Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 070

Monday, December 18 2000

• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• The importance of twelve
• Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• Re: Tolerance
• Gaza in Israel and Reb Chaim
• Yotzer Or
• Re: Rav Weinberg on chinuch
• re:urn halacha
• Get v'kiddushin
• Re: urn halacha
• Re: urn halacha
• Re: Ashrei
• Re: The importance of twelve
• Re: Get of a mumar
• Re: Rav Weinberg on chinuch
• Ner Chanuka
• RE: Yotzer Or
• Re: Rambam and neyros shel khanukah
• chanukah
• Re: Halacha like Beis Shammai

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
>The agenda to make Rivka 3 is brought down in Rashi...

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Da'as Zekeinim m;baei Tosfos that 
makes a cheshbone that Rachel was 13 or 14, and not three

Eli

In the end of Vyeira where the Torah describes the lineage of Rivka,
Rash"i comments that the children of Nachor are 12. He had eight
children from his wives and 4 children from his pilagshim.  In Chayei
Sarah when listing the children of Yishmael the Torah states that he had

12 and lists the 12 alufim of Yishmael.  Next we have the family of
Yakov which has 12 shevatim.  So, when it lists the family of Eisav, I
would expect to find 12. Eisav has one child from Adah, one child from
Basmas and three children from Oholivamah.  Further when it lists the
alufim of Eisav there are fourteen.  However, I think the problem can be

solved if we remove Korach from the list of alufim.  Korach is counted
twice and this would leave 12.  Why remove Korach because as Rash"i
mentions he was the son of Elifaz and Oholivamah.  Maybe this is the
meaning of the posuk 35:22; that even after Reuven did what he did there

were still 12 shevatim.  Unlike after Elifaz did what he did when Eisav
no longer had only 12 descendants.

The question remains,  from where does the number 12 derive it's
significance.  It has to be something more than the Shevatim because it
seems that the shevatim were predestined to be 12 therefore there must
be something else driving this number.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

I finally read R. Yakov Elman's translation of the introduction to
the Dor Revi'i (http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/elman.html) and I
evidently don't understand it.

The Dor Revi'i seems to say that the chachamim in every generation have
the right to darshen pesukim as they see fit, regardless of how previous
chachamim darshened pesukim. In theory, a Sanhedrin can decide that the
39 melachos are mutar because they don't want to darshen the semichus
of Shabbos and Mishkan.

However, once Torah SheBe'al Peh was written, it became obligatory and
future Sanhedrins cannot deviate from Shas. But, in yemos hamashiach
we will return to the time when chachamim are not bound by previous
generation's decisions.

I know the Dor Revi'i was a gadol beTorah, so what am I missing? How is
this different from Karaism?

Gil Student

RCS:
>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?

Or with the statement, I believe in Brachos, to the effect that a teaching 
of Beis Shammai aino mishnah hu?

Eli

Earlier it was noted that the Maharit stated that the minhag in his day in
Yerushalayim was to treat the Gaza Strip as chutz la'aretz.

It was then asked, that's true for trumos, maasros and shviis but what about
yishuv ha'aretz of the Ramban?  Is a mitzvah min haTorah dependent on the
places where olei bavel happened to live?

Reb Chaim on Shas (pg 102 in my old version) at the end of Ksubos states
that the kiddush haaretz of Ezra is d'oraisa.  The lack of rov yisroel just
makes the kedusha of the peiros drabbanan.  The mitzva of yishuv Eretz
Yisroel is dependent on the kedushas haaretz d'oraisa of Ezra.  Therefore,
in the 70 year galus before Ezra there was no possibility of kiyum of the
mitzva of yishuv haaretz.

I extrapolated that land like Gaza that did not receive the kdusha of Ezra
of olei bavel, even today cannot be a place to be mikayem mitzvas yishuv
haaretz l'daas R' Chaim.  I find it unlikely that RYBS argued with his
grandfather's vort.

Later in the sefer concerning the permanency of kinyan akum breaking kdushas
haaretz Reb Chaim uses an idea that EY is muchzekes from the time of the
Avos.  This is to distinguish between Suria and regular EY.  This idea is
not true in shitas Sefer HaTrumos.  this idea does not apply to yishuv
haaretz.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> 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.

Sheli- is not the same as shel.  Shel is "of", where sheli- is "particular
to" - more specific than "shel".
 
> 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".

Here too, it's in the way of disambiguating the "shevach".

Standard Ashkenaz:

ze shevach shel yom hashvii shebo shavat kel mikol melachto 
veyom hashvii meshabeiach v'omer mizmor shir...

this is the praise of the seventh day on which God rested from 
all his work and the seventh day is praised and one says mizmor shir...

leaving open the question of what is the first shevach, does it
just refer to the saying of mizmor shir, but there is the second 
shevach for that, so it seems to be dangling in midair.

Sefard (and Pool/RCA Ashkenaz))

ze shir shevach shel yom hashvii...

this is the song of praise of the seventh day...

which links the first shevach to the shir, but then why have the
second shevach?

German and some other Ashkenaz:

ze shevach shelayom hashvii...

this is the praise which is particular to the seventh day, that on it
rested God...

Thus, the first shevach is that it commemorates the day on which God
rested, and the second shevach is that we say the shir.

I tend to like the last one.  I don't recall seeing Micha's variant,
which combines the latter two opinions: shir shevach shelayom.  Who
uses it?

On 14 Dec 00, at 17:15, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
>> 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.

IIRC that related specifically to Hilchos Nezirus and lav davka to 
anything else. For example, there clearly is an obligation to be 
mechanech a girl in fasting on Yom Kippur. It's brought b'mforash 
in the Gemara at the end of Yoma. The Gemara over there was 
talking about whether a father could obligate his child in nzirus and 
concluded that he could only obligate a son and not a daughter 
because there was only a mitzva to be mchanech a son in nzirus.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

RYGB asks and answers:
> 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.

Am I missing something? The issur of amira l'akum is not for the goy who
does it. It is for the Jew who tells him to do it, and for the Jew safek
d'oraysa l'chumra is not a d'rabbonon according to the Rashba.

Sadya N. Targum

"S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il> writes: 
> Why is a mumar pasul to write a get (S"A 154:8)?  Couldn't he say
it'slishmah?

I think you mean a combination of Even Ha'ezer siman 123 and si'ifim 1
and 2.

The best explanation I can come up with is that the gemorra (Gitten 23a)
possuls an akum from writing a get because l'datei d'nafshei avid. This
would seem to be a particular halachic presumption that could not be
rebutted by him speaking and saying to the contrary  - ie whether or not
he stated emphatically that he is writing this get for this woman and
this man because of his intrinsic "goyness" a presumption to the
contrary would apply.

The reason why a mumar l'akum  or one who is mechalel shabbas b'farhesia
cannot write a get is because he is like an akum  "l'kol d'var" (Rambam
hilchos gitten perek 3 halacha 15, Even Haezer 123: 2). [Actually, is
this strictly true, because if he does teshuva, does he not immediately
become acceptable?]

But leaving teshuva aside, the assumption is that a mumar l'akum is,
like a goy, possel to write a get because there is a presumption of
l'datei d'nafshei avid.  However, let us turn to the giving of the get
case.  Obviously the goy cannot give a get, he is not m'bnei crissus -
there is no concept of a goy giving a get on his own behalf in halacha.
However, in the case of the mumar, he is prima facie within the parsha
of gitten and kiddushin (were he not, he could never have gotten himself
into this marriage in the first place, and no get would be necessary, or
the marriage should have become automatically dissolved when he became a
mumar).  What is more, he is only allowed him to give the get on behalf
of himself ie to terminate his own marriage (he would hardly be a kosher
eid or trustworthy shaliach for somebody else).  But is not "on behalf
of himself" a reasonable rough and ready translation of l'datei
d'nafshei avid? That is, in the case of the mumar, the overruling
presumption of l'datei d'nafshei avid would seem to work in favour of
lishma for his particular marriage, as opposed to the situation when
writing the get, when it clearly works against lishma for the two
unrelated parties.

>> 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?

Nowhere, which is why my initial thought was that this was the
distinction.  However, then I started searching around for the ratzon
pasuk by get, but I could not find it, while the gemorra seemed to refer
me back to the korbanos pasuk for ratzon in gitten (See Yevamos 106a).
If you can point to the ratzon pasuk for gitten, I would be delighted as
it is by far a simpler explanation (I have searched D'varim 24 a number
of times, to no avail).

> Lishmah and ratzon have pesukim by get.

Where is the pasuk of ratzon 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)

Sorry, I typed that last too quickly, - the last line should have said
"only an adult man can *give* a get" - since it is the *giving* of a get
that is paralleled with the *bringing* of a korban, throughout.

Regards
Chana

On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 08:36:56AM -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: Indirectly related: do you understand the heter of shevus d'shevus as
: the same as gezeirah l'gezeirah?

I thought gezeirah ligezeirah is a limitation bidavka on gezieros, and
not on dinim diRabbanon. We mentioned this before when I first posted my
taxonomy of rabbinic legislation.

-mi

>> 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 ...

Since the goy is not metzuveh here, and amira l'akum is only d'rabbonon, so 
your safek d'orysa becomes a safek d'rabbonon, and therefore l'kulla.



C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
>> 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!

At 11:30 AM 12/15/00 -0500, you wrote:
>         I thought of a case of bishul k'lacher yad but don't know if it
>would have any nafka mina to the discussion at hand. According to the way
>some understand Rashi (I think it's Rashi) bishul al yidei chamah is muttar
>cause it is k'lachar yad.

Perhaps since bishul is done after placement of the pot on the fire anyway, 
in bishul (and in zorei'a) there is no geder of k'l'achar yad.

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

Steve Katz asked:
>Why is there no posuk starting with the letter nun in Ashrey?

The Gemara in Brachos 4b asks your question. R' Yochanon answers, "Because 
this letter alludes to the downfall of the 'haters of Israel' (i.e., to 
Israel), as it states (Amos 4:2): 'Nafla lo tosif kum besulas Yisrael' - 
'She has fallen and will no longer rise the maiden of Israel.' See Maharsha.

Eli

[I got (and didn't approve, due to redundancy) similar answers from R's Carl
Sherer and Daniel Eidensohn. -mi]

From: "Ezriel Krumbein" <ezsurf@idt.net>
> The question remains,  from where does the number 12 derive it's
> significance.  It has to be something more than the Shevatim because it
> seems that the shevatim were predestined to be 12 therefore there must
> be something else driving this number.

12 corresponds to the 12 signs of the zodiac.

Daniel Eidensohn

From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
>                That is, in the case of the mumar, the overruling
>presumption of l'datei d'nafshei avid would seem to work in favour of
>lishma for his particular marriage, >

It seems your clarification of Reb Micha's post is against the SA which
prohibits a mumar writing a get.

> However, then I started searching around for the ratzon
>pasuk by get, but I could not find it, while the gemorra seemed to refer
>me back to the korbanos pasuk for ratzon in gitten (See Yevamos 106a)....
>Where is the pasuk of ratzon by get?

See Rambam Geirushin 1:2 im lo timtza chen beinav

Shlomo Goldstein

> IIRC that related specifically to Hilchos Nezirus and lav davka to 
> anything else  For example, there clearly is an obligation to be 
> mechanech a girl in fasting on Yom Kippur

I'll partially recant, but first I'll explain my side ; )  One could argue 
that the din in Nazir is the rule, and the Mishna in Yoma 82 is the exception 
and is a special din in ta'anis (I seem to recall Rashi uses that Mishna is 
the source for the shiur of chinuch, but Tos. asks that that is a special din 
by ta'anis - I can't recall where the Tos. is).  R"L argues in Nazir that a 
mother is not mechuyeves in chinuch for her son, and this is brought 
l'halacha in Hil Shabbos by the MG"A in siman 343:1 - sounds like a general 
rule.  Also, the Ein Mishpat in Nazir brings all the dinim of chinuch in the 
Rambam, not just Hil. Nezirus.  I'm also a bit perplexed as to how you would 
read the machlokes in Nazir - R"Y holds it is a special din in Nazir, and R"L 
also agrees it is a special din in nezirus?  However, to defend your side: 
Tos. Yeshanim in Yoma 82 learns like you and the Orach Mishor discusses the 
MG"A and all the other mekoros.

-Chaim

R.R. Wolpoe:
> Can RYZK explain the Baal haTanya's nusach "lehadlik NER Chanukkah as
> opposed to the more common "lehadlik ner SHEL Chanukkah?"

R.Y. Zirkind:
> 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).

R.M. 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, shebo shavas...".
> Another version that keeps the same number of words but changes the
> concept slightly is "zeh shir shevach shelayom hash'vi'i".>

R.Y. Zirkind:
> 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").

richard wolpoe:
> 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

Just to enlarge the discussion a little:
Among Ashkenazim, it is not only Baal HaTanya who has this girsa. The Pri
Hodosh also holds that "ner hanukka" is the correct nusah, and the Vilner
Gaon also (Maase Rav, §239). The author of the Maase Rav, R. Yissokhor Ber
Vilner, gives the reason that the ner is always called in the gemoro "ner
hanukka," not "ner shel hanukka" or "shraga d'hanukka." That is a fact,
but he doesn't guess as to why. The Pri Megadim says that the reason is
that neros on shabbos are for the families' use on this shabbos, whereas
ner hanukka is only a zekher (zeikher?) to the nes in the miqdosh. Mikha
gave another reason. But the Gro's adoption of the nusah is probably not
for the same reason as the Baal haTanya's. Also, this is among Ashkenazim.
Sefaradim say "ner hanukka," and apparently that has been their nusah
for hundreds of years; it is recorded by the mehabber as a dovor poshut,
and so it is not surprising that that was also the nusah of the Ari,
who in general davened nusah sefarad.

As far as shel being joined to the word next to it:
R.M. 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.

R.Y. Zirkind:
> 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").

It is clearly not a new nusah among Jews; the Teimoni nusah is "ner
shellahanukka." (R. Micha, your sheliChanukah must be a pletas qolmos:
even if you don't double the lamed, a baal diqduq like you knows that the
first vowel in hanukka is a hataf pasah, and so under the lamed it would
be a pasah). And it is nowhere near as much a change in the Ashkenaz nusah
as saying without the shel is. As a matter of fact, it is almost exactly
like changing min kol to mikkol in qaddish during Aseres Yemei Teshuva.
Shel together with the following word is not different than shel as a
separate word. Originally, there was no separate word "shel;" it really
was a combination of "she" and "l'," and meant "that belongs to." As R.
Yissokhor Ber notes, in the TeNaKh we find in Yona "b'shell'mi," whereas
modern Hebrew would have "shel mi." The particle "she" followed by lamed
is not common at all in the TeNaKh, but we do find it, and only once as a
separate word: "b'shel 'asher ya'amol" in Qoheles 8:17. In the mishna,
whereas the printed editions have it as a separate word, in almost
all of the old manuscripts, even those from Ashkenaz it is written as
part of the following word (e.g. shofar shell'rosh hasshono, or shofar
shellappur'onus, both in the fourth pereq of mihsnayos Rosh HaShono). In
some manuscripts, even when it is written separately, the scribe who put
in the niqqud is m'naqqed as if it were one word. This latter has become
standard in Teimon, e.g. eizehu m'qomon shellazz'vohim, written "shella"
and then "zz'vohim" as a separate word. There were some communities
already before printing where people started using the particle as a
separate word "shel," and that becamse standard in printed editions,
and from them became standard in Europe. To the best of my knowledge,
after the grammarians finished putting their "corrections" into the
siddurim, the form connected to the following word disappeared from all
Ashkenaz siddurim and many of the Sefardi. Only rabbonim who dealt with
old manuscripts knew of the older form. As R.R. Wolpoe mentioned, Baer
got it from the Maharshal and the ShLoh, and R. Y Zirkind noted that the
Mogen Avrohom brings it in their names. But theirs are not grammatical
explanations, so I have just tried to fill in the historical development
of shel as a separate word to show that originally the separate word
and joined word were one.

So with that we can end this discussion of minutiae, and we can make a
drush: that originally all the Jews were one, as the shel and shelli --
were one, and on hanukka they all light neros as one, to fulfill the
will of the One who is the Foundation of the world.

A freilikhen Hanukka,
Seth
lzno'm

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> 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.

jjbaker@panix.com
> Sheli- is not the same as shel.  Shel is "of", where sheli- is "particular
> to" - more specific than "shel".

Clarification:
Shelichanukah as one word is either with a shva or a chataf patach 
not a chirik gadol.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Sholem Berger:
> 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?

The discussion of where to add the candles is missing in the gemoro,
as well, and in Rashi and Tosfos. The Beis Yosef who first brings up the
issue clearly. He quotes from Mahari Kolon and and Trumas HaDeshen who
discuss the issue. So the Rambam doesn't bring it because it is not an
issue discussed by the gemoro and the geonim.

Part of the explanation lies in the fact that in the time of Hazal there
were no "hanukka menorahs." Note that there is not even a word for such a
contraption in Hebrew or Aramaic (hanukkiya being a modern invention to
fill the perceived lacuna). It is clear from the gemoro that they used
to put out "neros" on hanukka, and the ner was a typical ner of Hazal:
a clay ner to hold oil and a wick (and so all the shmonim and all the
psilos are kosher), and they just put out the proper number of neros and
lined them up next to each other. In the time of the rishonim, however,
Jews in Europe, both Ashkenaz and Sefarad, were lighting inside the house
in special menorahs hung near the door (not visible outside), and at that
point the different minhagim of how to put the candles in the menorah and
which to light first began developing. Did the Rambam light with separate
candles lined up in a row or in a hanukka menorah? I don't think we know,
and the Rambam does not consider it relevant to the qiyyum of the mitzva,
and the same goes for the order.

K'T,
Seth Mandel

>> 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...

> 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...
> So even if the MB is right in regard to hinnukh ...
> this would be against the Remo'....

The calendar of R. Henkin brings that all people beside the baal habayit
light one candle. I agree that that I haven't seen it.

I went to a shiur last night on "hanerot hallalu by Prof. Sperber.
He pointed out that though it is mentioned in mesechot soferim the
first rishon/Gaon that mentions is Maharam MeRotenberg (end of Tosafot).
He brought several speculations why it was introduced then
1. To stress the connection with Minhag Eretz Yisrael after R. Yechiel miParis
   moved to Israel
2. To strenthen his (Maharam) psak that "kodesh hem" that one cannot use 
   the candles even for a dvar mitzva, which is subject to debate

Eli Turkel

For another source: see Tos. Chadashim on the first Mishna in Avos citing R' 
Levi Yitzchak m'Berdichov.  

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


[ 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         ]