Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 128

Friday, September 22 2000

• Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• "shli sheloch v'shelchoh sheli - Am Ho'oretz'
• Hagbeh - MM's
• (no subject)
• correction of the baal kriah
• RE: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Fwd: RYBS
• "Shaarei Tshuvah" 4
• Re: Avodah V5 #125
• Re: correction of the baal kriah
• Besuros Tovos
• RE: Besuros Tovos
• Re: correction of the baal kriah
• Re: "Shaarei Tshuvah" 4
• Re: Avodah V5 #125
• Re: Dor Revi'i on shemitah bi-zman ha-zeh
• Re: correction of the baal kriah
• Re: Lo Sischaten (was Re: Lo S'chanem)
• Intermarriage
• Hagbeh - MM's
• Re: Dor Revi'i on shemitah bi-zman ha-zeh
• Har Sinai and Arvos Moav
• Re: Har Sinai and Arvos Moav
• hagba
• Talis koton
• Re: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Shmita: Different girsah in the Rambam
• RE: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Re: Shmita: Different girsah in the Rambam

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> If everyone does it, it can be impossible or a lot of elbowing if
> you want to chop it.  If no one does it it looks like yuhara if you do?
> Any suggestions?

        Rabbi Yisrael Reisman spoke about this some time back.  He said
that it is a mitzva to accompany the sefer, or to greet it when it is
taken out, and he wondered why this is not done as much in our shuls as
it should be.  So he asked the Rov of the Sefaradi shul across the street
from his shul if he sees this also,  and he replied that in fact he has
to ask people to be more orderly when they all go up to greet or
accompany the sefer.  Interesting contrast.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Pirkei Avos (5:13): 'Ho'oymer shli sheloch
v'shelchoh sheli - Am Ho'oretz'

The question is obvious: Why call him an 'Am Ho'oretz'? Wouldn't 'shoteh'
be a better description of such a person?

Rav Yosef Zvi Dushinsky zt'l (in Toras Maharitz) explains that the
Mishnah refers to a person who makes a 'Yissoschor-Zevulun' deal with
a Talmid Chochom, and he says to him: "sheli sheloch" - my money will
go towards your financial support, "v'shelchoh-sheli" - and for that -
I will share the s'char of your Limud Hatorah.

And whilst it is without doubt that such a person will be greatly
rewarded for supporting limmud hatorah, however if he relies only on
the Torah learning of his 'partner' and doesn't do any actual learning
himself - he will remain an Am-Ho'oretz...

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

Further to my earlier post and the responses thereto (plus to those who
sent private emails), I have looked up the Mishnah Berurah and it is
without any sofek that according to him Hagbeh should be done going all
the way round - by turning to your right and continuing to do so until
you have made the complete circle.

The Mareh Mekomos are SA (137:2) and MB sk 9
and Hilchos Nesias Kapayim 128:17 and the MB sk9.

SBA

From: Joelirich@aol.com
>>    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.)

> If everyone does it, it can be impossible or a lot of elbowing if you want
> to chop it.  If no one does it it looks like yuhara if you do?  Any
> suggestions?

I suppose the sensible thing to do would be
for those who can follow without elbowing, to do so.

SBA

I was looking through the new Emes LeYaakov on Shulchan Aruch, which
are the comments of Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, and found what Rav Yaakov
had told my father years ago: that one should not correct a baal kriah
who makes a mistake in mil'el/mil'ra, even though the meaning changes.
The reason is that the posuk stands on its own and is not subject to
the interpretation of the koreh based upon his pronunciation.

I recall the Rav saying that his grandfather Rav Chaim was the opposite:
he corrected everything because of a lack of "kenisinasa". Does anyone
know if the Rav practiced this lema'aseh?

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

From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
>> The MB says turning east to north - is that clear it's 360.  Did you find any
>> other sources?

> The loshon hamechaber - seems to say - to show the Torah to the right
> and left and in front and behind you.

> However, one of the Maskimim (either Rav Wosner shlita or yblct the
> Debreciner Rov zt'l writes "v'loshon haSA tzorich ktzas tikkun.." (ie
> that the SA meant the 360 turn - even though the language doesn't this
> clearly.)

According to R' SZ Auerbach (Halichosh Shlomo p. 153), if there are people
on all sides of the bimah, then the magbiah should turn right and make a
360.  However, if there are only people to the right and the left of the
bimah, then it is sufficient to turn right (so the people on the left of the
bimah can see) and then turn left (so the people on the left of the bimah
can see).

One other detail about hagbah: it is a hidur for the magbiah to open up more
than three columns (if he is able to without risk of dropping it, of
course).  I don't think this is well known, as whenever I see a magbiah do
this, I usually hear some grumbling about how the guy is showing off or
making a mockery of hagbah.

KT and KVCT
Aryeh

I post this for all those interested in the legacy and Torah of RYBS.
                Steven Brizel
                 Zeliglaw@aol.com


Dear Steven,
  There will be a sefer coming out soon called Igros Hagrid which
was worked upon by Rav Dr. Chaim Soloveichik, Rav Y lichenstein and Rav
Ilson on letters between Rav Moshe and Rav RYBS and I am sure sure it
will be excellent and on a high level. When I bought Harrei Kedem the
first thing I noticed was there was no mention of YU. I look forward to
this new sefer coming before the end of the year.

csiva vechasima tova
baruch Kelman
an observer of arevim and avodah but I rarely contribute.

    The fourth instance in which we're likely to be moved to tshuvah:
    When delving into Torah.
    Rabbeinu Yonah isn't addressing halacha or hashkafa here, though, but 
rather mussar. His point is that we're most likely to be moved to tshuvah 
when we find ourselves "understand(ing) how agreeable tochacha is". That's to 
say, when it occurs to us how important bettering ourselves is, and how 
important (sensitive and altruistic) criticism is toward that end. And when 
we "see the warnings" as well as "the consequences to be suffered". Which is 
to say, when we see the consequences suffered by those in Tanach and Gemorrah 
who'd been warned and nonetheless didn't change, and suffered as a 
consequence. His advice for us then is to determine to improve ourselves by 
taking that all to heart.
    Rabbeinu Yonah's final point, though, is most daunting. He warns us that 
if we study those sections of Tanach and Gemorrah, and are nonetheless *not* 
affected by all that, that we'd be guiltier yet-- assumedly because we'd have 
read the warnings, seen the consequences, and yet haughtily denied our own 
failings (¶13).

    -- Yaakov Feldman

At 08:40 AM 9/21/00 +0300, you wrote:


>that it become the single unifying codex of the Jewish people. Also,
>apparently, this was done as a pre-requisite for Ge'ula.

Interesting. I think this is the antithesis of  what we hope the geulah 
will bring - the re-division into shevatim,each with their own specific 
halachos and minhagim.


>I wonder if we'll ever be able to do so.  I hope so.
>
>Shannah Tovah!
>Shoshana L. Boublil


I hope *not*!

KT<
YGB

gershon.dubin@juno.com:
>I was looking through the new Emes LeYaakov on Shulchan Aruch, which
>are the comments of Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, and found what Rav Yaakov
>had told my father years ago: that one should not correct a baal kriah
>who makes a mistake in mil'el/mil'ra, even though the meaning changes.

RYK is supported by the Yerushalmi in Megillah.

KT<
YGB

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Women do not have a mitzva to learn Torah solely for the sake of 
> learning Torah - men do.

        Question:  when we say, in birchas haTorah,  venihyeh anachnu
vetze'etza'enu ... velomedei sorasecha lishma, do we mean only male
offspring? If so, why is the nusach expressed in the way it is?
Tze'etzaim implies male and female.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In IM OC 4:67, R' Moshe provides his own nusach for the misheberach for a
baby girl, which combines the request for a refuah shelaima for the mother
and a mazel tov and krias shem for the baby.  (He notes that the popular
nusach for krias shem doesn't make much sense.  Ayin sham.

In his nusach, R' Moshe omits "l'torah" but he says that one may add the
words "l'torah ul'ben torah."

I remember seeing from R' SZ Auerbach (but I couldn't find it last night
when I looked for it) that one should include the word "l'torah."

KT and KVCT
Aryeh

> I recall the Rav saying that his grandfather Rav Chaim was the opposite: he 
> corrected everything because of a lack of "kenisinasa". Does anyone know if 
> the Rav practiced this lema'aseh?
     
I remember someone telling me that the Rav got an aliyah at his bar mitzvah and 
corrected him on trop.

Gil Student

On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 10:57:51AM -0400, YFel912928@aol.com wrote:
:     When delving into Torah.

:     Rabbeinu Yonah isn't addressing halacha or hashkafa here, though, but 
: rather mussar. ...

Perhaps like the Derech Hachaim I cited -- "Torah" is meant as the
essence of mitzvos bein adam li'atzmo.

-mi

>>that it become the single unifying codex of the Jewish people. Also,
>>apparently, this was done as a pre-requisite for Ge'ula.

>Interesting. I think this is the antithesis of  what we hope the geulah
>will bring - the re-division into shevatim,each with their own specific
>halachos and minhagim.

Is there a source re: R. Y Caro's intention of making this a unifed codex?

I am aware that RYK wanted a limud of halacha psuka that could be
chazerred periodically. By the time the mappo and otehr nos'ei keilim
came out, it was afaik abandoned.

And afaik the Levush though he would supplant the SA/Mappo combination
and it took off for a generation or two and fizzled.

BTW the ONLY unified code afaik taht encompasses both ashkenaz and sefard
is the Tur who had the rare privilege of living in both societies.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

>>  when I mentioned this Rambam to my brother-
>>  in-law he tried to bring a proof against the Dor Revi'i from the Rambam
>>  (generally not a strategy with a high probability of success) because
>>  the Rambam says that if the Beit Din did intercalate a shemitah year
>>  the extra month would be added despite the prohibition. 

> This is exactly what I meant, but in an Eidiler way,

This proves that clarity kadmah l'eidilkeit

> the Rambam rules not 
> only that "IF (my emphsis) the Beit Din did intercalate a shemitah year the 
> extra month would be added despite the prohibition" but that the prohibition 
> was never meant in that case and that they would Lchatchila do so. The Rambam 
> who was a Baki Nifla in Kiddush Hachodesh (see famous Ravad Hil. KD"H 7:7) 
> knew the calender and saw that ultimately there is possability of having a 
> Shana Muberes in a year of Shmita, maybe he concluded from this that it can 
> and should be done. 

And the point of the Dor Revi'i is that this must be done by a Beit Din that
is specifically intercalating a particular year, because it is weighing all the
relevant considerations appropriate to deciding whether that specific year
should be intercalated, not by an automatic process initiated x hundreds of
years before hand.

>>  I don't think
>>  that is relevant to the Dor Revi'i's point, because what he was arguing
>>  is that a Beit Din capable of intercalating the year is a pre-requisite
>>  for the institution of shemitah, not that the calendar that we have today
>>  would somehow be invalid.

> I don't follow this, AIUI the D"R was saying that since we see a Shmita year 
> come together with a Shana Muberes we must say one of 2 things either that 1) 
> it isn't a Shmita year (the point he wanted to make) 

It is not a shemitah year because the prerequisites for shemitah are not
satisfied.  There was no beit din that weighed all the factors that need to
be considered in deciding whether the year would be intercalated.  If
intercalation occurs via automatic pilot, the conditions for the rabbinic 
obligation to observe shemitah have not been satisfied.  Even if the p'sak 
of the Rambam were relevant to the DR's point (which I question), it 
would not be a proof against him, because presumably the Rambam's 
p'sak relates to a situation in which there is a d'oraita obligation to observe 
shemitah, not to one in which the obligation is only rabbinic as we are
assuming.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On 21 Sep 00, at 12:07, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:

> > I recall the Rav saying that his grandfather Rav Chaim was the opposite: he 
> > corrected everything because of a lack of "kenisinasa". Does anyone know if 
> > the Rav practiced this lema'aseh?
>      
> I remember someone telling me that the Rav got an aliyah at his bar mitzvah and 
> corrected him on trop.

I had the zchus to leyin for the Rav a few times (I didn't live in the 
immediate vicinity of Maimonides, but for a while when I was in 
high school we davened there on Sunday and Legal Holiday 
mornings, and I got to leyin a few times). He most definitely did 
correct everything. Also, when he got an aliya, he would leyin along 
with you in a normal voice (not in an undertone like most people 
do), so if you weren't sure of yourself, you were a goner....

-- 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

RA Stein wrote:

> The act of intermarriage, even if it is "only" an isur d'rabanan, is much 
> worse then not keeping taharas mishpacha, as intermarriage (especially with a 
> non-Jewish woman) removes oneself from klal yisroel.

First, note the change to the thread name [and venue -mi].

See Eiruvin 19a.  R. Hershel Schachter in his Eretz HaTzvi deduces from this 
gemara (possibly in the name of RYBS) that someone who intermarries removes 
himself from kelal yisrael.  He retains, however, his personal kedushas yisrael.

Gil Student

Steven Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>:
> Please clarify with sources. How do most mefarshim, Rishonim, acharonim and 
> Poskim understand lo schanem?

The relevant sources are brought down in Tur and Shulchan Aruch Even
Haezer siman # 16. The Rambam holds it is dioraisa and you get malkos
and so writes the Mechaber. He also ads that Midivray Kabala it is
Kares. The Rama adds that Yesh Cholkin and say no Malkos. But the Rama
does add that it is Yaharog Veal Yaavor and Kanoim pogin bo, and is a
very severe issur. See all the Achronim brought down.

Thinking over my position on Leiberman, I realize that he really shouldn't
be blamed that much. I actually am starting to feel bad for him. He put
himself in a Nisayon that it is virtually impossible to overcome

Aaron Rubinson

Further to my earlier post and the responses thereto
(plus to those who sent private emails), I have looked up the
Mishnah Berurah and it is without any sofek that according to him
Hagbeh should be done going all the way round - by turning to your
right and continuing to do so until you have made the complete circle.

The Mareh Mekomos are SA (137:2) and MB sk 9
and Hilchos Nesias Kapayim 128:17 and the MB sk9.

SBA

In a message dated 9/21/00 3:08:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, DGLASNER@ftc.gov 
writes:
> And the point of the Dor Revi'i is that this must be done by a Beit
> Din that is specifically intercalating a particular year, because it is
> weighing all the relevant considerations appropriate to deciding whether
> that specific year should be intercalated, not by an automatic process
> initiated x hundreds of years before hand.

The Cheshbon took in consideration the "Tkufoh and Oviv" which the Rambam 
says overrules the prohibition.

>  It is not a shemitah year because the prerequisites for shemitah are not
>  satisfied.  There was no beit din that weighed all the factors that need to
>  be considered in deciding whether the year would be intercalated. 

It is not needed see Rambam Perek 5 of Hil. K"H.

> If intercalation occurs via automatic pilot, the conditions for the rabbinic 
> obligation to observe shemitah have not been satisfied.  Even if the p'sak 
> of the Rambam were relevant to the DR's point (which I question), it 
> would not be a proof against him, because presumably the Rambam's 
> p'sak relates to a situation in which there is a d'oraita obligation to 
> observe shemitah, not to one in which the obligation is only rabbinic as we
> are assuming.

I am sorry for being so thick, I will try to be clearer :-)

AIUI the D"R was proving that since we have a Shmita in a Shana Muberes, 
something which is against the prohibition in Sanhedrin 12b, we must conclude 
that it is not a true Shmita, the question against this position from the 
Rambam is that since the basis of our calender is based on a Cheshbon of 
taking in consideration Tkufah and Oviv hence there can be a true Shmita and 
be a Shana Muberes.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

The Ramban on Devarim 29:11 comments that the b'ris mentioned here
is a new one made in Arvos Mo'av, in addition to the one made at Har
Sinai. (RYBS has a shtikl Torah on this as well.)

In his d'var Torah email of a few weeks back, R' Binyamin Hecht of Nishma
contrasted two definitions of Jewish identity. I'd like to apply the
idea I picked up there to contrast the two brisim.

At Har Sinai, we were "k'ish echad bileiv echad". We were unified because
we *chose* to follow a common objective. Man joins the community --
the connection is made outward from the individual.

Rashi on "vehaniglos lanu ulvaneinu la'asos es kol divrei haTorah hazos"
(29:28) quotes the opinion of R' Nechemiah that with these words we
accepted areivus zeh lazeh. That lanu, bilashon rabbim, falls the
responsibility for the chata'im geluyim of indiviuals. The community
is responsible for its members, even those who choose not to follow
its goals. "Atem nitzavim hayom kulchem." The connection is made from
the community in toward the member -- and so the member gets no say on
the subject.

It is something like RYBS's chakirah between the am, the community of
destiny; and the eidah, that of fate. Man chooses to follow his destiny,
fate is imposed upon him. Note the purpose of this second b'ris: lima'an
hakim osecha hayom Lo *li'am*, viHu yihye licha lEi-lokim (29:12).

-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

On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 07:57:07PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: Rashi on "vehaniglos lanu ulvaneinu la'asos es kol divrei haTorah hazos"
: (29:28) quotes the opinion of R' Nechemiah that with these words we
: accepted areivus zeh lazeh.

Oops, forgot a point here:

And what's the consequent mitzvah after this b'ris is introduced? Hak-heil!

-mi

Aryeh:
>                             it is a hidur for the magbiah to open up more
> than three columns .... I don't think this is well known, as whenever I
> see a magbiah do this, I usually hear some grumbling about how the guy is
> showing off ...

so lmaaseh- if it isn't well known and the people who doit are doing it
to show off, what do you do? Take a hypothetical exmple-you are 6'6"
with a big wingspan - do you , knowing the psak but not being in a
position to announce it, go for 8 columns, knowing that the kahal will
think you are showing off?

KVCT,
Joel Rich

Why talis koton and not talis ketana?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Stein, Aryeh E." wrote:

> One other detail about hagbah: it is a hidur for the magbiah to open up
> more than three columns (if he is able to without risk of dropping it, of
> course).  I don't think this is well known, as whenever I see a magbiah
> do this, I usually hear some grumbling about how the guy is showing off
> or making a mockery of hagbah.

I also saw the MB and Mogen Avrohom on this - but it
seems unclear if they are saying a MINIMUM of 3 columns
or MAXIMUM for someone with the strength to do so.

Do you have a source for saying that more - is a hiddur?

SBA

The Kesef Mishne on the Rambam Hilchot Shmita v'Yovel 10:9 (u'bizman
sh'ein hayovel noheg, eino noheg mikol eilu chutz m'sheviit ba'aretz
v'hashmatat kesafim b'chol makom m'divreihem") indicates that the
"m'divrehem" refers ONLY to hashmatat kesafim and that sheviit according
to the Rambam would be d'oraita even bizman hazeh.

This is probably where the Brisker and the Chazon Ish get their svara that
shmita today is d'oraita. There's only one minor problem: the Mishkan
Shilo (of Rav Shilo Refael z"l) indicates that there is a different
girsa in the Rambam [found at the Cambridge Libray cat. # 62, a
Yemmenite ms. and a ms. in the British Museum # 486-87] that shows
that the rambam wrote: "v'noheget sheviit ba'aretz M'DIVREIHEM v'chen
hashmatat kesafim b'chol makom m'divreihem".

Thus, the Rambam does hold that shmita bizman hazeh is d'rabbanan and
not d'oraita.

Josh

From: SBA [mailto:sba@blaze.net.au]
> I also saw the MB and Mogen Avrohom on this - but it seems unclear if
> they are saying a MINIMUM of 3 columns or MAXIMUM for someone with the
> strength to do so.

> Do you have a source for saying that more - is a hiddur?

I remember seeing it recently...I thought I had seen it in Halichos Shlomo,
but I couldn't find it now when I checked.  I'll keep looking...

KT and KVCT
Aryeh

See my post in Vol 5 #77 titled Brisker Victory 
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n077.shtml#15

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]