt'l former Rosh Bes
Din of London.

SHLOMO B ABELES

> ....When it came for the Rebbe to say his Divrei Torah, he referred to
> the Parsha (26:12) where the Torah talks about the procedure of
> Vidui Maaser.

...

> The Rebbe answered: "The Vidui is - *LO SHOCHOCHTI*
> - I did not forget! ...I didn't forget that I have fulfilled all
> those Mitzvos..." After a person performs a Mitzva
> or gives Tzedoko - he should forget that he has done so."

Since posting this vort, I have searched other Meforshim for their Pshat
why this is considered as 'Vidui'.

I have found that the Sforno writes that, had the Yidden not sinned
by making the Eigel, the Kehunah would have remained with the Bechorim
(and then we wouldn't need a Kohen to give the Bikkurim/Trumos etc to)
- as each family would give it to their own Bechor(im).

So we are being misvadeh on the Chet Ho'egel.

(BTW the Tosfos Yom Tov brings this pshat bishmo on the Mishna on Maaser
Sheni (5:10). (v'Ayin shom Mishna Rishona and Tosfos Anshei Shem)

The Maharam Shick zt'l places this right into the Posuk thus:
'V'Omarto...Biarti Hakodesh Min Habayis" - I am forced to give away the
Kodesh (Bikurim/Maaser) from my own home (=mishpocho)... "V'gam nosativ
l'levi" - and must give it to someone from Shevet Levi... why?... Because
- "Lo Ovarti" - I was Over on "*LO* yihyeh lecho elochim acherim" and
"v'Lo Shochochti" - and I forgot the Lav of "*LO* saaseh lechoh pessel -
and created the Egel...

SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:sba@blaze.net.au

        On the issue which I raised here just after Tisha B'av, that the
megilas Eicha which I read from had each posuk as a separate parasha,
I was just shown a Rashi in Moed Katan (26a).

        The Rashi is on the famous story of Yehoyakim burning the sefer
Eicha after hearing that he would go into golus. The Gemara quotes
the posuk that they read "shalosh delasos ve'arba'ah" which the Gemara
interprets as pesukim from Eicha.

        Rashi in the Ein Yaakov (my source says that this is the "real"
Rashi on M"K; any comments thereon?) says "this is why they are called
delasos because each posuk of sefer Kinos is a parasha by itself, and
one has to put space between one and the next." QED.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I've seen in a few places that Tosafos quotes someone called Mashia"ch.
One place is in Makos 17b sv Delemai.

Does anyone know who this is and if there is a story behind his nickname?

Gil Student

RA Parnes wrote:

> Rav Bakshi- Doron was quoted as saying that he would not eat from the
> Heter. Is it ethical and/or halachicly acceptable for a posek not to be
> somech on his own psak? What are the parameters? If he would eat beshat
> hadchak but not lechatchila - is it okay? 


The gemara in Chullin 112a says that bread upon which raw meat was cut with a 
knife and the bread became red from the blood is assur to eat because of maris 
ayin but some permit it.  Rav Huna had such bread and gave it to his servant to 
eat.  The gemara asks mimah nafshach.  If he held it is permitted, he should eat
it.  If he held it is assur, it should be assur for everyone.  The gemara 
answers that he held it was permitted but chose not to eat it.

The Yad Eliyahu wants to learn from this gemara that one is not allowed to 
pasken one way for oneself and another way for others.  That seems to be the 
clear implication of the kashya on Rav Huna.

The Kesav Sofer in his chiddushim there says that one can be more machmir for 
oneself.  This case was different because the issur is maris ayin and that would
apply equally to eating it or giving it to someone to eat.

In the introduction to the Kesav Sofer Al HaTorah, the Kesav Sofer is quoted as 
explaining homiletically the reason that a king has to have two Torahs, one at 
home and one he brings with him when he leaves home and visits with the people. 
One Torah represents the stringent halachos he keeps for himself and his 
household and the other represents the leniencies he has for others.

In other words, yes.  A posek may be more strict for himself.

Gil Student

On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:05:55AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: > Vidui Maaser.

: Since posting this vort, I have searched other Meforshim for their Pshat
: why this is considered as 'Vidui'.

Remember that the shoresh means both "to confess" and "to express
gratitude". According to R' Hutner's peshat in Birchas haHoda'ah
(in "Shemoneh Esrei"), confessing is "modeh al" (al chayeinu hamsurim
biyadecha) while thanking is "modeh li-" (modim anachnu lach).

When I heard this I jumped to the conclusion that vidui ma'aser is hakaras
hatov. Just as you need to make berachah to fully own the food before eating
it, one needs to acknowledge the Borei's role in making the produce before
one can give ma'aser from it.

(Compare the Chinuch's "shoresh" for ma'aser rishon vs that for terumah.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I have heard that both niggunin were adaptations by Rav Huner z'l. Rabbi 
Y.Perlow, who learned in Chaim Berlin, taught his students in Skokie yeshiva 
to sing 'kad yasvin' on Shavuos, so I would suspect that was via the 
influence of Rav Hutner.While on the topic, R.Perlow also instituted, in 
Skokie, a 3-da learning mishmor, 24 hrs. a day, during shloshes yemei 
hagbalah, with people taking different shifts,as they did in the Volozhin 
yeshhiva all year round.Anyone know anything else about this minhag?

RC Sherer wrote:

>> Again, if one holds that shmitta is deoraisa 
     
> I think that's the Ramban's shitta. But I don't know of other Rishonim who 
> hold that way.
     
The Beis HaLevi (III 1:1:10) and the Netziv (Meishiv Davar II 56) explain Rashi 
as holding the shemitah is still mideoraisa today.

I'm not sure, but I think the Sha'agas Aryeh (Shu"t HaChadashos 15:1) also 
explains Rashi this way.

I have in my notes a reference to Keren Orah (Yevamos 82b sv Vechen Kasav Rashi)
but I don't have a Keren Orah handy right now to check.

Gil Student

On 10 Sep 00, at 12:11, Carl Sherer wrote:

>But Rav Kook himself did not hold that there was no issur of lo
>s'choneim. Aderba, he engaged in halachic acrobatics to avoid
>violating the issur as much as possible.

Carl, you are light years beyond me on shemittah knowledge; however, it
seems to me that:

1. If you hold the heter is laitzei laitzonus then there is no lo saichanem
problem, because there is no sale. On the other hand the produce is pairos
shviis. Rav Efrati has made clear that he's worried about the yiddina who
buys in Machne Yehuda and thinks what she is buying is kosher. If the the
sale is valid but violated lo saichanem it would seem that it is kosher, but
that the farmer was oveir lo saichanem.  Rav Elyashiv is quoted as asking
(rhetorically) whether one would give hashgacha on a restaurant that cooks
chicken in milk to be matzil people from d'oraisos. Is this whole tararam
about being matzil people from lo saicahnaeim?Is that the only aveira going
on in the migzar hachaklaut?Doesn't seem like it to me.Rav Elyashiv (and
many others, including many Rabbanim from the dati leumi camp) simply don't
believe the heter works. Period.

2. Clearly from your excerpts the other day, Rav Kook, as a result of the
shaas hadchak, relied on those shitos and svaros that there is no lo
saichaneim.  But it seems like the issur of lo saicahneim is neither hutra
nor dechuya--how can we be matir or be doche an issur doraisa  to avoid the
issur drabanan of shviis?

I'm going to pass on point 1 until I can get home and look 
something up, but as to point 2....

On 11 Sep 2000, at 10:33, Sheldon Krause wrote:

> 2. Clearly from your excerpts the other day, Rav Kook, as a result of the
> shaas hadchak, relied on those shitos and svaros that there is no lo
> saichaneim.  But it seems like the issur of lo saicahneim is neither hutra
> nor dechuya--how can we be matir or be doche an issur doraisa  to avoid the
> issur drabanan of shviis?
> 

The vast majority of poskim hold that lo s'choneim is d'Rabbanan 
today. In fact, that is one of the bases for the heter mechira.

-- 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.

At 08:42 AM 9/11/00 -0400, R' Gil Student wrote:
>I've seen in a few places that Tosafos quotes someone called Mashia"ch.
>One place is in Makos 17b sv Delemai.

>Does anyone know who this is and if there is a story behind his nickname?

Mori Sheyichyeh.

KT,
YGB

Meir Shinnar
> 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.

re: MM
Did he posit any required beliefs?  If so did he list them?

Re: Beliefs...
I have been hypothesizing that the only required beliefs wrt kefira
are the Rambam's ikkarim. That they have been defacto ratified by klal
Yisrael as THE definitive set of beliefs.

Note: on a related thread, I further hypthesize that the litrugy (ie.
Siddur/machzor) are a respository of beliefs and affirmations that are
normative. Therefore, ccertain other beliefs may be considered incorrect,
but they do not cause a fatal breach into kfira. More on THAT later.

W/O defending MM per se, I have also been advocating that we re-frame
Torah Judaism in terms of Observance (Orthopraxy) over Belief (Orthodoxy).
(This is in line with Joe Lieberman's preferecne of Observant over
Orthodox) I think in the modern world Orthodoxy is hard to come
by in terms of any meaningful consensus (the 13 Ikkarim exempted).
The Essential litmus test ought to be observance of Halacha. This is
loosely based upon hanistaros Lashem.. v'haniglos lanu ul'vaneniu,
that matters of the heart rightfully ought to be adjudicated by the
"bochein klayos valeiv" and we should observe only a person's' outer
behavior and disengage ourselves from mind reading.

The case where someone PREACHES disbelief while adhering to halachah
might be a gray area, and I choose to avoid that case for now.

Rich Wolpoe

Re: R" Ira Jacobson's questions on yitgadel-yitgadal and Hebrew
vs. Aramaic in Kaddish:

There were numerous postings on the subject a year or so ago that covered
the subject including many of mine. Although I have never looked at
the archives, I'm sure they exist and all the explanations on nusach
of kaddish can be found there. If not, and still interested, e-mail me,
and I will look around inside my computer to see if something is saved.

Shana Tova,
David

David

In Rav Ovadia's speech, he referenced the asara harugei malchus as being an
example of gilgulim of achei Yosef.  Dr. Menachem Schmeltzer pointed out to
me that both the kina from Tisha B'av and the piyut from Yom Kippur do not
lead one towards this conclusion.  Rather, the piyut says that the *Romans*
blamed the Jews for selling Yosef and said that the killing of the ten
martyrs would be a just punishment.  But the paytan never implies that the
Jews accepted upon themselves this explanation.

Questions:
1.  Do the Sefardim have a different version of either the kina or the
piyut?
2.  Is there any written kabbalistic assertion that the asara harugei
malchus were gilgulim of achei Yosef?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 09/11/2000 10:24:47am EDT, sba@blaze.net.au writes:
> Since posting this vort, I have searched other Meforshim for their Pshat
> why this is considered as 'Vidui'.

R' YDS keyed in on the phrase "asiti kchol asher tzivitani" While I can't
do his insight justice due to my poor memory, I believe it centered on
the bearer asking himself Did I do it 100% or was I just yotze, Did I
fufill just the maaseh or the kiyum as well, etc.,etcx.? I suppose it's
no coincidence that we read this in elul!

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 05:02:06PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: In Rav Ovadia's speech, he referenced the asara harugei malchus as being an
: example of gilgulim of achei Yosef.

Another question: There are those who hold that Eliyahu was a kohein
because he was a gilgul of Pinchas was a kohein. (This is certainly not
the only possible p'shat of "Pinchas zeh Eliyahu" and runs counter to
pashut p'shat of Eliyahu haGil'adi, as well as a medrash that associates
Gad's berachah in Zos haBerachah with Eliyahu haNavi.) If you assume
that gilgulim can't cross sheivet lines, how can you claim that 8 of
the harugei malchus were from lost shevatim?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RM Berger wrote:

> If you assume that gilgulim can't cross sheivet lines, how can you claim that 
> 8 of the harugei malchus were from lost shevatim?
     
During the reign of Yoshiyahu, Yirmiyahu returned some or most of the lost 
tribes.  Arachin 12b, 33a; Rashi, Melachim II 23:22.

Gil Student

On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:19:40AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: When [R' Chiya's] talmid, Rav, asked him his reasoning, he answered: "Dayenu
: shem'gadeles es bonenu, umatzilos osonu min hachet ( = hirhur aveiro
:  - Rashi)" - ie - the fact that they (our wives) 1) bring up our
: children (b'derech haTorah), and 2) they save us from Aveiros - is reason
: enough to make them deserving of gifts.

: With a Yefas Toar however, the Torah warns us (Rashi ad loc) that her
: child will become a 'Ben Sorer uMoreh' - thus we cannot expect from her
: to be 'megadeles es bonenu' - but only the single maaloh of 'matzilos
: osonu min haChet'.

How is it possible? A ben soreir umoreh requires both parents speaking
bikol achas. IOW, it can't be the fault of upbringing of one spouse
alone. And the husband is someone who has no yir'ah of oneshim, otherwise
how was he on the front to meet the eishes yifas to'ar to begin with...
For that matter, one gets the idea that the gemarah is trying to rule
out any sons of flawed upbrining altogether.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

>                    "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.

I think that Rav Shlomo Freifeld is the mchber of this nigun. If you have the 
first Ohr Chadash album, it's listed on the credits.

                                        Steven Brizel
                                        Zeliglaw@aol.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         ]