Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 131

Tuesday, September 26 2000

• Re: pruzbul
• Re: correction of the baal kriah
• Re: pruzbul
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Halacha
• Re: pruzbul
• Seizing the Opportunity
• Birchos HaTorah (was Re: Besuros Tovos)
• re:correction of the baal kriah
• Re: Modern Orthodoxy
• Re: Modern Orthodoxy
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: Birchos HaTorah (was Re: Besuros Tovos)
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• re:correction of the baal kriah
• Re: talis qoton
• Re: RYBS & Brisker Chumras

On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 09:02:03PM +0200, Shlomo Godick wrote:
: 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?

It's not so simple. I believe it's a machlokes rishonim. Lubavitch, for
example, does a pruzbul at the begining AND at the end of the year. I
wonder if the email was from a Chabad site?

-mi

On 21 Sep 2000 09:13:20 –0400 Gershon Dubin 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?

Depends what you mean by Lema'aseh. When the Rov leined or had maftir, he
would practice in accordance with R. Hayyim Brisker's position, which is the
p'saq of the Shulhon 'Orukh as well (it is the RMA' who says we don't make
him go back unless it changes the meaning. The only thing that R. Hayyim
added to the p'saq of the mehabber is that he interpreted "afilu bediqduq os
qoton" as referring to trop, and so the Rov would go back even if he had
made a mistake in trop. However, the Rov never imposed his humros on others
(although he did not consider this a humro). However, the gabbai and others
in the congregation would correct the person who was leining for mistakes
(and, of course, there were the usual quota of people who would yell out if
he said "es" with a segol instead of with a tsere or vv.). [Carl: this is
what I remember, that the Rov himself was not the one who corrected.]
R. Yaakov's opinion is that of the Manhig, brought down by the Tur, O'H 142.

However, neither the mehabber nor the RMA' agree with that opinion as
stated. (And note that the Rma', with whose opinion the MB concurs, also
says that "go'arin bo" [presumably quietly after the leining] for all
mistakes. How many places do you see doing that? And the Rma' also implies
that if there is anyone who knows "liqro bediqduq" you don't let others
lein!)

RYGB said:
> RYK is supported by the Yerushalmi in Megillah.

The mehabber in the Beis Yosef mentions the Yerushalmi, and he implies that
the Yerushalmi is referring only to the megillah, which has different
halokhos in several regards.

As far as RYK's psaq goes, he clearly has a source in the Manhig brought by
the Tur. But R. Gershon Dubin's quotation shows, RYK is basically
disagreeing with the Rma', since he says that "etzem hapirush nikva
lema'aseh al yedei kavanas hapasuk." That means that any reading
(presumably that agrees with the written letters, so it won't be b'al peh)
would be good, and is clearly not what the Rma' meant. The proof that words
with esnahto or sof posuq change their accent is, IMHO, not relevant to
words outside of those situations. If it were, than the Rashi re Ba'ah
would be meaningless. The Roqeah also says that a milra' on words like
v'ohavto in Shma' means the future.

There is also a question about what the Medrash quoted by the Tur to justify
changes in pronunciation that do not change the meaning really means, but
that discussion is for another time.

Gil Student said:
> I remember someone telling me that the Rav got an aliyah at his bar mitzvah 
> and corrected him on trop.

The Rov often told the story.  When he went to start leining the haftoro 
(from the qlaf, as they did in Brisk), R. Hayyim stood on one side of the 
shulhon and R. Simho Zelig on the other side, and R. Hayyim told him (a 
little boy, remember) that here in Brisk we hold like the Rambam, and will 
make you go back for any mistake, even in trop.  The Rov said that was one 
very nervous maftir.

KVCT,
Seth Mandel

RM Berger wrote:

> Chabad.org has a similar email every Pesach for mechiras chameitz. I asked
> about the lack of kinyan suddar in appointing a sh'liach. I forgot their
> heter for not requiring one, but their argument was better have someone use
> their form and rely on the heter than not sell their chameitz at all.
> Basically, ein danin es ha'efshar...

RR Wolpoe wrote:

> Question for the shtar harsha'ah - as opposed to the shtar
> mechira to the Gentile - is kinyan suddar a real "hakpadah"?
> AIUI daas makenh combined with zachin l'oodom shelo befaonov
> is enough to make the Rabbi a shliach to be makneh chametz.

The reason for the MINHAG of having a kinyan for appointing shelichus
is to make sure the appointment is done, as the Rambam says, "beleiv
shaleim". I can't see that it would be me'akeiv and IMHO it seems like
it would be better to have someone violate this minhag than violate a
derabbanan like shemitas kesafim or chametz on Pesach (with bittul it
is only derabbanan).

Gil Student

In message <39CFA272.1773.194A30A8@localhost>, Carl M. Sherer
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>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 think the distinction you are making is between learning the things
required in daily life as a mitzvah in and of itself and Torah as a
hemshech mitzvah. I must say I am struggling to think of an example
where the latter has a brocha.  Especially in a case where you cannot
guarantee the ultimate mitzvah result (ie you could learn all you want
and still be no closer to actually practicing anything).  After all, you
do not make a bracha on building a sukkah.

In addition the bracha is promptly followed by birchas cohanim etc,
which I always understood as being to make sure that you did not say a
bracha l'vatala.  As far as women are concerned, it is hard to see how
learning birchas cohanim fits into the category of halachos which are
used in  daily life.  And yet, on any given day, that might well be the
only Torah that she learns.

In addition, as I have pointed out before (on mail jewish at one stage)
at least according to the Magen Avraham, (and others) the reason that a
bracha can be said in the morning and it paturs the learning done the
whole day is because a man is obligated to learn day and night (and
therefore there is no hesek hadaas) (see Orech Chaim siman 47 si'if
katan 6 (in the middle)) unlike, for example, a sukkah when the brocha
is said every meal.  That would seem to suggest that women should say
the bracha each time she learns (according to your theory, something
which she uses in her everyday life), and not otherwise.  The nosei
kellim suggest that, inter alia, it has to do with her being chayav to
say korbanos.  But if she is indeed "learning" korbanos, doesn't that
prove the point (even if it is only to that one limited extent).

>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.

It is not even exactly a machshir.  One might manage, quite unwittingly,
to do the right thing without learning, it is just more likely if you
know what you are doing.  And, given that more (proportionally) of a
women's mitzvos are negative rather than positive, it is probably more
accurate to describe it as a fence preventing one from falling into
averah - do we make a bracha when we take away a stumbling block from
before the blind?

> I have a couple of examples in mind, but they seem kind of 
>far fetched to post. Anyone else have any?

Chana
Chana/Heather Luntz

At 09:37 PM 9/24/00 +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>  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.

Define, please, halacha - is the amount of time to wait between meat and 
milk halacha or minhag? What about the nusach ha'tefilla? Or, whehter women 
may wear wigs or must wear hats as headcoverings?

KT
YGB

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:36:47 -0400 Gil Student said:
> The reason for the MINHAG of having a kinyan for appointing shelichus
> is to make sure the appointment is done, as the Rambam says, "beleiv
> shaleim". I can't see that it would be me'akeiv and IMHO it seems like
> it would be better to have someone violate this minhag than violate a
> derabbanan like shemitas kesafim or chametz on Pesach (with bittul it
> is only derabbanan).

Ein hachi nami. And wouldn't any shtar harsh'ah has the signature of the
baal hachametz assignin the rabbi as an Agent/Shliach... be a valid
form of "appointment"?

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

This past Motzei Shabbos, as I have done every year for the past seven
years, I went to hear a musar schmooz from R. Yitzchak Mordechai Rubin
before Slichos. I'd like to share some of what he said with you. Please
note that Rav Rubin will not be reviewing the text of this email (nor
did I tell him that I planned to share the contents of his schmooz with
the Chevra), and therefore any mistakes are mine and not the Rav's.

In Parshas VaYeishev, when Reuven returns to the pit after the brothers
have sold Yosef, Medrash Rabba 84:19 tells us that Reuven had been missing
because he was busy "b'sako uv'taaniso." Rashi tells us (Breishis 37:28
s"v VaYoshov Reuven) that this was "al she'bilbel yitzuei aviv." The
Medrash then goes on to say "Amar lo HaKadosh Baruch Hu: Mei'Olam lo
chata adam l'fanai v'asa tshuva, v'ata pasachta b'tshuva tchila. Chayecha
she'ben bincha omed u'poseiach b'tshuva tchila. V'Aizeh zeh? Hoshea,
she'ne'emar 'Shuva Yisrael ad Hashem Elokecho."

How could the Medrash make this comment? Adam HaRishon did tshuva.
Kayin did tshuva. How could the Medrash say that Reuven was the first
one to do tshuva?

But there is a qualitative difference between Reuven's tshuva and
Adam HaRishon's and Kayin's tshuva. Adam HaRishon did tshuva after
HKB"H walked into Gan Eden (kaveyachol) and confronted Adam with his
aveira. Kayin did tshuva after Hashem confronted him with his having
murdered his brother. But Reuven did tshuva before anyone was m'ayein
in his din, before he had been confronted with the fact that he had done
wrong. And because of that, Reuven's tshuva was easier and qualitatively
different. That's why the Gemara tells us "kol ha'omer Reuven chata
aino ela toeh." And indeed it was Hoshea who was the first to tell us,
says the Yefe Toar s"v v'Aizeh zeh Hosea, that tshuva can reach the
Kisei haKavod and that Hashem can turn our zdonos into shgagos.

In the days leading up to Rosh haShana, we have an opportunity to do
tshuva in the same manner as Reuven - before HKB"H has been m'ayein in
our actions over the past year. We have to seize the opportunity to do
so. But doing tshuva means a real and realistic examination of our own
actions. Many of us think (and I include myself in this - C.S.) that
we have only small aveiros. A bracha said without perfect kavana here
or there, for example. We have to assess ourselves more honestly. For
example, we might make a list of all of our zchuyos and chovos for the
past year on a piece of paper - being forced to write it out forces one
to focus better.

The Rav went on to tell the story of a certain yungerman in his
neighborhood who suffered a heart attack, and was flown to the US for
emergency surgery. While the yungerman was on the operating table, he
suffered a second heart attack, and then he was in a coma for a lengthy
period of time. When he awoke, he related that he had been before the
Beis Din shel ma'ala, and that he had been called to din on each and
every action that he had done in this world. For example, the Beis
Din accused him of having a book from a Beis Medrash in Tel Aviv which
was gezel. He said that the Beis Medrash had closed down, and that the
gabbai had told him to keep the book. The Beis Din said that the gabbai
never had the right to allow him to keep the book. And so it went. Every
action in the yungerman's life was written down before the Beis Din....

The yungerman pleaded that he was still young, had a wife and several
children and that it was not time for him to die R"L. But nothing
helped. Until he said he wanted to change. Then, the Shaarei Shamayim
were opened for him.

We all see things that are inexplicable around us, yet none of us takes
it to heart that this is a warning sign from Hashem to wake up and do
tshuva. The Rav related two stories of people who were close to him who
suddenly dropped dead during the past year (the Rav himself is a young
man). He said that each time something of this nature happens R"L it is
a wake up call to us that we must change our ways. If we don't react the
first time we are hit R"L, then R"L we are hit harder and harder. I have
heard Rav Rubin say on other occasions that if you go to a young person's
levaya R"L, you don't have to learn mussar for a month afterwards. But
only if you take to heart what you see around you, and you use it as an
occasion for a cheshbon ha'nefesh.

May we all be zoche to a ksiva va'chasima tova, l'alter l'chaim tovim
ul'shalom, lanu ul'chol beis Yisrael.

-- 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

Ksiva vaChasima Tova (or Ktiva vaChatima Tova,
depending on your preference).
May you and yours be inscribed and sealed in
the books of life, health and happiness.

On 25 Sep 00, at 20:34, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> In addition, as I have pointed out before (on mail jewish at one stage)
> at least according to the Magen Avraham, (and others) the reason that a
> bracha can be said in the morning and it paturs the learning done the
> whole day is because a man is obligated to learn day and night (and
> therefore there is no hesek hadaas) (see Orech Chaim siman 47 si'if
> katan 6 (in the middle)) 

I assume you meant Magen Avraham 6 and 7 there. 

This led me to a different question - what about when one sleeps 
during the day. There is no question that if I sleep a sheinas keva 
(which I do during the day on Shabbos) there is hesech ha'daas 
with respect to learning, even if I am mechuyav in v'hagiso bo 
during that time. So why don't I make Birchos haTorah again when 
I wake up?

That would seem to suggest that women should say
> the bracha each time she learns (according to your theory, something
> which she uses in her everyday life), and not otherwise.  The nosei
> kellim suggest that, inter alia, it has to do with her being chayav to
> say korbanos.  But if she is indeed "learning" korbanos, doesn't that
> prove the point (even if it is only to that one limited extent).

That would be so except that we don't only say korbanos because 
of learning, but also because of "neshalma parim sfaseinu," and 
certainly a woman is equally as likely as a man to be mechuyav in 
many of the korbanos listed in Aizehu M'Komom.

Agav, I think I found an answer to RGD's kashya about "tzetzoeinu" 
for a woman (and relating to female children). See Mishna Brura 47 
s"k 10.

-- 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

Ksiva vaChasima Tova (or Ktiva vaChatima Tova,
depending on your preference).
May you and yours be inscribed and sealed in
the books of life, health and happiness.

In support of RYK, RYGB quotes 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.

May I respectfully disagree?

First, it's not a Yerushalmi, it's the Orchos Chayim saying that it's a
Yerushalmi, but it doesn't appear in ours. Second, the Trumas Hadeshen
talks about trop (I assume that's what he means when he says dikdukay
taamim) and exchanging patach and kamatz.  He doesn't say anything about
a change in nikud which changes the meaning of a word.  Third, the Orchos
Chayim distinguishes between the koray shebairach and the chazan. It
would seem for two reasons that he's distinguishing between the baal
kriah and what we call chazan, since (a) he says pirush chazan hakneses
shat"z, and (b) if he means to distinguish between the oleh and the baal
kriah, and that's what he means when he refers to the former as
shebairach, who hears the oleh to correct him? He' s supposed to read
along quietly!

Can anyone say that if, for instance, someone reads ki Paroh Aharon
instead of ki fru'oh, or shaim sam instead of shum sum, we shouldn't
correct it? How about hechadash heeza lechem?

In a message dated 9/25/00 1:22:02pm EDT, atwood@netvision.net.il writes:
> 3) Chumra -- following a more strict opinion than normative halacha calls
> for because of doubt

A more stringent opinion can also be followed if the opinion seems to the 
follower to be more logical. 

Jordan Hirsch

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 11:37:12PM -0400, TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:
: A more stringent opinion can also be followed if the opinion seems to the 
: follower to be more logical. 

But more logical based on which premises?

If more logical mei'inyanei machshavah, I would consider this a hanhagah
tovah. Whereas if you think it flows more logically from the halachic
sevaros, it could in theory be a p'sak lechumrah and therefore actual
din -- at least for the person you're paskening for (even if yourself).

In either case, don't issues of perishah min hatzibbur and yuharah arise?

-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

Gil Student:
:> However, Rabbeinu Tam understands that gemara to mean (I'm not sure how) that
:> representatives from each of the tribes have to be living in Israel - not
:> necessarily all or a majority of each tribe and not necessarily in their
:> ancestral portion.

Where is the Rabbeinu Tam?

It would seem from your summary that if there is a thousand or so Jews in
E"Y, then we probably have representatives of each sheivet living there,
and yovel and shemittah should be d'Oraisa. Or at least enough for a
safeik d'Oraisa lichumrah.

On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 03:35:48PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: This Rabbeinu Tam (RT) above is proably yet another example
: of the TB saying one thing and Tosfos going in a different direction.
...
: The answer frequently - though not always - is Mesorah.

The subject isn't lima'aseh (bi'avonoseinu harabim) and wasn't during RT's
lifetime either. Are you saying that Tosafos was concerned with justifying
Ashkenaz's textual tradition WRT the Bavli, not "just" the "mah d'avad
umah"?

Speaking of mimeticism: It's a fine line between "al titosh toras
imecha [= umascha]" and "mitzvas anashim meilumadam". This ties into
the "chumrah" thread. Following one's traditional p'sak rather than
what makes sense to you might be proper halachah, but isn't it
much easier to keep halachah from becoming rote when you have that
emotional and intellectual connection to the p'sak?

-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

RC Sherer wrote:
> This led me to a different question - what about when one sleeps during the 
> day. There is no question that if I sleep a sheinas keva (which I do during 
> the day on Shabbos) there is hesech ha'daas with respect to learning, even if 
> I am mechuyav in v'hagiso bo during that time. So why don't I make Birchos 
> haTorah again when I wake up?

Sure you do. I don't have the exact cite, but it's in the Shulchan Aruch
and/or Mishnah Berurah. You also make it after sheinas arai at night.

Gil Student

Gil Student:
:> However, Rabbeinu Tam understands that gemara to mean (I'm not sure how) that
:> representatives from each of the tribes have to be living in Israel - not
:> necessarily all or a majority of each tribe and not necessarily in their 
:> ancestral portion.
     
Micha Berger wrote:

> Where is the Rabbeinu Tam?

Tosafos Gittin 36a.
     
> It would seem from your summary that if there is a thousand or so Jews in E"Y,
> then we probably have representatives of each sheivet living there, and yovel 
> and shemittah should be d'Oraisa. Or at least enough for a safeik d'Oraisa 
> lichumrah.

According to RT, yes.  Rashi and the Ramban (Gittin 36a and somewhere in Sefer 
HaZechus) also hold that shemitah today is de'oraisa.
     
Gil Student

At 11:01 PM 9/25/00 +0000, sadya n targum wrote:
>May I respectfully disagree?

>First, it's not a Yerushalmi, it's the Orchos Chayim saying that it's a
>Yerushalmi, but it doesn't appear in ours. ...

>Can anyone say that if, for instance, someone reads ki Paroh Aharon
>instead of ki fru'oh, or shaim sam instead of shum sum, we shouldn't
>correct it? How about hechadash heeza lechem?

You may disagree, to be sure, but I doubt you would be correct :-) .

Firstly, for those without a Vina edition, it is Perek 4 Halacha 5. There 
the Gemara (and, I did not see the BY inside, but the Gemara is discussing 
Kerias Ha'Torah, not Mikra Megilla), actually R' Yirmiya, asks R' Ze'irah 
whether it is only for excahnging one word for another that one makes the 
Ba'al Koreh go back, and R' Ze'ira chides him and says *even* for 
excahanging a letter ("Eem" vs' "V'Eeem") - the connotation is obvious, and 
in line with the Terumas Ha'Deshen - but not lesser errors.

As to what the boundaries are in a change of meaning, that is a good 
question, but not relevant to mistakes in trop, nor even me'le'il vs. 
me'l'ira and most vowel errors.

KT
YGB

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:59:39, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Why talis koton and not talis ketana?

Why indeed? Why not?

The problem is that the status of the word tallit is very unclear. Many, if
not most, old manuscripts of the mishna have the word as tallet. Note also
that the Yiddish word is "talIs, taleysIm" (using the capital I to represent
the Yiddish shva/unaccented vowel as in "tsubrokhInI." That shows clearly that
the word came into Yiddish pronounced tales, not talis (for why would they
change the vowel in the word?). The word is not a Hebrew form like .hanit
(spear), occurs starting with Leshon Hazal, and is suspected by some of
being a loan word from some language, with the final tov a part of the word,
not a feminine suffix.

In any case, the term talis qoton, with the plural talisos qetanim (which
clearly shows that qoton here is an adjective and it does not mean "the
talis of a qoton" and also shows that it was held to be masculine, and not
just a mistake) is found in most of the Ashkenaz rishonim. To the best of
my knowledge, it is not used at all by early Sefaradi or other rishonim,
and they do not discuss such a garment at all, whereas we find numerous
discussions of it by the Ashkenaz rishonim. The Mishna in Bovo Metsi'o uses
the word as feminine, and Rashi does also (as in Menohos 43a). But the word
was accepted as masculine by the Ashkenazic tradition (the Tur normally uses
it that way), and since the garment was discussed (and worn?) only in Ashkenaz,
the later Sefaradim who discuss it (like the Nimukei Yosef and the Beis Yosef)
are quoting from Ashkenaz sources.

So to determine "why indeed" or "why not" you would have to determine which
is more "correct," the tradition of Ashkenaz rishonim or Sefaradi rishonim,
which is a meaningless question, since both are ancient "traditions."

KVC'T,
Seth

I think what our friend RSB Abeles was trying to say is that the Mesilas 
Yesharim lists two kinds of chumros.  One is part of yirah - when you are not 
sure what the halachah is you should be machmir out of fear that you might 
violate a biblical prohibition.  The other is part of perishus, what Ramchal 
calls perishus bedinim.  Even though you know that the halachah is like one 
opinion, you are machmir for other opinions.

I think RSBA was confused by some people who he believes are not fully machmir 
in the yirah aspect jumping ahead of the game and trying to be perushim (please 
don't pun, you know what I mean).

In general, I fully agree with the criticism.  However, its application to 
others is not our business, certainly not this week.  Its application to 
ourselves is very relevant, however.

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         ]