Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 125

Tuesday, September 19 2000

• nishtanu hatevaim
• leytzanut
• Re: Mesorah Ashk. vs. Sfard
• RE: Tax Evaders
• RE: Harugei Malchus
• RE: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• RE: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• maftir
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• Re: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• RE: Harugei Malchus
• Re: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Re: Tax Evaders
• Re: nishtanu hatevaim
• Re: harugei malkhut
• Re: harugei malkhut
• Re: Hagbeh
• Re: Vicarious Atonement
• Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos

I remember hearing pshat in the Gemara that it is talking about the age
that a child is generally given dagan and not the age where he is befoal
given dagan. Unfortunately I don't remember where I saw/heard the pshat.
Avi

Can someone please help with the Makor of "Leytzanut echad docheh
tochachot harbai" (or maybe it's "meah tochachot")
Avi

RR Wolpoe wrote:

> One problem in playing this out is that it calls into question everyone who 
> has done it until now. 

Since this is a common topic of dicussion on this list, I would like to point to
the gemara in Makos 10b where Rav says that he saw the tefillin of his uncle, 
Rabbi Chiya (whom he calls Habibi), which, according to Rav, were made against 
the halachah.

Granted, there are nuschaos which change it to something less radical.  See the 
Ritva and Aruch LaNer.  However, the standard nusach that is defended by some 
have Rav passulling Rabbi Chiya's tefillin.

Gil Student

I recall a teshuva in IM that said one could be an IRS auditor (assuming
that criminal sanctions were not likely)since you would not be motzei mamon
shelo al pi halacha

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> I also have a vague recollection of Rav Schachter saying that the 
> Ben Yehoyada (from the Ben Ish Chai) al asar in Nedarim goes 
> through and matches up the Asara Harugim with the brothers, but I 
> could be wrong about that one.

Would anyone be able to verify this?  (I don't have access to the sefer.)
Which daf in Nedarim?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Joelirich@aol.com
>  Why is it permissible for the magbia to turn his back to the aron kodesh?

Why should it be any more problematic than the rav of a shul speaking from
the pulpit with his back to the aron kodesh?

On a similar note, with respect to the widespread minhag of the person who
gets maftir to stand on the side of the shulchan so that his back should not
be k'neged the sefer torah being held by the magbiah, RSZA holds that this
is not necessary.  It is OK to put your back towards the sefer torah and
stand in front of the shulchan, since this is the normal place for the baal
hamaftir (and the chazan) to stand.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:01:19 -0400 Stein, Aryeh E. said:
>On a similar note, with respect to the widespread minhag of the person who
>gets maftir to stand on the side of the shulchan so that his back should not
>be k'neged the sefer torah being held by the magbiah, RSZA holds that this
>is not necessary.  It is OK to put your back towards the sefer torah and
>stand in front of the shulchan, since this is the normal place for the baal
>hamaftir (and the chazan) to stand.

Here is a classic case of "mimetics" in action. The baal maftir stands
aside of the bima. This is considered kavod hatorah by not putting
one's back to the Torah

Question: Does the Baal Koreh have this concern when there are multiple
seforim?

Perhaps there is an additional agenda here. That is the RELATIVE
importance of haftara vis-a-vis the Torah. In that sense, it is NOT
disrespectful in GENERAL to have one's back to the Torah, as long as one
is otherwise in his proper place... rather it is davka to demonstrate
the maftir/haftoro's inferiority to the Torah...

E.G. yesterday I said the haftora at the side of the Bima and went back
to facing the Aron Kadosh when I recited Y'ekum Purkan

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

Joel Rich
> I understood the reason to be to differentiate from kriat hatora.

On a similar note, with respect to the widespread minhag of the person who 
gets maftir to stand on the side of the shulchan so that his back should not
be k'neged the sefer torah being held by the magbiah, RSZA holds that this 
is not necessary. It is OK to put your back towards the sefer torah and 
stand in front of the shulchan, since this is the normal place for the baal 
hamaftir (and the chazan) to stand.

Chana Luntz wrote to Areivim:
:          ROY holds that this idea of having different communities of
: Ashkenazim and Sephardim with different minhagim, based on minhag avot
: may be appropriate in a place like America, where there was never a
: native minhag hamakom...

Wasn't there a time where the observant community in the US was
predominantly Sepharadi? IIRC, this very question was an issue in New
York, where She'eirit Yisrael presented a single Sepharadi minhag until
the Ashkenazi imigration refused to conform.

: Now ROY *could* say, hey, we are disounting ancient (well medeival)
: history and dealing with the more recent history. Fine he can say
: that. But that does not mean we have to agree to that premise either.

Or, we could agree with it, but place the line at last week where minhag
Yisrael was pluralistic. IOW, if we limit rolling back the line, then
why not take it to the logical conclusion -- bedieved, now that minhag
is pluralized, we don't role back at all.

-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

In message , SBA <sba@blaze.net.au> writes
>An interesting Ramban Al Hatorah on the Posuk "Orur Asher Lo Yokum es
>Divrei Hatorah Hazos":
>He says that this refers to the person, who when doing Hagbeh, does not
>show the Torah to all - as per Mesechta Sofrim which states that upon
>lifting the Torah - one should show the writing to all those standing
>to his left and right and to those in front and behind him - as it is a
>Mitzvah for all the men and women(!) to see the Ksav and to say "V'zos
>Hatorah Asher Som Moshe etc."

Does this mean that, at least according to the Ramban, the structure of
large numbers of our shuls (where this is impossible from the the
women's gallery, no matter where you stand) are posul?  What about those
where this is only possible for the select few who get the front row
"window" seat (eg, the ladies gallery in Beis HaTalmud in Melbourne)?

>During a trip to EY, I was introduced to a young TC who had published
>a Kuntres on this subject (IIRC called Lehachzir Atoro Leyoshno - or
>something like that), where he is clearly mevarer this halocho- and had
>haskomos from many poskim - including the Debreciner Rov zt'l and yblcht
>Rav S Wosner shlit'a.

Did this Kuntres touch on the question of whether or not shul design
should be taking this into account?

Kind Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:35:55 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>Wasn't there a time where the observant community in the US was
>predominantly Sepharadi? IIRC, this very question was an issue in New
>York, where She'eirit Yisrael presented a single Sepharadi minhag until
>the Ashkenazi imigration refused to conform.

...

>    we could ...                place the line at last week where minhag
>Yisrael was pluralistic. IOW, if we limit rolling back the line, then
>why not take it to the logical conclusion -- bedieved, now that minhag
>is pluralized, we don't role back at all.

All Good Points. Dr. Grinstein wrestled with the issue of the Sephardic
origins of the NYC kehillah.

Several footnotes....

1) The Minhag in NY (She'eirit Yisrael) was always Sephardic. However,
Grinstein claims that the majority of Jews in NYC were always Ashkanizic.
The Sephardic were wealthier and more influential.

2) According to Grinstein, there was a proposal to allow Ashkenazim to
use space at She'eirit Yisrael for an ASHK. Minyan (circa 1820) They
were refused and the fission began.

A nice footnote to this is that in Englewood, NJ the Sephardic service
davka is affiliated with the larger Congregation Ahavath Torah and is
a lovely example of a 1 Kehillah 2 mihagim model.

3) Amsterdam and Hamburg have served as precedents for multiple Minhag
communities.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On 18 Sep 00, at 15:17, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>> I also have a vague recollection of Rav Schachter saying that the 
>> Ben Yehoyada (from the Ben Ish Chai) al asar in Nedarim goes 
>> through and matches up the Asara Harugim with the brothers, but I 
>> could be wrong about that one.

> Would anyone be able to verify this?  (I don't have access to the sefer.)
> Which daf in Nedarim?

The daf in Nedarim is 50a, but it isn't in the Ben Yehoyada there. 
Sorry.

-- 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

R. Hershel Schachter, "Lesser-Known Laws of Torah Reading", Journal of
Jewish Music and Liturgy, vol. VII (1984-5), p. 1

"8. As an additional sign of respect, one may not turn his back to the
Sefer Torah unless it is in a different room. The Aron Kodesh also
constitutes a separate domain in this regard, since it is 4 x 4 tefahim,
and ten tefahim tall."

Endnote: "8. Yoreh De'ah (282,1); Taz and Oruh Hashulhan (ibid.);
Shaarei Hayyim (notes on Shaarei Efraim) 10,19."

In a message dated 9/18/2000 3:07:34pm CDT, sk@ezlaw.com writes:
> I recall a teshuva in IM that said one could be an IRS auditor (assuming
> that criminal sanctions were not likely)since you would not be motzei mamon
> shelo al pi halacha

There is an enormous difference between the Collector of the Czar's Purse and 
the IRS. To dump both in the same category is ludicrous. Does anyone here 
seriously argue that the specific halachic considerations that made it 
improper for a Jew to turn in his landsman to a feudal Xtian tax collector 
make logical sense in a modern democratic society?

We exist today because these democracies spent their own money to achieve 
goals that included (if only incidentally) our survival. Somebody's tax 
revenue beat the Nazis. Other tax revenue assured Israel of military support 
(and still does). Without the benefit of still other tax revenues virtually 
no cloistered community can exist in the United States -- including the 
Orthodox communities in New York City, Rockland County, and Lakewood. 

In the U.S., at least, taxation is an instrument of public policy. If we 
sneer at the tax system on "religious" grounds, then we should not be 
offended when other people sneer at our efforts to participate in 
establishing that policy. Also, the tax laws are enforceable under criminal 
as well as civil law. If it is a sin to aid the government in such criminal 
enforcement, then it is also a sin, I think, to accept from the government 
any of the benefits of that enforcement. That means no government subsidies 
for anything we build, no SBA loans, no financial aid for college-bound 
children -- and no profitable little government gimmes for any of our 
illustrious nursing-home owners.

Anyhow, in my book tax cheats are low criminals to begin with. They cannot be 
role models for our children.

David Finch  

In a message dated 9/18/00 1:48:19pm EDT, avparnes@internet-zahav.net
writes:
> I remember hearing pshat in the Gemara that it is talking about the age
>  that a child is generally given dagan and not the age where he is befoal
>  given dagan. Unfortunately I don't remember where I saw/heard the pshat.

IMHO Pashtus Hagemara is that Dagan adds intelligence, that thru ingesting 
Dagan he is able to call Abba Vimma.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/18/00 1:48:07pm EDT, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

> This came up recently in the Daf Shiur (I'm behind again) and IIRC 
>  R. Fishel Schachter gave two answers:
...

These plus other Pshotim can be found in the Yalkut Reuveine on Parshas 
Vayeishev, see also K'heles Yaakov (from the author of the Mloi Horo'im) 
Erech Akiva Ben Yoseif.

>  IIRC R. Schachter then went on to say that R. Akiva was the gilgul 
>  who was mechaper on the shchina (because he was the source for 
>  much of Torah she'Bal Peh - see the Gemara in Shabbos 

Minochos 29b, the above mentioned K"Y says that is Pshat that "Yotzoh 
Nishmoso Bechod" as his Yetzias HAnishama was due to (Hashem) EChod.  Another 
point since Rabi Akiva was a Ben Geirim, the Rambam in his letter to R' 
Ovadya Ger Tzedek writes him that while we are Misyacheis to Avrohom Yitzchok 
and Yaakov, he is Misyacheis and son of "Me SHeomar Vhaya H'olom".

>                                                        about 
>  how Moshe Rabbeinu was upset because he couldn't understand 
>  R. Akiva's drashos which were "halacha l'Moshe miSinai"), and that 
>  Chutzpis the Meturgeman was the gilgul who was mechaper on 
>  Yosef, which is why his tongue was R"L dragged around by 
>  chazirim ...

This can also be found in the above mentioned Yalkut Reuveine with much more 
details.

>  I also have a vague recollection of Rav Schachter saying that the 
>  Ben Yehoyada (from the Ben Ish Chai) al asar in Nedarim goes 
>  through and matches up the Asara Harugim with the brothers...

It can be found in the Seder Hadoros year 3880, also see Meiam Loeiz on 
Parshas Vayeishev.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/18/00 1:22:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:

>  First, he questioned why we say "Eleh Ezkerah" on Yom Kippur bi-khelal.
>  Fine, "Arze ha-Levanon" on Tishah be-Av might be relevant because we
>  mourn the loss of the Temple, the Chmielnicki massacres, etc. on that
>  day, so mourning for 10 rabbis is appropriate...but why on Yom Kippur?
>  Traditional answers to this include: a) the peshat of the piyyut is that
>  the death of the 10 serve as  atonement for us; b) tsadikim die as a
>  result of the sins of that generation, and thus we want to remember to
>  be repent completely on YK so as not to (indirectly) cause the death of
>  tsadikei ha-dor; c) we pray on YK that resha`im die for all the rish`ut
>  they have done towards us; d) some of the 10 actually died on YK, so
>  it's their yarhzeit commemoration. 

Bpashtus it is based on the Zohar (Parshas Achrei) that says that one who 
pains himself with the Tzar of the pains of the Tzadikim is forgiven, this is 
also brought Lhalacha WRT Misas Bnei Aharon, see S"A Horav O"C 621:15.
>  
>  Second, he noted that early countings of the harugei malkhut never count
>  10; it's only in the later sources that the number 10 is mentioned
>  specifically. 

While teh word "Asara" is not mentioned the names mentioned are 10 (Eicha 
Rabba 2:4, Medrosh Tehilim 9:13).

>  Also,  the Torah at mekhirat Yosef only counts 9 brothers:
>  recall, Yosef, Binyamin AND Reuven cannot be counted ...Yosef, because
>  he was the victim, Binyamin and Reuven were both not there then.

In the sources I quote in a different post, some hold that Reuvain is 
culpable.

> So the
>  10 rabbis could not possibly be exact punishment for that. Besides the
>  geographical and chronological differences between the 10 rabbis that
>  everyone is aware of. Nowhere in classical .Hazal is there a hint to the
>  10 serving as punishment/ atonement for Yosef: 

That doesn't diminish what says Mfurosh in other Seforim which "Kulom MeiRoeh 
Echod Nintnu".

>  else's sin UNLESS WE PERPETRATE THEIR SIN. Recall the piyyut begins with
>  the metaphor of the Trees and Metal.

You mean the Medrosh vs. the Piyut.

>  The (medieval) Christians may say Jews are .hayav mitah for someone
>  else's death, but we claim we are only .hayav for actual sins we commit.

What does the prayer of Musaf on Yom Kippur have to do with debunking xian 
belief,

OTOH The Chazal say (Shabbos 33b) "Tzadikim Nitfasim Al Hador" and (M"K 28a) 
that "Misoson Shel Tzadikim Michaperes Al Yisroel"

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

I believe RJR is refering to O"C 150:5 and see M"B ibid Ois 13 and Shaar 
Hatziyun.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,

Yitzchok Zirkind

RY Zirkind wrote:

> OTOH The Chazal say (Shabbos 33b) "Tzadikim Nitfasim Al Hador" and (M"K 28a) 
> that "Misoson Shel Tzadikim Michaperes Al Yisroel"
     
My take on this is that there are certain gezeirahs that are made against the 
tzibbur.  The tzibbur as a whole will be punished but that does not mean that 
every person in the tzibbur will be punished.  When anyone in the tzibbur (or 
enough people in the tzibbur) is/are punished, the punishment against the 
tzibbur has been meted out and no one else will be punished for the aveirah that
caused the gezeirah.  In other words, once the punishment has been given, the 
tzibbur is ready for kaparah.

Why does the gemara specifically mention tzadikim?  Because the loss of a tzadik
is a greater punishment than the loss of an average person so it brings the 
tzibbur much closer to receiving their full punishment and therefore to kaparah.

Gil Student

From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
> Another halocho which is often overlooked is that you should not be
> mechabed for Hagbeh a person who does not have the strength to do all
> of the above.

	One more:  that the people who are oleh to hagba'ah and gelila
should follow the sefer to the Aron.  (As should anyone else in the
vicinity.)

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.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         ]