Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 068

Friday, December 15 2000

• [none]
• RE: Get vs kiddushin
• Re: Ner Chanuka
• Re: Ner Chanuka
• Re: Ner Chanuka
• RE: Woman and learning
• Re: Parhas Vayetzei
• Rambam and neyros shel khanukah
• Re: Women and Hanukkah lights
• Ner Chanuka
• RE: Ner Chanuka
• RE: Ner Chanuka
• urn halacha
• Tolerance
• Re: Tolerance
• re: zechus of living in eretz yisrael
• Re: zechus of living in eretz yisrael
• Re: zechus of living in eretz yisrael
• re: zechus of living in eretz yisrael
• Re: Blech?
• Halacha like Beis Shammai
• Re: Tolerance
• Re: Ner Chanuka
• Re: Rav Weinberg on chinuch
• Re: urn halacha
• Re: urn halacha

Mrs. Luntz wrote:
> a) the requirement of lishma...

Why is a mumar pasul to write a get (S"A 154:8)?  Couldn't he say it's
lishmah?

> c) a requirement of belief in Torah. ...
>                        The gemorra in Chullin 5a from where the Rambam
> derives his halacha darshans this rule vis a vis korbanos from "m'chem"
> (Vayikra 1:2) as a miyut. Thus, given the preceeding parallels, one
> might expect that a mumar l'avodah zara would also invalidate a get....

Where's the pasuk mikem, implying only some Jews, by get? Lishmah and
ratzon have pesukim by get.

And, of course, the parallel certainly does not hold in the "who may
give/bring" in other respects - as korbanos can be brought for and on
behalf of women, children and even in some cases goyim, while only an
adult man can bring a get.

The Mishnah says women may bring a get.(Gittin 23b)

Shlomo Gooldstein

Micha Berger:
> (a) and (b) imply a need for kavanah. One can't be acting lishmah nor acting
> biratzon without consciously deciding to act purposefully. Without thinking
> "this is the way you divorce someone", you can't get to "I'm doing this to
> divorce someone", nor (a) "I'm doing this to divorce this particular woman",
> nor (b) "I want to divorce her by doing this".

Here is a baalebatish guess.

All we need to know is that the baal is going along voluntarily. At that
point we can assume "regardless of the ba'als personal ideology, he is
going along WILLINGLY with the process". Or iow, he might not find it
effective, but as long as he is a willing participant, it's good enough.

In a sense asi masse uvvatl machshava. His actions show he is playing
along and would overrule any unarticulated thoughts. Now if he registers
a verbal protest (as Carl and perhaps others have noted) it might indeed
be different.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 12/13/00 4:14:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Can RYZK explain the Baal haTanya's nusach
>   "lehadlik NER Chanukkah
>  as opposed to the more common 
>   "lehadlik ner SHEL Chanukkah?"
>  
According to the Shaar Hakoleil it is based on the Pri Eitz Chayim that in 
the Bracha there are 13 words (vs. Rokeiach and others that there are 14 
words).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/13/00 4:14:12pm EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> Can RYZK explain the Baal haTanya's nusach "lehadlik NER Chanukkah
> as opposed to the more common "lehadlik ner SHEL Chanukkah?"

On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 10:50:14AM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: According to the Shaar Hakoleil it is based on the Pri Eitz Chayim that in 
: the Bracha there are 13 words (vs. Rokeiach and others that there are 14 
: words).

Wouldn't you also have 13 words with a third known variant: lihadlik neir
sheliChanukah? Same meaning, AIUI, as shel Chanukah, but with fewer words.

I'm reminded of a variant of the birchas "yotzeir or" for Shabbos morning.
The common variant is "zeh shevach shel yom hash'vi'i, shebo shavas
...". Another version that keeps the same number of words but changes
the concept slightly is "zeh shir shevach shelayom hash'vi'i".

-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

In a message dated 12/14/00 10:54:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Wouldn't you also have 13 words with a third known variant: lihadlik neir
> sheliChanukah? ...

AIUI the Pri EItz Chayim says so clearly, but IMHO it would be extra and a 
new Nusach, (it is not Doimeh to Leila Uleila "Mikol") .

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Markowitz, Chaim:
: 	                           I believe the Rambam and the Drashos
: haRan both learn Ashir to  mean that the Navi must be wealthy. The Drashos
: Haran explains that this is so in order for the people to accept him as a
: navi. 


I've heard a few explanations of why a Navi must be wealthy
1) he must be free of financial worry (more-or-less Chana's point)
   because he would be too emotionally burdened otherwise.
2) He must be perceived as financially inddependent. Otherwise he might
   not be trusted by the people. (Chana can argue that a someiach behclko -
   having renounced materialism - is free from suspicion) L'havdil, when
   Rockefelelr ran for office, no one assumed he was in poltics in order
   to make money <smile>

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 12/13/00 11:17:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
>>                                                 E.g., the beginning of
>> R.H. "hu achashverosh hu daryavesh hu artachshasta" should not be taken
>> literally

>  I have often pointed out that these chazals might refer to having
>  same/similar souls or persona (gilgul)...

See Tos. on that Gemara R"H 3b.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Rambam doesn't seem to voice an opinion on the issue of which direction to 
add the candles (R to L or vice versa) which is discussed in the SA. Does 
this mean he holds with "one does it one way and one does it another" (which 
seems to be the MB's conclusion) or is there some other statement somewhere 
in his hilkhos Hanukah which I've overlooked that implies he does hold a 
position?

Sholem Berger

On 12 Dec 2000 21:52:14 Chaim G Steinmetz wrote:
> Regarding the minhag of women not lighting themselves - see Chasam Sofer 
> Shabbos 21b (D"H V'hamehadrin) who connects it with the original halacha of 
> lighting outside b'zman hashas, which would make it a old minhag!

Who ever said that women normally lighted in the time of Hazal? The
question is do women light nowadays. The Rambam is explicit that the ba'al
habayis lights the candles (for a family of 2 boys and 2 girls, 6 the first
night, 12 the next...). He lights them all, and they are placed outside near
the door. This is the Rambam's shitta in what they did in the time of
Hazal; the women would light if the husband is not home (and the Chasam
Sofer would agree that that was the case, since that is a mefurash gemoro).
What I tried to show was that Minhag Ashkenaz, where each member of the
family lights for themselves, originally included women lighting. Minhag
Ashkenaz, as far back as there was a Minhag Ashkenaz, was to light indoors
(specifically noted by the Remo' in discussing how many people light). So
there was no problem of women lighting outdoors. And the fact that the
Remo' says we follow the Rambam regarding the number candles shows that his
minhag was that the women lit inside the house as well.

K't,
Seth Mandel

On 12 Dec 2000 17:17:46 "Gershon Dubin" wrote:
> The MB in Biur Halacha says that a koton shehigia lechinuch need not light 
> an additional candle each night, but only the one candle of mehadrin.  Is 
> this common practice?  I myself have never seen this; it would presumably be 
> impossible to convince the koton to do so.

In addition, if the qetannim only light one candle each night, you would
never get to the Rambam's number of candles as the Remo's minhag was, except
on the first night. So even if the MB is right in regard to hinnukh (and
that is also not clear; there are other raayos that for himmukh a qoton has
to try to do the mitzva in the most perfect way possible), this would be
against the Remo'. However, the MB, who says women don't light, may be
lishittoso.

K'T,
Seth Mandel

Micha Berger
> Wouldn't you also have 13 words with a third known variant: lihadlik neir
> sheliChanukah? Same meaning, AIUI, as shel Chanukah, but with fewer words.

> I'm reminded of a variant of the birchas "yotzeir or" for Shabbos morning.
> The common variant is "zeh shevach shel yom hash'vi'i...
>                     ... "zeh shir shevach shelayom hash'vi'i".

Note too that some siddurim print ezehu mekoman SHELIZVACHIM as one word.

Shel as a word meaning belonging to.

She alone can mean "that"
Le alon can mean of

either way the meaning is "that of" whether contracted into one long
word or not

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 12/14/00 10:54:08am EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Wouldn't you also have 13 words with a third known variant: lihadlik neir
> sheliChanukah? ...

Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com>:
: AIUI the Pri EItz Chayim says so clearly, but IMHO it would be extra and a 
: new Nusach, (it is not Doimeh to Leila Uleila "Mikol") .

FWIW Baer 's Avoda Yisrael p. 439 has it as shelichanuka as one word.
In the notes he brings down the Reshal (aka Meharshal) and the Shlah

Ayein Sham

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Re: k'lachar yad - even without my kashe, you have to be creative
enough to come up with a case of bishul k'lachar yad because RS"Z
himself relies on it for his chiddush! The psak of RS"Z is predicated
(see Shmiras Shabbos ch. 30 in a footnote) on a Chazon Ish (56:6) that
it is better to be oiver a derabbanan with an amira l'akum than with a
shvus - otherwise in Eiruvin 68 why rely on an akum to heat water when
you can do it yourself through **bishul k'lachar yad**.

Hadra kushyasi l'duchta - acc. to RS"Z your choice shouldn't be between
amira l'akum and a shvus k'lachar yad (e.g. hold a torch in your mouth,
like I suggested), but between a shvus done by yourself k'lachar yad
vs. an amira l'akum k'lachar yad which would be a shvus d'shvus b'makom
mitzva and avoid Tos. (Gittin 8b) problem of ribuy shiurim????

With apologies for the length, one other point that may help resolve
the issue:
The Achronim ask on Tos. why is amira l'akum to heat the water directly
for the baby (a d'oraysa) any worse than having the water heated for the
mother (a choleh) and leaving extra for the baby - heating the extra water
is also an issur d'oraysa of ribuy shiurim? R' Akiva Eiger answers that
Tos. is talking about a case where the akum isn't asked, but of his/her
own accord heats the water - if so, the akum obviously wouldn't think
to do it k'lachar yad, so my kashe falls off, but so does the Chazon
Ish's proof from this gemara, because maybe aliba d'emes it is better
to be oiver the shvus instead of a real amira l'akum, but in Eiruvin
68 there isn't even a real amira. Another possibility is that ribuy
shiurim doesn't concern us because the mother is a choleh all melacha
done is b'geder hutra (R"ShSH). If so, there is no need to create a
shvus d'shvus, because it is hutra. You would still have a problem with
RS"Z if you hold decuya, and you have a problem generalizing the Chazon
Ish to other cases. R' Elchanan has another pshat in Tos., ayen sham.

I haven't done the sugya enough justice; the sources are worth seeing
inside because the Tos. is a yesod in the whole din of amira l'akum,
ribuy shiurim, and shvus.

-CB

Carl Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]:
> How do you shtim that with the Chazal that says that l'osid lavo 
> we'll hold by Beis Shammai? If psak truly means cutting off, 
> shouldn't that apply then as well?

Beis Shammai is part of Torah NOW we just don't do Beis Shamai.

The answer to your quesiont is the same as doing karbanos. We LEARN
ezehu mekoman but we don't DO karbanos!

Beis Shammai is like seder kadshim, it's there being learned and
awaiting revival into praxis. Meanwhile, it is all academic. Most of
Taryag mitzvos are academic today. The Arba Turim is a subset of the
Rambam's Yad. And so on and so forth.

The cutting of in this case could be seen as long term but temporary.
Cutting off is for now, not le'ossid lavo. Just as we don't do marbanos
NOW, we don't Do we cut off Beis Shammai. But we do not excise them from
lamdus jsut from halacha psukah.

The Turim cut off those halahcos that do not currently apply. That does
NOT implyh he thinkgs they will never apply.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 12:16:45PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:> How do you shtim that with the Chazal that says that l'osid lavo 
:> we'll hold by Beis Shammai? If psak truly means cutting off, 
:> shouldn't that apply then as well?
...
: The cutting of in this case could be seen as long term but temporary.

Vihara'ayah... I assume yimos hamoshiach will produce batei dinim that
are greater in chachmah and minyan than any that came before. Even
the rulings of tana'im.

BTW where is this chazal? I heard it quoted often, but never a mar'eh
makom.

-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

ketubot 110: "whoever lives in eretz yisrael is like someone who a god
(dome' l'mi sheyesh lo eloha) and someone who lives in chutz laaretz is
like someone who does not have a god (dome lmi she'ein lo eloha).

and some rav said (I forgot who): "is like" means that if he lives in
EY eventhough he dosen't have an eloha, he's considered like somone
with an eloha, and if he lives in CHU"L even if he has an eloha - he's
comsidered like someone who dosen't.

Lehitraot Be'Artzeinu,
Amihai

On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 10:43:12PM +0200, Amihai & Tamara Bannett wrote:
: ... someone who lives in chutz laaretz is ... dome lmi she'ein lo eloha).

: and some rav said (I forgot who): "is like" means that if he lives in
: EY eventhough he dosen't have an eloha, he's considered like somone
: with an eloha...

Doesn't work. If this were true, then kal vachomer living in Israel would
outrank find the right yeshiva. But it doesn't. (Ask Hillel and Shammai, or
Daniel for that matter.)

-mi

Amihai wrote:
> ketubot 110: "whoever lives in eretz yisrael is like someone who a god...

> and some rav said (I forgot who): "is like" means that if he lives in
> EY eventhough he dosen't have an eloha, he's considered like somone
> with an eloha...

If we are going to be ultra-literalists, then even an atheist (who rejects 
avodah zarah), whether in EY or CHU"L, is as if s/he accepts the entire Torah 
(Chullin 5a).

Gil Student

On 14 Dec 00, at 22:43, Amihai & Tamara Bannett wrote:
> ketubot 110: "whoever lives in eretz yisrael is like someone who a god...

> and some rav said (I forgot who): "is like" means that if he lives in
> EY eventhough he dosen't have an eloha...

See the Baal Haflo'o there.

-- 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

In message , Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes
>Are you saying that Sfardim treat "Chazarah" to a Blech differently
>than Ashkenazim?

>I thought that it was universal Halacha. Chazarah is permitted to a Blech
>as long as you have never put the pot down after removing it. What is
>the Sfardi Halacha?

On no, chuck all the stuff you ever learnt about not putting it down and
not taking your mind off it (or even kulas you might have heard about
putting it on during shkia), according to the Sephardim, so long as you
are dealing with something that is fully cooked and solid, you can take
it out of the fridge on shabbas morning and stick it on the blech.

What's even worse, the definition of solid is, wait for it, anything
that has more solid than liquid.  So you take your cooked chicken, with
lashing of semi liquid/liquid gravy (just so long as there is actually
more chicken than gravy), out of your fridge on shabbas and stick it on
the blech!!!  That's it!!!

(As you can probably imagine, I still get a bit queasy about all this,
which is why one of the divisions of labour is that Robert puts the food
on in the morning before he goes to shul (our blech/oven is on a time
switch, again, I was under the impression that Rav Moshe assured that,
but Robert's poskim seem completely happy about it, and given all the
rest of the kullos, nothing on this front surprises me).  And given that
a lot of the food that he is used to having on shabbas just doesn't work
very well with Ashkenazi blech restrictions, it was either Ashkenazify
his diet, cook different meals for each of us, or get used to it, and.
after all, the more traditional approach is the latter.  But you can
understand why I describe Robert as the guy with the world's best
selection of minhagim - he has all the Sephardi kullos in such matters,
AND he waits three hours (he got that from his father, and one time he
asked because he was a bit concerned that his father had picked this up
in England and it wasn't an authentic minhag, and he was told, there
*are* Sephardim who wait three hours BUT JUST NOT VERY MANY, so he stuck
with it).)

Shabbat Shalom
Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

The assertion that we will eventually switch to Beis Shammai is not
Chazal. The earliest reference I have found is V'Yakheil Moshe (42b and
54a) which is said in the name of the Arizal. It is also reported in
Seder HaDoros second chelek discussing Shamma page 350. More recently
it is cited in the Michtav M'Eliyahu III page 353 where he claims that
the switch will occur because of the focus on midos hadin.

It is apparently part of the kabbalistic scenario that mitzvos will
either be nullified or be changed depending in part how you understand
such sources as the gemora Niddah 61b (see the Ritva).

Daniel Eidensohn

On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:23:52PM -0500, R' Moshe Feldman wrote:
: Excerpts from R. Rosensweig's article "Rabbinic Authority and Personal
: Autonomy":
: pp. 99-100: ...
: The Kabbalists explained that the basis for this is that each
: individual soul was present at Sinai and received the Torah by means
: of the 49 paths (tzinorot).  Each perceived the Torah from his own
: perspective in accordance with his intellectual capacity as well as
: the stature and unique character of his particular soul....

This reminds me of a third model that I've used in scjm for eilu va'eilu.
(To summarize my last post, the other two were: both are true, but in a
non-Aristotilian logic (perhaps the same as quantum physics); and both
get s'char because both are an honest pursuit of ratzon haBorei.)

We can't actually grasp divrei E-lokim chaim. It's the mapping of an
infinite Thought to a finite mind. Any attempt on our part to do so is
like judging an object from its shadow. A shadow is two dimensional,
and therefore only an infitesimal portion of the 3D reality. And, like
a shadow, different people viewing the object from different angles will
see different things, have contradictory ideas.

We don't have the Truth, we can't. We can only model it. And two models
can each accurately describe the same reality and yet also contradict.
Because they focus on different aspects, they look from different angles.

IOW, it's not that the divine Truth involves a multivalent logic, it's
that we are using these different models as our tools to get to the same
place. Each derech focuses on different nekudos because a human can't
grasp the Whole. (Much like the famous Indian parable of the 5 blind
men arguing about the shape of an elephent.)

Plurality should therefore extend to everyone else who is at least taking
shadows of the same object. Of course, among the things we disagree on is
how to properly take such shadows... There's a self-referentiality here,
a bit of circular reasoning, that ends up making any red line justifiable.

-mi

PS: Harry, if electrons weren't simultaneously particles and waves, the
semiconductors necessary for you to read this post wouldn't work. (Nor is
that QM's only duality -- every property that a particle can assume has
a dual.)

-- 
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

As I am busy lately I was Mikatzeir (even more then regularly <g>), and
didn't mention all the details, (only the Tzad Chidush that while many
Poskim including the MaHARIaCh quote the Rokeiach as saying NER CHANUKAH,
in the Pirush Hatfila from the Rokeiach he writes NER SHEL CHANUKAH and
that it has 14 words).

n a message dated 12/14/00 4:04:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> FWIW Baer 's Avoda Yisrael p. 439 has it as shelichanuka as one word.
> In the notes he brings down the Reshal (aka Meharshal) and the Shlah

This is also brought in the Mogein Avrohom Al Asar O"C 676, WRT the Shalah, 
the L. Rebbe in a footnote printed in Sefer Haminhogim writes that the Shala 
in Chelek Torah Oir of Chanuka (259a) writes Neir Chanukah, and not as it 
says there in Chelek Neir Mitzvah in the name of his father to say 
Shelichanuka in one word, and he points to Sdei Chemed Asifas Dinim Chanuka 
S"K 20.

I would also add that WRT what RMB wrote:

>RYBS held that Shabbos lights should be "neir shel Shabbos", they are
>lights that are associated with Shabbos, they are lit on Shabbos. But
>bi'etzem they are lampts, they are not only mutar bihana'ah, they exist
>so that we aren't depressed in the dark on Friday night. The neir
>Chanukah is a "Chanukah lamp", it exists only for the mitzvah and is
>assur bihana'ah. The etzem of the neir is that of pirsumei neis Chanukah.

This Sevara is found in the E-liyohu Rabba 676.

[It was also pointed out to me in private email that it's in the Aruch
haShulachan. -mi]

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

> Interesting concept that although v'shinantam l'vanecha applies to
> sons only, general chinuch applies to both genders. Can anyone provide
> mekoros

Followers of the daf might recall that part of the machlokes R"Y and Reish
Lakish on Nazir 29 was whether there is chinuch for a bas or only a ben.

-Chaim B.

>Re: k'lachar yad - even without my kashe, you have to be creative
>enough to come up with a case of bishul k'lachar yad because RS"Z

I think the SSK'H might actually address this issue somewhere.

Be that as it may, there came to mind an interesting variation on this 
theme based on RAA's comment on yad soledes bo:

Can we be mattir amira l'akum b'makom mitzva by a safek d'orysa? I would 
say yes me'ma'nafshach: Like the Rambam safek d'orysa l'chumra is only a 
d'rabbonon; and, like the Rashba, it is only a chiyuv on a Jew to be 
machmir in a safek d'orysa, not ona goy.

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

> Can we be mattir amira l'akum b'makom mitzva by a safek d'orysa? I
> would say yes me'ma'nafshach: Like the Rambam safek d'orysa l'chumra is
> only a d'rabbonon; and, like the Rashba, it is only a chiyuv on a Jew
> to be machmir in a safek d'orysa, not ona goy.

I don't fully understand the second tzad. If you understand the issur of
amira l'akum as saying 'yesh shlichus l'akum' l'chumra (like R' Elchanan
in Gittin, & there is also a Bais Meir like this) so even if the akum is
not metzuveh to be machmir b'makom safek, you would still be metzuveh not
to engage in shlichus which could potentially violate a din d'oraysa?
IOW: pshat in every amira l'akum is that the peulas issur is mesyaches
back to the yisreal as if he directly did it.

Indirectly related: do you understand the heter of shevus d'shevus as
the same as gezeirah l'gezeirah?

Also: the SS"K in a footnote in ch. 33 cites RS"Z as paskening like the
Eglei Tal against the M"B that a regular k'lachar yad on a derabbanan
is sufficient b'makom choli - you don't need it to be a bizarre form
of doing the melacha. I don't fully understand the M"B: if k'lachar yad
is sufficient to remove an issur d'oraysa, why is it not sufficient to
combine with another shvus (leaving the question of amira l'akum aside)
to create a shvus d'shvus b'makom choli/mitzva?

-Good Shabbos,
-Chaim B.

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


[ 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         ]