Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 130

Monday, September 25 2000

• Re: correction of the baal kriah
• Re: harugei malkhut (2)
• Shmitta produce and bitul b'rov
• Re: Avodah V5 #128
• Chadash
• Digging in Har HaBayis
• Re: Digging in Har HaBayis
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: correcting baal kriah
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• sanhedrin
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• RE: Modern Orthodoxy
• RE: Modern Orthodoxy
• RE: Modern Orthodoxy
• RE: Modern Orthodoxy
• RE: Modern Orthodoxy
• Re: pruzbul
• Chadash
• RE: Chadash
• Re: Areivim V5 #323

At 02:40pm 9/22/00 -0400, RGD wrote:
>> RYK is supported by the Yerushalmi in Megillah.
>       Could you explain?

Yerushalmi Megilla 31b, see Toroson shel Rishonim there (printed in the 
back of standard Vilna editions) in the name of the Terumas Hadeshen - only 
on a ta'us in a letter to be machzir, not on nikud.

KT
YGB

In a message dated 9/22/00 3:48:22pmEDT, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:

Just to reiterate a few points:

>  While conventional Jewish (that is, talmudic) theology does not subscribe
>  to the idea of vicarious punishment, Merkabah mystics (as evidenced by the
>  Pirke Heikhalot passage) and those influenced by them (including the ba`al
>  midrash and piyyut of "Eleh Ezkerah") created (or, at best, transmitted an
>  oral tradition about) the divine "excuse" for the 10 rabbis' brutal
>  assassination by stipulating that they served as atonement for Yosef's
>  brothers' having sold him.

I find it problometic to make Machlokes, and the labeling of "conventional 
Jewish (that is, talmudic) theology".

> The terminology used and the form of the story
>  itself makes one suspect its anti-Christological undercurrent. Its place
>  in the Yom Kippur liturgy derives from the hashkafic perspective of
>  stimulating our teshuvah shelemah vis-a-vis fellow Jews by showing us the
>  devastating metaphysical, even if ahistorical, effects of sinat .hinam.

Yodua from Tos. and other Rishonim that something that was put into Tefila is 
100% true.

>  >Then why not say this in Maariv, at the earliest opportunity?
>  
>  Actually some say (or at least, said) it during yeme seli.hot.

IMHO it doesn't answer the question we say Vidduy Bknisas or prior to Knisas 
Y"K (O"C 607) why not make sure we understand it properly from the onset.


> Also, Artscroll has: "It is inserted in Zechor rachamecha
>  because it is here that we beg God [sic] to recall His covenant with the
>  Patriarchs to be merciful to their descendants, even if those descendants
>  are undeserving." 

Fine but not as a lesson in theology.

>  
>  >The point is that if one reads what the Payton wrote at the end he >would
>  see what the purpose of it is, "Chanun Habitah Mimromim >Tishpoches Dam
>  Hatzadikim... Vhaveir Ksomim. exactly the point of the >Zohar brought
>  Lhalacha.    
>  
>  The ".Hanun habitah..." stanza, which begins at "Zot kra'atnu..." is not
>  only not part of the Eleh Ezkerah*, having been added on later, it is
>  (was?) only nahug to be said among those who follow minhag Polin;

Thanks for the correction, it should still show what the purpose of saying it 
is (was).

>  Since the story is ahistorical in the sense that the 10 werent in one
>  place and time put to death, and besides the talmudic evidence for the
>  reasons of the 10's death that they themselves articulated, the fact that
>  the paytan/baal midrash threaded the events together must lead one to
>  conclude a point the paytan was trying to make: which is that, given
>  conventional theology, the 10s death was for the same TYPE
>  of sin, and not for the EXACT sin, of the 10 brothers, the peshat reading
>  of the piyyut notwithstanding.

And we couldn't have picked anything that would teach us this lesson 
Kipshutoi and w/o ahistorical fact?  (In addition how do we come to learn a 
Pshat in a Piyut that doesn't that is not supported by the words).

Kol Tuv, KVCT,

Yitzchok Zirkind

Regarding the prohibition of s'fichin and comparing it to the prohibition
of orlah, the following question comes to mind:

In keeping the mitzvah of orlah (which is d'oraisah if I am not mistaken),
we rely of the rules of "bitul". According to the Chazon Ish, who
is meikel, "mechtzah al mechtzah" is sufficient: if at least 50% of
the produce of a particular species of fruit found in the marketplace
is not orlah, then we can rely on "bitul b'rov" and eat the fruit.
More stringent opinions hold smaller percentages (I believe the most
machmir is 0.5%), but all opinions seem to agree that at some point
there is bitul and the produce is permitted.

Why cannot the same thing be said about shmitta produce (where issur
s'fichin is d'rabanan)?
In other words, if statistically speaking it is known, say, that more
than 50% of all cucumbers marketed in Israel are grown by non-Jews (and,
parenthetically, I think the percentage is much higher), wouldn't that
be mattir those cucumbers according to the CI? (According to the CI, we
would have be to noheg k'dushas sh'viis for those cucumbers, but at least
they would be permitted to eat.) Admittedly, because much Arab-grown
produce is diverted to the separate non-HM markets, the percentage of
Jewish-grown produce will be higher than in a regular year. Still,
in the present Israeli economic reality, there are probably certain
vegetable species that will still be more than 50% Arab-grown, in the
general (HM) marketplace.

Am I missing something?

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>> 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.

From what I understood, the Shvatim had the same Halacha, but
different Minhagim.  A unified Codex has to do with Halacha and with
getting rid of Minhagei Shtut which have become rampant.  I doubt if
local Minhagim made their way to the Sanhedrin unless they raised
halachic questions.

Shoshana L. Boublil

I am pleased that Rav Bechhofer has provided some balance to the
discussion on whether the torah issur of chadash applies to the produce
of lands outside of Israel.  As he says, it is not a simple matter, and
those who do not observe chadash in chutz la'aretz have tanaim, amoraim,
rishonim, and achronim on whom to rely.  His citation of the Aruch
Hashulchan Yoreh De'ah 293 is also a key reference for a full discussion
of the issue.  I don't believe that people who wish to give their
opinion on this matter should do so without having seen this reference
and without having examined the sources that he cites.   The author,
(Harav Y.M. Epstein), justifies the dominant practice in eastern europe
of disregarding the issue of chadash - based on the views of the Ohr
Zaruah, R' Yitzchok of Vienna (one of the later ba'alei Tosfot of the
1200s).  He brings a stam mishnah at the beginning of the ninth perek in
Menachot, which, according to the Gemara there (B.T. Menachot 84a)
rigidly links chadash to the omer.  If there is a Torah issur of chadash
on the grain of the land then one can bring the omer from that grain.
Since the mishnah excludes foreign grain from the korban omer, it
follows, then, that there is no issur chadash on that grain.  He
definitely does not follow the argument of the Bach which seems to go
counter to the Yerushalmi brought by Tosfot (B.T. Kiddushin 36b), and
which was emphatically dismissed by the Vilna Gaon.  The Bach's views
seem to be accepted primarily in Chassidic circles.  A full discussion
of this issue would take more than a simple post, and should be done by
someone who has more knowledge and authority than I possess.  I only
wish to raise the following key points:

The basis for the view that chadash is applicable outside of Israel is
the verse in Emor, "You may not eat bread, roasted grain, or fresh
kernels to this very day (the 16th of Nisan) until you have brought the
korban (omer) of your G-D, (this is) an eternal decree for your
generations wherever they live" (Lev. 23: 14).  This apparently clear
general prohibition of chadash is emphasized in a generic halachic type
mishnah at the end of Mishnayot Orlah, "Chadash is forbidden everywhere
by the Torah".  However, the Yerushalmi on Orlah 20a sees this mishnah
as following the minority view of R' Eliezer near the end of the first
perek in Kiddushin (B.T., Kiddushin, 37a) and cites the above verse as
the basis for R' Eliezer's view.  It then explains the view of the sages
who oppose R' Eliezer.  These sages, according to the Yerushalmi do not
view the above verse in isolation, but connect it to the earlier verse
at the beginning of the  section on the omer.  This verse reads, "..
when you come to the land that I am giving you and you reap its harvest
- then bring the omer, the first of your (barley) harvest to the kohen."
(Lev. 23: 10).  They conclude that the entire section refers only to the
crops of the promised land.  If such grain is exported then the
prohibition of chadash applies to it wherever it is sent.  The
implication is that there is no issue of chadash on crops that
originated outside the land (except for a rabbinic prohibition covering
lands neighboring Israel).  We seem to have another case dealing with
the question of the legitimacy of taking a verse (or a phrase) out of
context in order to derive an halacha.  R' Eliezer uses the verse
featuring the prohibition of chadash as self-contained and concludes
that the prohibition is perfectly general.  The sages, in contrast, see
the verse in the context of the omer parsha as relating only to the
crops of the promised land.  Therefore, they rule that grain from
outside of Israel does not have the chadash prohibition and can not be
used for the omer offering.

Yitzchok Zlochower

Back in December 1999 (Vol. 4 #214), RYGB  and I (and RAA and 
Reb. SB) were arguing over whether or not there was Kdusha in the 
artifacts being dug up by the Wakf on the Har HaBayis. The 
following exchange comes from a message of mine dated 
December 27, 1999:

>>> What is this business of Kedushas har Ha'Bayis? Is it because
>>> of the issur of Me'ilah?

>> The *dirt* isn't the question -- the *artifacts* from the eras of Bayis
>> Rishon/Sheni are what people are upset about.

>> Isn't it *possible* that those kelim *do* have kedusha?

> Actually, I belive the sugya in [Avoda Zara 72] states that all kelim in
> the Beis Ha'Mikdash are subject to the halacha of "ba'u ba peritzim
> va'yechaleluha", i.e., unlike the actual karka of the HhB they lose their
> kedusha when seized by Goyim. So, no.

[snip]

See Mikdash Dovid Siman 1 S'if Katan 6, and numerous mekoros 
there where (if I understand it correctly) he is saying that the klei 
shares, and the stones of the mizbeach, the heichal and the azara 
require gniza and have a din of m'eila l'achar m'eila. So why do you 
say that they lose their kdusha when they are seized by goyim?"

On January 2, 2000, RYGB responded:

> First of all, I looked up the Mikdash David on Avnei Beis 
> Ha'Mikdash (1:6). He discusses there stones that have not 
> undergone "ba'u ba peritzim va'yechaleluha."

In light of something which was pointed out by R. Zev Cohen on the 
Daf Shiur, while learning Nedarim Daf 62, I would like to reconsider 
the question. What R. Cohen pointed out is the Shita Mekubetzes 
al asar s"v Keivan She'Paratz. AIUI, the Shita there is mechalek 
between the relationship of a goy to the Klei Beis HaMikdash and 
the relationship of a Jew to the Klei Beis HaMikdash. For a Jew, 
once the Klei Beis HaMikdash have gone through Ba'u Pritzim, the 
keilim are mechulal and no longer have a din of m'ila. But for a goy, 
kdei she'lo yehei chotai niskar, Ba'u Pritzim is not a heter. 

If that's the case, then the Wakf digging on Har HaBayis does not 
have a heter of Ba'u Pritzim. Do we have a chiyuv to be mafrish 
them from the issur?

-- Carl

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 12:59pm 9/25/00 +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>If that's the case, then the Wakf digging on Har HaBayis does not
>have a heter of Ba'u Pritzim. Do we have a chiyuv to be mafrish
>them from the issur?

I assume that if we can be mafrish them with no danger to ourselves...

This might be a good occasion to iterate/reiterate, that in light of his 
recent anti-religious moves, hochi'ach sofo al techilaso that Barak is not 
to be trusted, and the Gedolei Torah who have opposed him and his plans 
were obviously right, and I was wrong.

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.

In message , Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes
>        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.

More odd than all this, is that even the Sephardim, who are pretty
makpid on brachos l'vatala to the extent that they will not allow women
to say brochas when they are not obligated (eg over a lulav)
allow/require women to say birchas haTorah in the morning - and I was
under the impression that this one was area where there was minimal
machlokus.  Surely leaving out l'torah is in direct contradiction with a
view that holds women are obligated to say birchas haTorah in the
morning?

Regards
Chana
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>If current trends continue, the majority of Jews alive in 5768 will live
>in Eretz Yisrael.

Leaving aside the questions about all the shvatim being in the
appropriate territory (as raised by others), even if you premise were
true that is only (necessarily) true if you only count as a Jew for this
purpose one who knows he or she is halachically Jewish.  Is that
necessarily the case (ie how about all those people out there who may
have a pure Jewish descent through their mother's line, but don't know
it)?  Of course, we don't know how many of these there are (probably a
significant number of Spanish/South Americans though, because of the
widespread conversion in Spain around 1492.  Some did later flee and
return, but I think most scholars think that many many did not) - add in
all the Americans, Australians etc etc, you probably have quite a
significant number of people whom only mashiach is capable of
identifying as halachically Jewish.

>Doesn't this mean that we're going to have to deal with dinei yoveil, in
>which case shemittah is di'Oraisa?

If we count in those who do not know they are halachically Jewish, then
we will always have at least a safek until machiach comes.

Regards
Chana
Chana/Heather Luntz

> Could I trouble you to send his exact quote? I don't 
> understand the difference between mil'el/mil'ra on the one hand, and 
> a difference in t'nuah on the other.  Certainly ba'ah and baah' are 
> as much two different words as tzivah and tzuvah.

Nireh she'im shina hakoreh vekara teiva hamut'emes bemil'el mil'ra oh
lehefech she'ein zeh nikra shinui inyan, ve'ein machazirin osoh, de'ein
hat'amas hateiva goremes le'etzem perushah. vera'ayah lazeh deha matzinu
harbeh yotz'ei min hakelal uchegon b'esnachta oh sof pasuk shemut'emes
hateiva mil'el af shepirushah hi leshon asid. uchegon teivas vesavata
bekrias shema. uvehechrech shemikum hata'amas hateiva bechi hai gavna
eino elah kifrat tzedadi michlalei hakeriah uchesiman be'alma, ach
etzem hapirush nikva lema'aseh al yedei kavanas hapasuk be'emes veloh
al yedei krias hagavra, velachen im ta'ah bikrias haTorah bechi hai
gavna ein machazirin osoh. {ve'uvdah irah shekara hakoreh im shanosi
(mil'el) berak charbi, vehoreh rabeinu sheloh lehachaziro.]

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 24 Sep 2000, at 15:50, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
>             Surely leaving out l'torah is in direct contradiction with a
> view that holds women are obligated to say birchas haTorah in the
> morning?

Although I don't necessarily favor leaving out "l'Torah," I also don't
necessarily see it as a conflict.

Women are obligated to learn those halachos which they use in their every
day lives. That is still learning Torah (which ought to require a bracha)
even if it is not learning Torah solely for Torah's sake.

I am trying to think of other examples where we make a bracha on 
fulfilling a mitzva that is in essence a machshir for doing another 
mitzva. I have a couple of examples in mind, but they seem kind of 
far fetched to post. Anyone else have any?

-- Carl

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.

Shoshana L. Boublil:
> From what I understood, the Shvatim had the same Halacha, but
> different Minhagim.  A unified Codex has to do with Halacha and with
> getting rid of Minhagei Shtut which have become rampant.  I doubt if
> local Minhagim made their way to the Sanhedrin unless they raised
> halachic questions.

Interesting - My understanding was that each shevet had it's own sanhedrin
and that the Sanhedrin in Yerushalayim did not necessarily feel the need to
reconcile the "circuits"(based on my understanding of a tape of a shiur from
R' YDS).  Does anyone have any further detail on how the system worked.

KVCT
Joel Rich

On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 03:50:57PM +0100, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
: More odd than all this, is that even the Sephardim, who are pretty
: makpid on brachos l'vatala to the extent that they will not allow women
: to say brochas when they are not obligated (eg over a lulav)...

I thought the inyan here wasn't one of b'rachah but of the word "mitzvah".
I was explained the Slonimer version of this p'sak as being that the word
"mitzvah" and therefore "viTZIVANU al / li- ..." wouldn't include an
"einah METZUVAH vi'osah" (emph added).

: allow/require women to say birchas haTorah in the morning - and I was
: under the impression that this one was area where there was minimal
: machlokus.

This would imply that there is a notion of tzivui, even in the limited
sense of chiyuv or issur. Perhaps for lilmod al minas la'asos?

Alternatively, isn't there a shitah that mitzvas k'rias Sh'ma is an
inyan of limud Torah? "Vishinantam livanecha" refers to Sh'ma, just
like "bishivticha biveisecha uvlechticha vaderech", no? In which case,
if you hold that women must recite Sh'ma daily, there could be a chiyuv
of some form of T"T for women.

-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

> Yashan (according to the Bach, I think) is only Noheg
> in Eretz Israel.  But R. Aaron Soloveichik holds that
> it is Noheg in Chutz LaAretz as well and that the Bach
> is a Shitas Yachid that we need not rely on anymore.

AFAIK, most poskim hold that the BAch is a daas Yachid.

> What I meant with the above is that RWers are adopting
> this chumra in ever greater numbers. I believe that
> RWers are more apt to adopt Chumros than Centrists.

A chumra is NOT the same as "anything stricter than me".

And that doesn't make Yashan a chumra --

There are three possibilities:

1) Normative Halacha
2) Maykel -- relying on a valid (but lenient) psak
3) Chumra -- following a more strict opinion than normative halacha calls
for because of doubt

IN the case of Yashan -- Keeping Yashan would be Normative halach. Following
the BAch would be case 2 -- relying on a maykel opinion. That doesn't make
it wrong -- most poskim who say one should hold by chadash/yashan in chutz
L'Aretz will still acknowlege the Bach's shita.

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

I am firmly convinced that to keep yoshon in Chul is a chumra, not 
normative halacha. I wrote as mich in my essay on chumros in the JO, and 
members of the editorial board asked me to defend my position. Here is the 
text and the accompanying footnote. (I am cc'ing Avodah, perhaps Micha will 
see fit to transfer the conversation there).

TEXT: For example, for centuries most of Ashkenazic Jewry was lenient 
concerning yoshon and chodosh.(FOOTNOTE) When Rabbi Chaim and Rabbi Velvel 
Soloveitchik zt"l revisited the issue, however, their analysis led them to 
conclude that the prevailing practice was incorrect, and that following the 
stringent opinion in this area was necessary. A chumra arrived at by this 
process is inescapable. But very few of us are equipped to engage in this 
process. It is one reserved for Gedolei Torah at the highest echelon. 
Often, Poskim who have engaged in such comprehensive reviews and analyses 
are loath to impose the standards implicated by their conclusions on the 
masses of Am Yisroel. Their reasons may be based on the principle of eilu 
va'eilu divrei Elokim chayim. They may, however, advise their talmidim and 
followers of their conclusions, and direct them to adhere to these rulings.

FOOTNOTE: To be sure, this is inaccurate. There were always machmirim on 
chodosh, even among the Chassidim. Some might argue that the "baseline" 
halachic position is to be stringent in the area of chodosh, and that it is 
a "kulla" - a leniency - to eat grain products from the new crop before the 
17th day of Nissan. I have chosen to deem the observance of chodosh outside 
Eretz Yisroel  as a chumra because the overwhelming majority of observant 
Jews have never refrained from chodosh. As we have noted, "baseline 
halacha" may be determined by the practices of a majority of observant 
Jews: "Puk chazei mai ama dvar" - "Go see how the nation conducts itself" 
(Berachos 45a). The Mishna Berura (489:45) writes, concerning chodosh, that 
"Ba'al Nefesh yachmir. See our discussion of that concept below. See also 
the Aruch HaShulchan Yoreh De'ah 293. A fuller appreciation of the 
complexities of the issue will have to wait for another opportunity. As 
above, the intentional oversimplification here is for illustrative purposes 
only!

Even if one, quite justifiably, rejects the Bach, there is much al mah 
lismoch - see the AH!

KT
YGB

>                                         As we have noted, "baseline
> halacha" may be determined by the practices of a majority of
> observant Jews:

What are the limits to this? Whe do we say that something which *should* be
normative halacha becomes a chumra just because the majority of frum Jews
don't observe it?

For example -- since most Jews speak L.H., should we say that the observance
of L.H. is a chumra?

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On 25 Sep 2000, at 8:45, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> For example -- since most Jews speak L.H., should we say that the observance
> of L.H. is a chumra?

I can think of one chiluk immediately. No one holds that it is mutar 
to speak Lashon Hara. Chalas Chutz La'Aretz is a machlokes 
ha'poskim.

-- Carl

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.

Akiva
>For example -- since most Jews speak L.H., should we say that the observance
>of L.H. is a chumra?

Tangentially to this...my rebbes in yeshiva taught me that there is
a metaphoric meis mitzvah, a NEGLECTED mitzva.

Until the chofeat Chaim published his sefer, LH was a meis mitzvah.
and until the Shabtnez labs opened in Williamsburg, Shatnez was
a meis mitzvah.  IOW they were easily negelected, but never muttar.

The trick is to distinguish between reviving neglected mitzovs
and halachos and in being overly machmir.

Another example of a "percieved" chumra which is really a halachah
is inspecting bugs in certain vegetables.  DDT cuase a generation
to grow lax on this.  Since the banning of DDT, bugs have re-appeared
and it is a real problem.  BH, the commercial avialbility of Bodiek
etc. has helped to faciliate the observance of this halachah.

Neglected mitzvos need heightened awareness.  Perhaps shmittah too
falls into this

KvChT
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

I received the following unsolicited call to sign a pruzbul electronically.
I have a number of questions:

1. What's the hurry?   Is it not the end of the shmitta year that releases
debts?
2. Is such an electronic "signature" valid?  Also, doesn't pruzbul have to
be
done before a beis din?  (Does signing this form make R. Finman the agent
of the signee before beis din?)
3. Other comments/opinions?

KT,
Shlomo Godick

The BACH in the TUR YD was of the opinion that chadash didn't apply
to gentile grain, thus allowing the drinking of whiskey made from this
grain. However, the Avnei Nezer YD 396 indicates that the issur applies
to grain grown in Israel or chutz la'aretz whether by Jews or gentiles.
I think the reason why Rav Chaim Brisker was machmir was because the GRA
was also machmir with chadash.

In Israel they try and grow wheat and barley *before* the 16th of Nissan.
I think some of the imported flour also comes from countries in the
Southern Hemisphere where there is no problem of chadash.

Josh

> The BACH in the TUR YD was of the opinion that chadash didn't apply
> to gentile grain, thus allowing the drinking of whiskey made from this
> grain.

I thought the Bach brough *Beer* as the reason -- I believe his phrase is
"Beer being a staple of life".

> In Israel they try and grow wheat and barley *before* the
> 16th of Nissan.

In practice, wheat here is a *winter* crop, and therefore not a problem. In
the US there is also an additional *summer* wheat crop, which reached the
market in October.

Akiva

Rich Wolpoe [on Avodah]:
: Perhaps HKBH engineered this nisayon midah knegged midah for writing
: those very words!
This is a very good point. We frequently mess up on the points we preach the 
most. I saw a vort on this point, which is relevant to Rosh Hashana. On the 
Pasuk "Velo Yachlu Echav Laanos Oso ki Nivhalu mipanav" the Medrash says "Oy 
lanu miYom haDin Oy Lanu MiYom Hatochacha -- just like the brothers could not 
answer Yosef's Tochacha, so too what will we answer Hashem."
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

The Alter of Kelm asks -- where do we see Yosef giving Tochacha, all he said 
was "Haod Avi Chai?"
He answers -- that these words were a Tochacha from Yosef. He was telling the 
brothers -- you are so worried about "Avinu Zakeyn" and that is why I can't 
keep Binyamin -- then why weren't you worried about your father when you sold 
me. So it was the brothers own words that pointed out their hypocrisy (if one 
may use such a harsh word on Shivtei Kah Malachei Elokim) so to speak. (Of 
course, another understanding is that this shows the brothers did Teshuva.)

And this is the meaning of the Medrash, just like the brothers were 
embarrassed by the inconsistency of their words so will we be when it comes 
to the Yom Hadin and Hashem will point out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies 
in our words and actions. This can also be a possible understanding of 
"Vichosem Yad Kol Adam Bo" -- our own actions and words will be used against 
us.

Yehi Ratzon Shenizke Kulanu Lizakos Badin, vileikasaiv Bisifran Shel Tzadikim 
Gemurim. 

Aaron Rubinson

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


[ 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         ]