Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 065

Tuesday, December 12 2000

• Re: Badekin
• Badekin
• Urn Halacha
• RE: Urn Halacha
• RE: Urn Halacha
• Re: Urn Halacha
• Kelayim
• intent
• TY and gezeros
• RE: Torah She'beal Peh
• Re: Torah She'beal Peh
• FW: Nishmat/women learning
• Women and Psak; Badekin
• RE: Badekin
• Re: Badeken
• Re: Women and Hanukkah lights
• RE: Urn Halacha
• RE: Mitzvos in Israel?
• Re: Mitzvos in Israel?
• RE: Mitzvos in Israel?

>> Has anyone ever been to a wedding where two witnesses were required for the
>> badekin by the m'sader kedushin?

>         Rabbi Yisrael Reisman once speculated on the implications of
>having a few more kibudim to give out......

I've seen it done - indeed, for kibbudim purposes.

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

MIKE38CT@aol.com writes:
>Has anyone ever been to a wedding where two witnesses were required for the
>badekin by the m'sader kedushin?

Our m'sader kedushin required it - although in retrospect I think it was one 
of the things we should really have taken up with him and objected to.  I 
believe it is based on a mordechai holding that badeken is the real kiddushin, 
and that RYBS was in favor of insisting on this.

The reason for my objection, is because badekin b'chalal is not a Sephardi 
minhag.  I very much wanted the ceremony itself, because it is *nice* and what 
I am used to.  The compromise that Robert and I worked out was that we would 
have a badekin, but no yichud (that is not the Sephardi minhag either, to have 
yichud right after the ceremony, and he felt that his mother would find 
immediate yichud more "ashkenazi", ie more objectionable, than a badekin).

The problem we ran into was that the m'sader kiddushin, while a truely 
wonderful person (and a Rav from Robert's yeshiva, with whom Robert had a very 
close emotional tie), was both completely unfamiliar with Sephardi wedding 
minhagim and a talmid of RYBS to boot.  And neither of us had thought enough 
ahead to take the time to try and really work this whole how do we deal with 
the conflicting minhagim out with him.  What we really should have done is 
taken him (and ourselves) on a crash course of why the different minhagim are 
the way they are, and on what they are based. On the other hand, we didn't 
know a Sephardi rabbi in Israel who would have been even vaguely appropriate 
on a whole range of other levels (BTW this is my take on Robert's yeshiva 
experience, being, from what I can tell, virtually the only Sephardi among all 
the Ashkenazim. As a Cambridge educated Anglo, there are only a very few 
places where he would feel intellectually comfortable, so it made sense to go 
where he did, but, on the other hand, there seems to be a lot of a sense of 
discordance that also permiated the experience - the idea that people would 
come and find him to get him to put various items of food back on the blech on 
shabbas in the yeshiva, because he could and they couldn't bothers me 
intensely, without quite being able to put my finger on why - and of course it 
meant virtually the whole time he was there he was minhagically at variance 
with the davening, benching etc etc).

So anyway, when the m'sader kiddushin insisted on: a) eidei badekin b) yichud
and c) amending aspects of the kesuba (I guess I really ought to be writing 
ketuba here)(to delete the reference to not being able to take another wife 
without the permission of beis din) (the kesuba intially started off as a 
complete copy of the one his father gave his mother in Egypt), we backed down 
(although we agreed, on the yichud situation, that it would all be done in 
secret, ie instead of publically going off to the yichud room right after the 
chuppa, we took photographs, and then as everybody was making their way to 
dinner, we sneaked out, Robert, me, the Rabbi and our two (ashkenazi) eidem 
sworn to secrecy, so as not to upset any of the Sephardim).

But in retrospect I think we should have tried a little bit harder to stand 
our ground.  The implication of the mordechai is that Sephardi weddings are 
not kosher, so I don't think we should have given in on that one, and ditto 
with the yichud situation (and really it was all a bit ridiculous, although I 
think giving us a few minutes alone was not a bad idea - but the rabbi 
insisted that they search the room to check there was no other exit etc etc).  
But I think, in retrospect the one that I most regret giving in on is the 
kesuba.  Even though, it is true, there is now a takana in Israel forbidding 
Sephardim from taking more than one wife (which there wasn't at the time that 
Robert's father was marrying Robert's mother), it is still the traditional 
nusach, and I don't think we should have changed it.  But our emotional 
resources were elsewhere, and we just gave in.

>Are there any halachic implications of the badekin needing to be witnessed by
>two kosher eidim?

Well only if you follow the Mordechai, not the way we posken.

Regards
Chana

For those in the Flatbush area,  Rav Shlomo Pearl is giving a shiur
Tuesday night in the Bostoner kollel on psik reishei.  One of the topics
is the urn with a level.  If anyone goes (I can't make it) please report
back.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>> C.  Did the urn have a pipe to show the level of the water?
>> No. Staying out of that machlokes!

>         I was kind of fishing for clarification on that machlokes.
>I asked, when I bought an urn, what to do, and was told that if I could
>return the one I had bought with the level, I should. I could and did.

>However, I have been at many functions where many people use these either
>because they hold it's mutar or because they never thought about it.
>Can you amplify without taking sides?

According to ROY who is mattir filling cups with hot water even when there 
are drops of cold water left in them, the urn level pipe should be OK. A 
few years ago, en passant in an essay on R' Aharon Kotler in the JO, there 
was some mention of RAK being mattir, which I think generated some 
contretemps in the Letters section. Twenty some odd years ago, in 
Sha'alvim, when we first became aware of this issue with a new urn, the 
Rosh Yeshiva asked RSZA, IIRC, who said to stuff the pipe up, and this is 
in line with our position to dry out the cups.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

>>         A.  You are assuming that heating from yad soledes bo upward is not
>> assur?

> Above the higher shiur, yes.

What are you using as the higher shiur? It would be rare (due to US safety
regulations) for hot water from a tap to be over the higher shiur.

Akiva

> amira l'akum d'orysa b'shinui as shvus d'shvus b'malokm  mitzva.

Tos. in Gittin 8 has a machlokes whether we are matir an amira l'akum
b'makom mitzva on an issur d'oraysa. This case is different bec. the
akum is doing the melacha k'lachar yad, but I thought perhaps there is
a ra'aya from Eiruvin 68 milah b'Shabbos where the hot water spilled.
The gemara says to heat the water for the mother, who is a choleh, al
yedei akum, and use the remaining water for the baby. Why didn't the
gemara just say have the akum heat the water for the baby k'lachar yad
and avoid the whole issue of ribuy shiurim? (And don't say because of
the issur of getting han'ah from meleches akum, because lo gara from
BH"G's shita who holds the amira l'akum would be mutar even without
k'lachar yad and wasn't concerned with the hana'ah issue).

Also, just for the record, not all poskim would agree with R"SZ -
see Eretz HaTzvi #6 (R' H. Schachter) re: the machlokes Eglei Tal and
Mishne Berura.

(Too bad I didn't think of the gemara in Eiruvin on Shabbos, but then
I wouldn't have enjoyed my coffee ; )

-CB

I erroneously quoted 9:9 of Meseches Kelayim when you said and meant 9:7.
The Mishnah Rishona in 9:7 says we pasken against R' Yosi because we hold
one must check when efshar l'vrurei in spite of a lenient ruling of a
chazakah.

Shlomo Goldstein

Intent of mumar in get vs. intent of victim of bais din's hits to agree to
give get

Reb Micha:
> This seems to be divarim shevileiv vs what he explicitly says. This would
> imply that we don't actually require kavannah, we only require a show
> of kavanah. Which would make for a much simpler answer to "kofin oso
> ad she'amar 'rotzeh ani'" than the Rambam's. Merely argue that he said
> "rotzeh ani" so we don't care what he's really thinking.

Reply:
The analysis is great.  The show of kavannah is everything.  When the mumar
says in plain English he is giving a get to sivorce his wife, the show is
convincing.

When the bloody victim of assault by beis-din says he 'wants' to give a get,
the show is less convincing.  This non-convincing show requires the extra
reason of the Rambam.

Shlomo Goldstein

> The TY allows changes in such halachos without a b"d gadol mimenu
> bichachma ubeminyan as soon as the metzi'us changes in a way that causes
> the cheshash to evaporate.

> I must have misunderstood the distinction, though. Because I doubt the
> TY matired taking medicine on Shabbos.

You're on target.  Just the TY ALLOWS a later, weaker bais-din to make a
change, however it is not automatic that the old gezera is annulled.

Shlomo Goldstein

MSB:
> To get back to the old standby, does expertise in Hil Taharos imply textual
> learning, or mimetic learning? If everyone was makpid in Hil Taharos,
> people would pick it up without opening texts.

Are you trying to make a distinction between Torah She'beal Peh that is
learned with a book open in front of you and Torah She'beal Peh that is
learned....Beal Peh?  (Remember, the assertion was that women were experts
in Hilchos Tahoros - not just that they knew what to do for themselves.)

(BTW, I heard Rabbanit Henkin speak about the Yoetzet program.  She was
quite impressive and had many interesting stories to tell.  Among other
things, she went through a list of the material that the women learn.
According to a Rabbi who would know such things, the curriculum is far more
extensive and in depth than would be found in current Yeshiva curricula.)

Ellen Krischer

On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:25:45AM -0500, Krischer, Ellen L (Ellen) wrote:
:> To get back to the old standby, does expertise in Hil Taharos imply textual
:> learning, or mimetic learning? If everyone was makpid in Hil Taharos,
:> people would pick it up without opening texts.

: Are you trying to make a distinction between Torah She'beal Peh that is
: learned with a book open in front of you and Torah She'beal Peh that is
: learned....Beal Peh?

Mimeticism vs textualism was discussed here numerous times in the past,
probably more than it's worth. I'll give a short definition AIUI, and
refer you to the archives. See <http://www.aishdas.org/search.cgi?Realm=Avodah&Match=0&Realm=Avodah&Terms=mimeticism+textualism>.

Textualism is relating to halachah via textbooks, words and rules. That
would include mishnah in its original oral form. IOW, formal classroom
learning.

Mimeticism (note the shoresh "mime") is what we learn without realizing
it, just by living in the culture and watching other people.

To give the textbook example: a textualist studies shiurim to know how
much matzah to eat for the seider. A mimeticist eats what he remembers
his father and grandfather eating.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Here's even more from R' Weinberg, zt"l, with respect to chinuch habonos.
(I apologize that I am posting these transcripts in installments rather
than at one time, but this is how I have received them.)

I believe that RSYW's answer to question #43 lends support to RYGB's
position (that RSYW's opinions regarding teaching girls torah shebich'sav
was directed primarily at the formal instruction of girls in a school
setting.)

KT
Aryeh


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q'S & A'S FROM TORAH UMESORAH CONVENTIONS: "CHINUCH HA'BANOS"

QUESTION #41:
Is it appropriate to allow girls to miss classes in order to do chesed
activities during school time? Does the fact that bitul Torah does not
apply to girls affect the general guidelines of how much learning time
can be given up for extra curricular activities (e.g. preparing for
school concerts, conventions)?

ANSWER:
There is no question that the fact that bitul Torah doesn't apply to
girls makes it an altogether different equation.

All questions that constitute "sheilohs" and which must be dealt with by
the Torah require judgment. Nobody asked whether there is a requirement
to put on tefilin in the middle of the week. You know that the answer is
yes. Or, whether you wear them on Shabbos where the answer is no! The
"sheilohs" are where there are questions, and wherever there are,
you have to use judgment. It is impossible to manage as a Yid without
"shikul hada'as," and this question requires an enormous amount of it.

I doubt very much whether general guidelines can be given. One can perhaps
discuss the area in which the guidelines should be sought. One-make
sure you do not destroy the school. A school requires a certain basic
structure. Obviously if that structure is not there, you lose the whole
purpose of the school and then "yatzah" whatever "schar" there is from the
chesed "b'hefsedo." However, in terms of the impact, generally speaking,
it is worth giving up some studies for chesed. But it has to be a matter
of judgment as to when the loss outweighs the gains or the reverse.
Remember, the Tana says that in weighting even sins against mitzvahs
you take into consideration the "s'char" of a mitzvah against its loss,
and the loss of a sin against its "s'char." You always deal with whether
it's counterproductive or not.

The Chofetz Chaim used a different expression, one that is very popular
today, but he said it in Hebrew. It is a halacha in Chosen Mishpat
regarding contracts, and it is called the "shurah ha'tachtona," the
bottom line. He said that whenever you make calculations for the Ribono
Shel Olam, you must look at the bottom line. Whichever will give you
the greatest profit-that is the one you want to go with. That sums up
whether you are winning or whether you are behind. That's the shikul
hada'as-where are you gaining more and where are you losing more.


QUESTION #43:
If you have very bright girls who need their minds to be challenged
but can't read many English books (because they are inappropriate),
what is their recourse?

ANSWER:
If a girl feels she needs intellectual stimulation she should definitely
be given it. Listen to me carefully, please. A girl who feels this way-not
one who says, "Why should the boys have it and not I," not one who feels
that girls are just as good as boys and therefore should..." but a girl
who feels she needs more intellectual stimulation-give her the Ramban
to learn! If I can go through hilchos talmud Torah now you will see that
that is the halacha. It is not a piece of advice I am giving-the halacha
is that a girl who needs the stimulation should learn the Ramban. It is
not that given the situation we have to give into it...


QUESTION #44:
How much should we require the girls to daven?

ANSWER:
I better not answer because I go with the Mogen Avraham, which is against
the opinion of most that hold like the Mishna Berurah. I personally
hold the halacha should be like the Mogen Avraham. The difference will
be how much you push them to daven. With the Mogen Avraham you don't
have to push that much while with the Mishna Berurah you would have to
push very hard.

QUESTION #45:
It's a little worrying to hear us dividing Torah shebich'sav and Torah
shebe'al peh (as we have in answering earlier questions.) Surely the two
are indivisible. After all the Kara'im tried it. You can't have the one
without the other.

ANSWER:
You can have them both as long as you know clearly that the one has to
be explained through the other. Torah shebich'sav is, word for word,
the Torah that God gave. They are His words. Torah shebe'a'l contains
the explanation to those words. "Beraishis" is a word that God Himself
said. The same with "Barah..." These are His words. And there is a
difference between the two. Hearing God's words is a different matter
than hearing the explanation of those words. The explanations are given
in human words, not in divine words. They are true because they are the
explanations given by God, but the one who is teaching it has the right
to choose the words with which to present it. They are true, but they
are not God's words.

What's more, even a prophet's words are not God's words either. They are
the words of the prophet. Unlike the Chumash, which contains God's words,
literally, word for word, with the prophet, Hashem said a thought while
the prophet expressed that thought in his own words. Therefore his words
are not literally God's, but since they are His thoughts you are still
fulfilling a mitzvah of learning Torah even if you don't know what they
mean. But in Torah shebe'al peh if you don't know what the words mean,
you are doing nothing because it's a pairush, and if you don't know what
the pairush means you don't have the pairush. Therefore all the poskim,
without exception, hold that with Torah shebe'al peh you only fulfill
the mitzvah of learning if you understand what you are saying, whereas
with Torah sehebech'sav, even if you don't know what the words mean,
you fulfill talmud torah and you make a bracha. So there is an enormous
difference between Torah shebich'tav and shebe'al peh.

However, it does not make a difference. I am not giving you my opinion,
chas v'shalom, I'm giving you the halacha as it is paskened. It is
not that I know the difference that Torah shebe'al peh is damaging and
destructive (for girls) and Torah shebich'sav is not. I would never
have guessed that. It would never have occurred to me to think there is
such a difference. Believe me, I would never have such a thought. But
chazal say that. It is taught to us by God, therefore it has to be right,
even if we don't understand why it should be.

I'm just pointing that here is a difference. But whether I knew that
difference or not does not change the halacha-the halacha is not mine,
it is God's. So there must be a difference even if I don't know what it
is. But in actuality there is an enormous difference...


QUESTION #47:
Baruch Hashem we have large families, and time is at a premium. Your sons
want you to go over the Gemara with them and your daughters want you to
go over Chumash and Navi with them. Do you divide your time equally or
do you give your daughters the minimum and use most of your time learning
Gemara with your sons?

ANSWER:
Rabosai, halachically speaking you should learn with your sons because you
have an obligation to learn with your sons. But practically speaking-equal
time! Listen to me carefully, please. We are living in an age where the
most important thing we, as parents, have going for us is the personal
contact and caring we have with our children. We no longer have any
other method of discipline because children can say to you, "No!" and
there is nothing we can do about it. They know perfectly well that you
cannot send them out because you are hurting yourself worse than you are
hurting them. They know that no matter what they do you are stuck with
them. And today it is perfectly acceptable, and they'll have the respect
of their peers, if they say to poppa and momma, "No!" "Go to sleep!" "I
don't want!" "Sit down and eat!" I don't want!" "Go and learn!" "I don't
want!" So what are you going to do?

Since the greatest effect we can have on our children is through our
personal relationship with them, the first and most important thing that
a mother and a father must do for that relationship is to win their
affection, loyalty, and care. And you cannot do anything that in any
way diminishes that feeling of affection, loyalty and care. You must
give that the first and greatest priority of all.

1.) IIRC, the Chinuch in Parshas Shemini, in a discussion of the
prohibition of paskeining halakha while intoxicated, writes that this
applies as well to an "Isha chachama ha-reuy'a le-psak" or something like
that.
2.) In terms of Eidei Badekin, I have seen the practice done many times
at YU chasunas in the last 8 years, and have even been an 'ed badekin on
a number of occasions. For real expansion of kibudim, though, a friend
of mine suggested the liberal employment of shlichim in the kiddushin
itself. :)

Daniel

Moshe Feldman:
> I seem to recall that there is an issue of whether to say "bsultah" (in the
> Ksubah reading) when marrying a couple which has been living together.  As
> far as I recall, most poskim advise not writing that she's a bsulah but
> reading aloud bsultah in order not to embarrass her.

FWIW My experience is that Bsulta is used unless it is very obvious she
is not, such as a previous marriage or a child.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On 12/10/2000 8:29:57 PM MIKE38CT@aol.com writes:
> Has anyone ever been to a wedding where two witnesses were required for the
> badekin by the m'sader kedushin? Are there any halachic implications of the
> badekin needing to be witnessed by two kosher eidim?

I have (see below)

Joel Rich wrote:
> No -- but this is the position of the mordechai in ketubot -- that nissuin
> actually takes place at the badekin (vs. Rama who says it takes place under
> the chuppah and the Rambam who says it takes place at yichud).

Well said. May I just add that the Mehabber paskens (Even Hoezer §61) like
the Rambam that huppa is qona and in s' 55 defines huppa as yihud, and so says
that huppas nidda is not qona. The Remo' in s' 55 brings 4 de'os as to what
the huppa that is qona is. The fourth (labeled the minhag poshut) is that
huppa is the canopy on the poles. But the second opinion brought by the
Remo' is that huppa is the badeken, which is the Mordekhai that you
mentioned (the Beis Yosef himself mentions this opinion).

I was at two weddings where RYBS had the hoson appoint 'edim for the
bedeken, but I was at others where he did not. When I asked him once, he
said it was in order to teach the hoson (and the other guests) that there is
such an opinion. IOW, to teach a little Torah at the wedding, that people
shouldn't think that weddings are just empty ceremony, but rather almost
everything in a Jewish hasuna is based on halokho and has Torah standing
behind it. RYBS did similar things on other occasions, to impress on people
that there is Torah in everything that we do, and all old Jewish customs are
not just ceremony but are expressions of shittos in Torah and halokho, and
people shouldn't think that customs are just customs.

This was part of a larger agenda of RYBS, to educate Jews of the presence of
Torah and the significance of Torah in all of a person's life and actions.
He talked about this a lot on his Saturday night shi'urim in Boston, and he
was a living examplar of what he taught. It was one of the most impressive
things about being about him outside of shi'ur, that you saw how each of his
actions he would weigh anew against the Torah behind it, and rote didn't
exist in his mind. Of course, he usually did something the same way the
second time, but that was exactly like the experience in his shiurim: he
would usually (but not always) reach the same conclusion after going through
a sugya, but he refused to listen to what he had said before about it.
Torah stands new before us every moment, and learning a piece of it reveals
on the 101st time things a depth and richness that we didn't see on the
100th time, even if our masqono is the same. So our obligation is to
consider and be "hogeh bedivrei Torah" as we go about our lives, whether in
davening or in our daily lives.

Forgive me for the digression; every time I am reminded of these lessons we
learned from him I am stirred. Apart from the Torah that he taught, these
lessons pointed us to the Divine presence in our daily path in the world and
the musar of the Torah (as in Micha's comment "Halachah is divine... with
halachah, one goes from the letter of the law to the hashkafah."). Because
of their importance to me, I tend to digress and talk about them even when
not really necessary.

At any rate, coming back to Michael's question, RYBS did not say that 'edim
for the badeken are l'iquva, and sometimes he didn't do it, so from his
position, as least as far as I understood it, there would be no halakhic
implications if it weren't done.

Kol tuv,
Seth Mandel

Thank you, Seth, for your additional discussion of this issue.  (In fact,
when I gave a shiur on this three years ago, I had brought your re'aya from
the Rambam, but I forgot this time around.  I have some more to say, but I
have to dig out my notes.)

As to the Ramo having a source in the Maharil:  The parenthesis after the
Ramo refers to the Mahara M'Prague (anybody know who that is?).  (When I
read this quickly, I thought it was the Maharal, but of course, he came
afterwards in time.)  

I appreciate your historical information as well.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Akiva:
>What are you using as the higher shiur? It would be rare (due to US safety
>regulations) for hot water from a tap to be over the higher shiur.

I tell you the truth, I am not measuring by temperature but by feel - the 
lower shiur I take to be a shiur where I can hold my hand, but uncomfortably.


At 09:55 AM 12/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
>a ra'aya from Eiruvin 68 milah b'Shabbos where the hot water spilled.
>The gemara says to heat the water for the mother, who is a choleh, al
>yedei akum, and use the remaining water for the baby. Why didn't the
>gemara just say have the akum heat the water for the baby k'lachar yad
>and avoid the whole issue of ribuy shiurim? ...

How do you heat water k'l'achar yad (back then)?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Feldman, Mark <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>> But we pasken that (most/all?) mitzvos hatluyos ba'aretz today are
>> m'drabanan.  If so, it hardly seems likely that the mitzvah deoraissa of
>> yishuv ha'aretz should be connected to the fulfillment of mitzvos drabanan.

>> Not to mention those who believe this period to be atchalta d'geulah (of
>> binyan bayis shlishi)--when the third Bais Hamikdash is built, all areas
>> settled by current Israelis (which are in the original gvulos haaretz) will
>> be kadosh for purposes of mitzvos hatluyos ba'aretz.

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
> According to such logic, maybe the Ramban's mitzva is only when one can come
> with most of the Jewish People.  Why move now to help a future kdushas
> ha'aretz?  Surely Moshiach can take it later.  Why not gain the mitzvos
> d'rabannan of today?

*If* you believe that we are in a period of atchalta d'geulah, you probably
believe that we should be participating in that process (i.e., concept of
moshiach ben yosef) rather than waiting for moshiach to do it all himself.
Yishuv haaretz would constitute participation in the process.

> Some acharonim view the kdushas ha'aretz of Ezra as d'oraisa.   Lacking rov
> Jews makes its effect drabannan.  Accordingly, settling areas not covered by
> olei bavel would be on land lacking kdushas E"Y.  This perhaps would mean no
> mitzvah of yishuv even according to the Ramban.

Sorry, I didn't understand. Once we don't have rov yoshveha aleha,
you agree that kedushas haaretz will be only drabbanan. So why would it
make sense that the Ramban would tie a deoraissa mitzvas yishuv haaretz
only to areas which are mekudash mdrabbanan. Clearly, Ramban (writing
at a time when very few Jews lived in E"Y) believes that yishuv haaretz
is mdeoraissa even bizman hazeh.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that Ramban's view of yishuv
haaretz is not tied to the performance of mitzvos hatluyos baaretz,
but to the gevulos haaretz delineated in the Torah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>> Some acharonim view the kdushas ha'aretz of Ezra as d'oraisa. Lacking rov
>> Jews makes its effect drabannan.  Accordingly, settling areas not covered by
>> olei bavel would be on land lacking kdushas E"Y.  This perhaps would mean no
>> mitzvah of yishuv even according to the Ramban.

From: Feldman, Mark <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>Sorry, I didn't understand.  Once we don't have rov yoshveha aleha, you
>agree that kedushas haaretz will be only drabbanan.

NO.  The kdusha from olei bavel is min haTorah.  The fruit is only kadosh
mdrabannan because even though the land is kadosh, the rov yisrael is
missing.

>        would it make
>sense that the Ramban would tie a deoraissa mitzvas yishuv haaretz only to
>areas which are mekudash D'Oraaisa if the fruit is only kadosh mdrabbanan?

YES.

> Clearly, Ramban (writing at a time
>when very few Jews lived in E"Y) believes that yishuv haaretz is mdeoraissa
>even bizman hazeh.TRUE

>Therefore, it makes more sense to say that Ramban's view of yishuv haaretz
>is not tied to the performance of mitzvos hatluyos baaretz, but to the
>gevulos haaretz delineated in the Torah.

Probably not.  The land beyond olei bavel has no kdusha at all today (Lfi
the acharonim that the kiddush of Ezra was min haTorah)

Shlomo Goldstein

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>      The kdusha from olei bavel is min haTorah.  The fruit is only kadosh
> mdrabannan because even though the land is kadosh, the rov yisrael is
> missing.

Possible.  But by the same token you could argue that the settlement from
olei bavel affected just the fruits and not the kedusha of the land (which
remained in its kedusha from the time of kibbush Yehoshua or even
Avraham--kum hishalech baaretz).

> Probably not.  The land beyond olei bavel has no kdusha at all today (Lfi
> the acharonim that the kiddush of Ezra was min haTorah)

None at all?  Difficult to believe.  I seem to recall that Nefesh Harav
quotes RYBS saying that the kedusha of the land has continued since the time
of Avraham.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]