Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 137

Monday, February 26 2001

• Derivatives of Avodo Zoro and linguistic kvetchin
• AZ-derived interjections
• minimising the sakono
• Re: Luzicide
• RE: minor fasts
• Re: 72 min. MS- Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain...
• RE: lashon hara
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk? #2: MC vol. 1 p. 102
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk? #2: MC vol. 1 p. 102
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk? #2: MC vol. 1 p. 102
• Hungarian
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk? #2: MC vol. 1 p. 102
• Re: Who can be a dayan?
• Who can be a dayan?
• Re: Who can be a dayan?
• lifneihem
• Haftorah of Sh'kolim and Rosh Chodesh
• Re: AZ-derived interjections
• Yerushalayim
• RE: minimising the sakono
• Re: Luzicide
• Ketz Katzuv
• Birur vs. Safek
• teaching our adolescents to face the real world
• Mocking Avodah Zarah
• Re: Who can be a dayan?
• Re: Ketz Katzuv

In the midst of a long learned discussion about AZ ve'abizrayhu,  RSM
made the following observation:
> It would seem that since it is a deliberately deformed version of the
> name of their god, it would be muttar to use; is it any different than
> a deformation like kratzmich?

Yesh lechalek. The Gemara specifically advises being mechaneh shem ra
to AZ. Beis Galia/Caria, etc.; I have neither Gemara nor CD at work.
Kratzmich is in that honored tradition of letzanusa de'avodah zara.
The deliberately deformed names of their god, however, were deformed
lichvodo, to avoid saying his name. Analogous, lehavdil elef alfei
havdolos, to kinui shem for HKB"H. Therefore, it would be a mitzva to
say kratzmich, and an issur to say gee whiz.

The extrapolation to Xmas vs. Christmas is left for the student as
an exercise.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

If you believe that "gee," "sheesh," etc., still carry some taint
of AZ (if indeed you think Christianity as practiced nowadays is
AZ), then I follow Seth Mandel's argument. However, there are many
words which have become part and parcel in the English language,
devoid of any trace of Christian influence except for the terminally
etymologically inclined. Yes, "crux" means "cross" (as our bal-reshime
pointed out earlier) but for those who would like to express themselves
memorably in English, "the crux of the matter" is part of the necessary
armamentarium. Similarly, there are only so many family-friendly
interjections. I much prefer "gee" to "Damn it!" any day of the
week. (Actually, I much prefer Jewish to non-Jewish languages, but never
mind.) To give an only half-absurd example: "Goodbye" is a shortening of
"God be with you." When this shortening occured, I'd bet you dollars
for doughnuts that the God referred to was not HKBH...

A gutn shabbes
Sholem Berger

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> How was Reb Elchonon permitted to go back to Europe if R. Moshe 
> Feldman is correct?

To tie two threads (before Shabbos), is this analogous to going outside
of the city of Luz?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: When a piece of salt is removed from the tongue of a goses, thus allowing
: him to die, is that an active act, or a passive one? The halacha is clear
: that removing the salt is a passive act, and is therefore muttar, because
: it does not *cause* his death, but merely removes an impediment.

I think this is related to my difficulty understanding R' Ami'el on
gito viyado ba'im ki'echad. Hasaras hamonei'ah isn't considered a
sibah. R' Ami'el asserts this WRT time lag, wouldn't the same be
true WRT euthenasia?

-mi

David Glasner:
> But in connection with minor fasts where there is no melachah involved,
> no d'oraisa, and a prolongation of tza'ar and inui nefesh, what is the
> justification for routinely adopting the more stringent opinion?

Pashut: That the confusion between Nacht_1 and Nacht_2 may lead to
chillul Shabbos by the less sophisticated.

Good Shabbes
Rich Wolpoe

On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:48:08PM -0800, Gil Student wrote:
: Therefore, it seems that RT must hold that a mil is 22 1/2 minutes long
: and an hour is 75 minutes long...

Does he hold this lekulah WRT the maximum time in which one can bake
matzah?

-mi

Feldman, Mark
> When a husband is mikaneh his wife, AFAIK it's done in front of two eidim.
> I haven't really learned the sugyah recently--is it possible that the
> husband intends that these eidim make the kina'a public; if so there would
> be no issur of lashon hara, at least based on an analogy to the majority
> opinion of apei t'las (discussed recently).

Echoing this, as I understand it:
It is not LH to say so-and-so got exeucted by BD.  It is not LH to speak
about what happend to Korach, Dosson and Aviram

The problem is that LH typcially convicts people as guilty WITHOUT the
due process of a Beis Din and therfore w/o the accused getting to defend
him/herself.

However, once a bona fide BD paskens that so-and-so is guilty of an
aveira, it is davka a mitzva to use that to prevent further aveiros. 

LH is imho truly "RA" in that it prevents an incomplete half-truth as
pure fact.  It is escalating indictments into convictions.

Look at the case of Tamar and Yehudah. Until Tamar confronted Yehudah
with the choessemes, etc. Yehuda felt justified in having her burned.
But that's the point.  What appeared to be pure znus was not the case
when she had her say.  Yehudah's decision - while logical - was based
upon incomplete data.

We all know the proverbial stories that say so-and-so ate on Tisha b'av
but negelect to mention that the 9th of Av fel on Shabbos that year.
Sometimes, this neglect is not willful, but in the absence of the person
having a chnce to explain his/herself it might as well be.

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

Round 2 for me : )

R' Shimon's derech: the reason we say ki leika l'shtalumei is because each
mazik is 100% liable (like the ktzos, unlike my suggested R' Chaim's that
the liability is only a result of a transfer of hischayvus). However,
imagine a case where the nizak is mochel the ba'al hashor - we wouldn't
say ki leika l'ishtalumei and put the tashlumin on the ba'al habor. Why?
Because by mechila the chov still is on the ba'al hashor, just the nizak
is saying k'ilu hiskabalti. Perhaps by dayanim we can say that part of the
kabalah of the ba'al din in accepting the dayan is an implicit mechila
on any liability provided that dayan does his job correctly - the chov
of the third dayan exists, but the ba'al din has already been mochel it.

(This sevara is exactly the reverse of Chaim Markowitz's. Its not pshat
that the dayan accepts a hischayvis - that hischayvus is a result of
garmi. Pshat is that the ba'al din accepts upon himself mechila where
there is no reason for hischayvus).

Good Shabbos, Good Chodesh,
-Chaim B.

One note: R' Dovid would not have asked this she'eilah as a chakirah.
It is more likely that he would see this inyan as a reason to ask about
the etzem of what is a beis din? Instead of a chakirah, our kushya
becomes the grounds for ruling out a set of possible answers.

As to the answer, this reformulation suggested to me two answers, which
are therefore going to be a little similar.

The first is that the shor and the bor are separate sibos that combined to
make a single hezek. However, beis din is a single sibah. The owner of the
shor therefore is fully responsible for one cause. Vichein haba'al habor.
Each is fully responsible because from his perspective, the other goreim
is part of the situation, the background, in which his goreim acted.

The dayan, however, is 1/3 of a single sibah. Therefore he never assumes
more than 1/3 of the chiyuv. The other 2 dayanim aren't part of the
background situation he had to deal with.

My second idea is that when three people combine to make a beis din,
they make something that is more than the sum of its parts. Just as
a minyan has kedushas Yisrael, and isn't merely 10 men. The dayanim
combine in a way that is inherehently different than shutfus.

-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

Hungarian Resolution - (extrinsic analysis and resolution) - kil leika 
l'ishtalumei works in dinei nezek because b'makon acher it is possible for a 
ba'al habor or a ba'al hashor to be a mazik b'fnei atzmo and be liable for 
full payment.  However, a dayan can never be chayab b'fnei atzmo and his 
whole hischayvus is only in cooperation with others.  Leika l'ishtalumei 
(certainly within the lishna kama that hai avid kula hezeika) means the fact 
that the nezek was done b'shutfus is lo gara from if it was done b'fnei atzo; 
by dayanim who can never be mazik b'fnei atman the whole nezek it is 
different.

(The nezek was also b'shutfus, but the point is the mshutafim can each be 
chayav independently in other cases of nezek, mah shain kein dayanim.)

On Micha's second teirutz - what difference does it make if the B"D is a 
tzibbur-like corporate entity?  Bottom line the chiyuv devolves onto all of 
the members involved, so either all are liable for the B"D's error (in while 
case we should say ki leika l'ishtalumei on the 3rd dayan's share), or none 
should be liable (obviously not the case).  The distinction may be true, but 
I don't think it makes a difference in this case. 

The first teirutz (the hitztarfus and sibah language match perfectly!) is 
Telshe and beats my attempt at a Telshe teirutz.  Yours matches the derech 
better - I'll mark mine as an alternate.  (You had more time to absorb R' 
Dovid and get a taste of a world outside Brisk at YU; I just have to 
improvise as I go along ; )

-CB-

We find by the dayanim that all three make the bais-din that paskens.  So
each dayan can only do 1/3 of the damage.  The one who paskened correctly of
course doesn't pay because he did nothing wrong.

By damages each is fully responsible because his portion could have caused
the entire damage.

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 2/23/01 1:21:43pm EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> This kashe is far more challenging than last week's! The other derachim
> should have fundementally different answers,not just restate the same
> principles in different ways, no? That will be difficult.

Betzem IMHO one answer brought out in the Lshonos of the different Shitos has 
a Maaloh over finding different answers, in that vain I'll add my 2 cents, 
even though much of this has been discussed by many of the list.

The case of the Dayonim is compared to the case of Basar and Eimurim (as 
mentioned in the Ktzos as well as other Poskim), the main Chiluk is that 
where Hekdesh and Chulin have Shutfos in the Mazik every action is not 
divisible, whereas in the case of a stone/Bor or Shor/Bor etc. each part is 
definable, hence in the case of Dayonim which is not devisable, we cannot say 
Leka Lishtalumi Mihai, just like in the case of Basar/Eimurim.  To put it in 
the Ragitchover's terminology, there are 2 kinds of Harkovos (or in our Inyan 
Shutfos) a Harkava Mizgis (where they combine into one form, and in our case 
the Beheima's Eimurim and Basar, and likewise Dayonim) and Harkava Shchunis 
(they neighbor each other, like in the case of Shor/Bor), one might want to 
use the terms RYGB used last week of Nkudah and Shetach (however, since here 
they have different Chiuvim, the term Harkava IMHO fits better).  Al Derech 
the Chiluk between Chatzi Shiur (where each part of the Hezek (begining/end) 
is definable) and Chatzi Mlacha (where any part of the Hezek requires all 3).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

> wonder how one  is permitted to take a din Torah to anyone bizman hazeh. 
> The gemara  (Gittin 88b) seems to hold both conclusions lihalachah.

Isn't that the point of shlichusayhu/takkanah of hoda'as v'halvaos (see R' 
Akiva Eiger, MaHaRaM beg. of Shanhedrin who discuss if there are 2 takanos or 
one).

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Tying into our conversation of earlier this week, I wonder how one
> is permitted to take a din Torah to anyone bizman hazeh.

        What happened to shlichusayhu ka'avdinan?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 23 Feb 01, at 15:40, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>> Tying into our conversation of earlier this week, I wonder how one
>> is permitted to take a din Torah to anyone bizman hazeh. The gemara
>> (Gittin 88b) seems to hold both conclusions lihalachah.

> AIUI it's all "pshara" based now rather than din (ie the litigants accept  
> the arbitrators)

If that's the case, how could a Beis Din today ever issue a Ksav 
Siruv? (And we know that they do issue them). 

-- 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.

mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

The question was asked how can any din be judged today in the absence of a
dayan with full-smicha connecting back to Moshe Rabbeinu.

An answer was offered that now we use arbitration,pshara.  This is partially
true.  See Gem. Ch. 1 Sanhedrin.

Really the question is the Gem.'s question.  This is the famous quote "we
perform their(the true dayan's) shlichus.

In conclusion, some issues never need real dayanim; such as pshara.  Some
issues have "shlichus of the real dayanim" such as certain financial dinim.
Some issues we don't have today because of the lack of "real dayanim"; such
as knasos.

Shlomo Goldstein

S'fardim add the first and last posuk of the haftorah of Rosh Chodesh at
the end of the Haftorah of Parshas Sh'kolim.
What is the makor?
Thanks in advance and shavuah tov
steve

Sholem Berger wrote:
> To give an only half-absurd example: "Goodbye" is a shortening of"God
> be with you." When this shortening occured, I'd bet you dollars for
> doughnuts that the God referred to was not HKBH...

what matters is your das when you say "Goodbye."
shavuah tov
steve

Dr Aryeh Frimer wrote:
> to the best of my knowledge, Yerushalyim in all of Tanach is spelled Chaser 
> "Yerushalem" - without a second yud!

R' Akiva Miller replied:  
> common error. There are two exceptions listed in Mandelkern, where
> the second yod is present. One is Esther 2:7. (Sorry I don't have the
> other accessible; I'm on the road and won't be home for a few days.)

My computer says, by courtesy of the Keter CD, that there are 627
occurrences of Yerushalayim in the Tanakh. Of these, 622 are chaser, i.e.,
omit the second yud.

There are five malei, with the second yud, (not two, as remembered while
on the road). One is in Esther 2:6 (not 2:7). The other four are Yirm'
26,18; DvHa"Y A' 3,5; and DvHa"Y B' 25,1 and 32,9.

David

>> How was Reb Elchonon permitted to go back to Europe if R. Moshe Feldman
>> is correct?

> Maybe he was machnis atzo into a safek sakanah in order to be matzil
> acheirim (by giving them hope)?

But there was no safek to that sakano [it was 100% sakanat nefesh].

What source is there for any halacha allowing suicide to give others hope?
Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me. What seems more likely is that it was
based on the fact that Reb Elchonon thought that there was some way that he
could save at least some lives by going back instead of staying where he was.

---Rena

In a message dated 2/23/01 7:29:51am ETS, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> When a piece of salt is removed from the tongue of a goses, thus allowing
> him to die, is that an active act, or a passive one? The halacha is clear
> that removing the salt is a passive act, and is therefore muttar, because
> it does not *cause* his death, but merely removes an impediment.

> So too, *perhaps*, being in Luz prevents one from dying, but leaving the
> city merely removes the impediment and is allowed.

IMHO it is not the exact same as the case of the salt (brought in Ramah Y"D 
339:1), in that case it is "Hasoras Hamoneia" not "Hasoras Hamichayeh" (even 
if by Nes), i.e. pulling the plug is not just Hasoras Hamoneia, likewise 
witholding food from someone or oxygen from someone is not just "Hasoras 
Hamoneia" he is removing that which keeps him alive, see Rambam Hil. Rotzeach 
3:9-10.  The case of Luz could be more comprable to "Hasoras Hamichayeh".

Further more, Yesh Mokom to argue that in the case of R' Chanina Ben Tradyon 
(earlier mentioned from A"Z 18a), the Goy asked him if he will be Marbeh 
Bshalheves and remove the spunges, if he will bring him to OH"B as the Goy 
was not sure that he would be permitted to be Mkareiv his Misah by adding to 
the flame and by removing the spunges it might be considered like taking away 
the shiled from someone that was fired upon (Rambam ibid 11), RCBT told him 
it was Muttar (and this could be limited only to a B"N however way we should 
say the Heter works).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

A poster had argued that it makes no difference whether one lives in
Bnei Beraq or a hot-spot in Yesha; after all, Hashem takes away your
neshama only when the proper time has come.

After having argued against such an ideology with a known Talmid of R' 
Shach, the next day I came across a letter from the Rambam where he is 
asked, "is there a Ketz Katzuv to a person's life?". He responds as I did 
that of course there isn't and that's why the Torah tells us to protect 
ourselves such as by building a Maakeh. I understand that you can make a 
Chiluk and say that a Makom Sakanna is different or some other Chiluk (all 
of which my interlocutor tried to make when I was the one stating the case 
against all people having a clearly defined Ketz Katzuv) but the point is 
that the Rambam doesn't make any such Chiluk (and my friend conceeded). He 
even discusses the "reasons" people die, body temperature and moisture 
levels, etc. You should be able to find this letter easily in R' Shilat's 
table of contents.

Adar Sameach!!  (-:
Moshe

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> The Asheknazi practice of hanging a mezuzah on the diagonal also enters
> this parashah. So, when do we try to pasken based on birur, and when do
> we fall back to treating it like a safeik? (Which nicely ties up with
> our previous "vus is der chiluk" question.)

If I understand the example properly, hanging the mezuzah cannot be an
example of "birur", because the diagonal follows neither shita, not
vertical nor diagonal.

If so, then I think a good example of what *is* birur, then, would be
benching at shalashudis when Motzaei Shabbos is Rosh Chodesh. All the
poskim bend over backwards trying to be mevarer exactly what is the
proper way to bench. I don't recall any of them suggesting any
compromise; I always thought the best idea might be to skip both Retzeh
and Yaaleh. It's not the ideal according to anyone, but it's not so
terrible either. Mima nafshach, whether it is Shalashudis or Rosh
Chodesh, neither Me'ein Ham'ora is meakev.

Akiva Miller

This past Shabbos, I had the opportunity to hear R Tzvi Hersch Weinreb, speak 
on a series of issues. R Weinreb's drasha dealt with whether we can say that 
if weonly have Torah that is praiseworthy or is worth nothing. In his 
opinion, Torah without being set in context of daily life is like A diamond 
wothout a setting. R Weinreb expnded on this in anumber of examples based in 
Gemaras, Rishonim and Acharonim. Between Mincha and Maariv, R weinreb spoke 
about how poskim evaluate a shailas chacham based upon who the shoeil , their 
 knowledge and their empathy to particular issues. For instance, R Weinreb 
referred to a quartet of well known teshuvos in Igros Moshe which dealt with 
MZ, SZ , etc. The Teshuvos demonstrated that R Moshe zt' met with the 
individuals, listened to their descriptions of clearlly problematic conduct 
and prescribed some sort of an answer . Regardless of the answer, the 
teshuvos demonstrated empathy for the shoel's dilemna. In addition, the 
position of R JDBleich with respect to positions such as adoption, etc was 
contrasted with that of the Luvavitcher Rebbe and RSZA , zicronam livracha on 
this issue. A fascinating shiur into the psychology of psak.
Motzaei Shabbos, R Weinreb spoke on the subject of the title of this post. In 
his opinion, Many of our  best adolescents are unprepared for the realitrties 
of life. For instance, Many of our kids can't articulate why he have claims 
to EY to the non-Jewish media because the concepts of Ahavas EY and history 
are beyond the pale of discussion. Our kids have a lack of ability in how to 
budget and what to spend money on as young adults. Kids who have been 
socialized not to go on social dates have difficulty in understanding how to 
relate to the opposite gender in both the dating and office setting. Many of 
our kids have problems adjusting from our olam to the less tha rarified 
secular world where language, tznius, etc are  totally different than their 
home environments. Many of our kids don't know how to relate to the rov 
binyan uminyan of our fellow Jews who aren't frum. For instance, many can't 
say why we keep Shabbos or why we can move a chair inside but not turn on a 
light. Moreover, despite teaching Tanach with mefarshim, many of our kids are 
bewildered by non Jews whose take on Yermiahu or Yeshia is quite different , 
to say the least. Although R Weinreb felt that a seminary and yeshiva year in 
Israel davka wasn;t for everybody because different people need different 
solutions to their needs, he believes that their is a definite need for more 
post high school programs of a seminary/yeshiva nature in the States. On his 
opinion, the coillege campuses of today are worse today because of the 
unrelenting tide of a PC agenda of Feminism, Gay rights and and anti Israel 
propoganda In his opinion, we have to institute programs to work with our 
adolescents as well. In his shul, two mental health professionals have set up 
a volunteer program called "The Real World" which attempts to deal with these 
issues via workshops, and develpoing strategies , etc. 
In response to a question from the audience, R Weinreb decried what he called 
the " psychosis" of the shidduch scene wher parents are "checked'" on such 
details as dishes, colors of tableclothes and books in the book case as 
opposed to mentchlichkeit and midos. I am not sures whether the Motzaei 
Shabbbos session was taped but R Weinreb has spoken on these issues at 
Nefesh's conference. Tapes are defeinitely available from the Nefesh website. 
Comments?
                                                    Steve Brizel
                                                      Zeliglaw@aol.com

Not long ago, I argued on Areivim that it is only permissible to mock Avodah 
Zarah, not a mitzvah.  The volume has been too high lately for me too find 
the post.

I TOTALLY missed the boat and, what's worse, no one corrected me.

The gemara in Avodah Zarah 45b-46a quotes a Tosefta in which R. Eliezer and 
R. Akiva argue about the mitzvah of "ve'ibadtem es shemam".  According to R. 
Akiva, it is a mitzvah to call avodah zarahs with mocking names.  The 
Shulchan Aruch (YD 146:15) paskens like R. Akiva.  The Shach and Taz 
disagree over whether this only applies in Eretz Yisrael (Shach) or also in 
chu"l (Taz).  The Beis Lechem Yehudah tries to disprove the Shach but LAD 
his question can be easily answered.

The Rambam does not quote this halachah, as the Lechem Mishneh (hilchos AZ 
8:9) and the Minchas Chinuch (first mitzvah in Re'eh) point out.  The 
Mirkeves HaMishneh shows that the maskanah in the gemara is against both R. 
Akiva and R. Eliezer, which is why the Rambam does not quote either 
halachah.  R. David Pardo, in his Sifrei Devei Rav on Sifrei, Re'eh 61, says 
the same.  See also the Malbim in his peirush al haTorah.

In other words, it's not so pashut whether there is or is not a mitzvah to 
intentionally mock avodah zarah.

Gil Student

On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:47:41AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
:> Tying into our conversation of earlier this week, I wonder how one
:> is permitted to take a din Torah to anyone bizman hazeh.

:         What happened to shlichusayhu ka'avdinan?

That was an explanation for how someone can pasken, not how a beis din
can operate.

-mi

From: moshe rudner <mosherudner@hotmail.com>
>                     I came across a letter from the Rambam where he is 
> asked, "is there a Ketz Katzuv to a person's life?". He responds as I did 
> that of course there isn't and that's why the Torah tells us to protect 
> ourselves such as by building a Maakeh.

I am not all surprised at this Ramban.  See David Berger's article about
Ramban's views--"Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmonides."  It is a
very worthwhile read, esp. if you look up the Rambans.  He points out that
the famous statements of Ramban (in a number of places in his perush on
chumash)  that teva doesn't apply to the Jewish people are taken out of
context--those statements apply only when klal yisrael is a whole is keeping
the Torah.

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         ]