Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 163

Wednesday, March 21 2001

• Bnei Noach and Shemoneh Esreih
• RE: referring by name
• Re: referring by name
• RE: referring by name
• Re: referring by name
• RE: Areivim V6 #548-Rav Ahron S. on emes and shalom
• Re: Shidduchim: Parameters for revealing information
• RE: Parameters for revealing information
• Re: Actual Shabbos vs. Tosfos Shabbos
• Astronomical tables - still not, but getting puzzled
• RE: Pesach
• RE: Pesach
• Re: Pesach
• Water on Pesach
• More On Mincha/Maariv Z'manim in Practice and Tefilah B'Tsibur
• Re: the facts about the Langer case
• Choosing a Rebbe
• Re: [Fwd: Rambam, Karaites, and Jewish unity]
• Re: Kapparah
• Tom Vnishlom Shevoch- Any Others Out There? (another book plug with a thank you to R. Teitz)
• Re: Voss IZ Der Chilluk #4: MC vol. 1 p. 52 - Initial Summary

I know that the Rambam paskens that ger meivi vekoreih - a convert can bring 
bikkurim and say the parshah of "Arami oved avi" even though the convert is not 
directly descended from Ya'akov.

My question is regarding a ben noach - a Gentile who accepts the seven mitzvos 
but, for one reason or another (such as being married to someone who does not 
want to convert), has no plans on converting.  These people frequently attends 
shuls and are welcomed there.  Can they daven Shemoneh Esreih and say the 
berachah of "Magen Avos"?  What about someone studying for conversion?  Maybe, 
in training for what s/he will have to say after conversion s/he should say a 
full shemoneh esreih.

Anyone know what is done or if there is literature on this?

Gil Student

From: "Rena Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
RF> The only time that I can think of that lying is even tolerated is for
RF> shalom bayis, as shown in when Hashem was speaking to Avraham Avinu
RF> about his wife Sarah. Otherwise it is an issur d'oraisa, no?

From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
AA> Or for shalom between people -- Aharon used to "lie" in order to make peace
AA> between people who were fighting.

From: "Steve Katz" <sk0002@home.com>
SK> I heard from Rav Aaron Soloveitchik that when emes and sholom are in
SK> conflict we follow sholom.

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
GD> Interesting. I heard the opposite, but don't recall from whom: The
GD> posuk says ha'emes vehashalom ehavu.  First,  emes.   Then,  shalom.

From: Joelirich@aol.com
JR> They are both correct, the trick, as usual, is knowing when each applies!

From: JoshHoff@aol.com
JH> Rav Ahron did indeed say the opposite, in the name of his father. The
JH> gemara refers to shalom as a 'keli machzik emes.' Rav Moshe Soloveichek
JH> said that first there must be emes in order for there to be a keli to
JH> contain it.Rav Moshe said this in regard to Chamberlain's 'peace in our
JH> time' folly in Munich, and Rav Ahron felt that it applies to the Oslo
JH> Accords, as well.

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
GD>        Ummm, isn't that machzik BERACHA?  Which kind of messes up
GD> the proof.

From: JoshHoff@aol.com
JH> It was pointed out to me that I misquoted the gemara, which actually
JH> refers to shalom as a 'keli machzik beracha,' not a 'keli machzik emes,'
JH> as I wrote.I stand corrected (I was quoting from memory-sorry). Rav
JH> Ahron's point was that shalom is a keli, and its value depends on its
JH> contents.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
MB> Add R' Moshe Feinstein to the chessed before emes list.

MB> His nephew asked RMF about RMF's habit of writing te'udos ishur for anyone
MB> asking for help raising tzadakah. Doesn't the ishur imply to the reader that
MB> RMF invested greater time in research than he really invested?

MB> RMF replied that chessed must precede emes; after all, that's the order in
MB> the 13 middos.

MB> (One can get so caught up chasing down the emes that many real opportunities
MB> for chessed could be lost.)

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Interesting. I heard the opposite, but don't recall from whom: The
> posuk says ha'emes vehashalom ehavu.  First,  emes.   Then,  shalom.

From: Joelirich@aol.com
: They are both correct, the trick, as usual, is knowing when each applies!

This dichotomy between emes and shalom seems related to that
between chessed and gevurah, as per R' A Kaplan as told by R' Ciner
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n158.shtml#10>. Seeing the
balance in HKBH's actions is complex (one might even say "knotty" :-),
doing so ourselves is equally difficult.

This also brings us to RSRH (19 Letters) on "li'avdah ulshamrah"
(Bereishis 2:15). RSRH points out that this tzivui can't refer to Gen Eden
for two reasons: 1- gan would require lashon zachor (li'avdo ulshamro);
2- GE didn't require any maintenance (2:5,6).

Instead, he teitches the pasuk as referring to the nishmas chayim of 2:7.
Hashem put Adam in the gan described in 8-14 in order that Adam work
and guard his neshamah (which both needs work, and is bilashon nikeivah).

So yes, this is difficult. It's also the primary mission of man.

From: JoshHoff@aol.com
: Rav Ahron's point was that shalom is a keli, and its value depends on its
: contents.

R' Dovid Lifshitz had an entirely different shitah as to what is shalom.
(To see this idea ba'arichus, see Beis Yitzchak for 5758.) Shalom isn't
peace, a mere cessation of violence. Shalom is related to sheleimus,
a unity based on seeking a common purpose, HKBH's purpose. "Viey'asu
kulam agudah achas, la'asos ritzon'cha bileivav shaleim.." Which is why
birchas shalom mentions "Toras chaim vi'ahavas chesed utzdakah..."

Lishitaso, there is no question as to the contents of shalom.

Also, lishitaso, shalom is the harmony of chessed vi'emes, not just
a near-synonym for chessed as we've all assumed so far in this thread
(until the previous paragraph).

-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

I think in a previous round I mentioned the thought from R'YBS(he really
said it, I'm not quoting it in his name to get you to accept it:-)
that the request oseh shalom bmromav hu yaaseh shalom aleinu refers to
the peace hkbh makes in shamaaim between the midot of chesed and emet,
having them both be fufilled with no dimunition of either(as he might
have said - there's no law of the excluded middle in shamaim)

KT
Joel

On 20 Mar 01, at 15:58, Micha Berger wrote:
> This also brings us to RSRH (19 Letters) on "li'avdah ulshamrah"...
>          he teitches the pasuk as referring to the nishmas chayim of 2:7.
> Hashem put Adam in the gan described in 8-14 in order that Adam work
> and guard his neshamah (which both needs work, and is bilashon nikeivah).

IIRC R. Aaron Lichtenstein said something similar in a sicha when I 
was a bochur....

> R' Dovid Lifshitz ...                                    .) Shalom isn't
> peace, a mere cessation of violence. Shalom is related to sheleimus,
> a unity based on seeking a common purpose, HKBH's purpose...

The Aruch LaNer at the end of Yevamos says something similar. He says
that each mitzva is k'neged an aiver in a person's body. But no Jew
can perform all of the mitzvos - for example, only a Kohain can perform
certain of the mitzvos relating to the Korbanos. But each person requires
each mitzva to be mesaken the specific aiver in his guf to which that
mitzva relates. When there is Shalom among Klal Yisrael, each person
benefits from those mitzvos which his chaveir can perform but which he
cannot perform. That way Shalom among Klal Yisrael leads to Shleimus in
the individuals in Klal Yisrael.

-- Carl

From: JoshHoff@aol.com [mailto:JoshHoff@aol.com]
>                             Rav Ahron's point was that shalom 
> is a keli, and its value depends on its contents.

Now you have less proof for your assertion.  If the quote were a kli machzik
emes, it would be clear that the emes is more important than the kli.  Given
that the quote is kli machzik bracha, all you know is that bracha is more
important than the kli.  However, it is possible that:
		bracha > shalom > emes

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Rav Ovadiah Yosef in Yechaveh Daat IV 60 mentions that the same way we
are forbidden to say *rechilut*, we are also forbidden to violate the
issur of *lo taamod al dam rei'echa". Thus, if we know something that
will prevent *nezek* to another person, we are required to inform him.

BTW wouldn't the wife's not informing her husband prior to the *chupa*
that she has a major genetic defect engender a case of *mekach ta'ut*
as per the Bet Shmuel in Even Ha'Ezer 154 s"k 2 and Even Ha'Ezer 39:4 ?

Incidentally, just yesterday we had a case like this. A young charedi
(29) who was the driver in our reserve army medical unit got married
18 months ago. When a dozen doctors see that their driver still didn't
have children, we figured that eppis something was wrong, especially when
the wife adamantly refused to get pregnant. To make a long story short:
she was a manic-depressive whose symptoms were completely under control
so long as she took lithium and an anti-seizure drug. Unfortunately,
she would relapse if she ever stopped taking the drugs; and pregnancy
was absolutely contraindicated while under medication. Needless to say
neither she or her parents ever told the *chatan* that there was a problem.
Within a week of her husband finding the medications (hidden away) they
got a *get* [and there was talk of *mekach ta'ut*].

Josh

From: Elazar M Teitz [mailto:remt@juno.com]
>                  The rav said that since it wasn't 100% that she would
> have retarded children she did not have to reveal the information. The
> rationale was that they needed to have bitachon that everything would
> work out,"...

> (1) Is one permitted to "have bitachon" at another's expense?

To put it another way: why should the kallah force the choson to have
bitachon?  Let it work the other way around -- the kallah should tell the
choson the genetic information and have bitachon that the choson will not
call off the wedding!  If it's bashert, then the choson won't be turned off
by the information.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 20 Mar 01, at 10:29, Noah S. Rothstein wrote:
> R' Leibel Katz, shlita, [1] spoke about this...
> there is a difference between the time that it is not actually Shabbos
> when an individual has accepted Shabbos upon himself and when it is
> actually Shabbos. This is why it is muttar for someone who was mikabel
> Shabbos early to ask another Yid who has not yet been mikabel Shabbos
> to do melacha for him...

Isn't that mutar because the issur on Shabbos is Amira *l'Akum* and not
to a fellow Jew? Thus, for example, someone who is holding two days of
Yom Tov in Eretz Yisrael is allowed to ask someone who is holding one
day to do Melacha for him on the second day....

-- 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.

RYZlochower writes:
> by the US Naval Observatory that are available from their
> website. Dr. Mechy Frankel claims that those tables are based on the
> center position of the sun and do not take atmospheric refraction of the
> solar rays into account. While I do not claim expertise in the relevant
> calculations, nor do I know the equations actually used by the Observatory
> for their calculations - I do note what the Naval..

I have re-looked into this issue and must confess that RYZ is correct,
certainly at least with respect to the naval observatory tables following
points on the sun's rim and providing (at least in some averaged sense)
for atmospheric compensation by calculating the sun's positions at a
constant number of degrees below the horizon. I'm afraid that my information
was incorrect. in this instance I was drawing on a published assertion
by harav c. beinish in a recent work -- haz'z'monim b'halochoh (BTW for
those familiar with it there are some other inaccurate statements in
that work as well) though he actually made the assertion l'gabei published
almanacs rather than naval tables, however I've now checked a few published
almanacs (including the farmer's) and he would seem to be incorrect in
that instance as well. I am normally almost instinctively suspicious
of factual assertions, and should have checked the original source first.
here i confess to a character trait -- which others though not I might
classify as a defect -- of taking some (childish to be sure) pleasure
in puncturing pronuciamentos, preferably if originally delivered in
apodictic style, and thus am suitably chagrined for not back checking
my published, but still secondary, source.

That said -- I still believe that use of these tables provides their user
with precision as a substitute for accuracy. The reasons are many
-- and certainly include the third point I had originally made, that tables
do not compensate for variations in height, but reference some fixed
point, e.g. fifteen feet above sea level. This is especially problematic
with those tables that only provide values in lat-long coordinates, but
even those that provide an option by city -- (such as the us navy tables)
pick some representative height for the whole city. This can lead to
variations amounting to minutes for observation points higher than about
1-200 meters. -- increasing non-linearly with height. (The effect of height
also increases non-linearly with latitude and can lead to relatively
large, i.e. many minutes, differential as one moves northward) As well,
every degree on longitude corresponds to a four minute differential and
extended cities -- especially counting suburban regions may well sprawl
over a considerable fraction of a degree (again easier to do at northern
latitudes, i.e. your city doesn't have to be as large to achieve same
differential from one end to other) aslo need correction. Finally, it
must be emphasized that even the table values "corrected" for the atmosphere
only represents an average, and conditions can -- on any given shabbos
-- vary significantly from the tabulated value -- especially true because
of temperature variations from the seasonal norm and change the "true"
sh'qioh (i.e. halachically true -- which is what the eye sees) by many
minutes from the table listing -- again an effect which increases non-linearly
with latitude.

RYZ:
> What star sightings are to be used as the criteria for nightfall? Mechy's
> simple 3 "medium" stars (I also used that criteria in my younger days)
> would not be accepted by many poskim based on some criteria mentioned
> near the beginning of Yerushalmi Berachot

I was inspired by RYZ's post to re-look at my old -- and indeed continuing
-custom (though in usual practice, I too tend to use tables or calendars
for convenience) of looking at three medium stars, in light of published
t'shuvos on the matter (more as an academic exercise, I was not really
contemplating changing a generationally venerated nohag -- especially
in hungary, see qunt'ros aizehu bein hash'sh'moshos by r.y.m. schlesinger)
and now confess to a some real puzzlement. It seems clear that there
are both rishonim and acharonim who would have one machmir to wait for
three "small" stars rather than the beinonim which they feel might require
a level of expertise to identify (while the q'tannim require no such
expertise. of course there are others who find different reasons to wait
longer, e.g. a "shiur" in tos shabbos). In RYZ's words this <would not
be accepted by many poskim based on some criteria mentioned near the
beginning of Yerushalmi Berachot> But yet we are also presented by the
g'moroh shabbos 35a an explicit definition of what "large" stars are
(as noted by r. beinish). These are only the cochovim that can be seen
before sunset. Since no true star can be seen before sunset (with the
trivial exception of the sun) "gidolim" must refer only to the coch'vei
leches, i.e. the planets, of which only three or four can be seen before
sunset. Thus all other stars (including, perhaps, the four or five planets
which can never be seen before sunset and -- again perhaps -- can be used
in the minyon of stars required to end shabbos) are automatically either
beinonim or q'tannim. Since it is quite simple to distinguish a planet
from a star, why then do these sources machmir" to wait for three small
stars? After all, as soon as I spy ANY three stars -- trivially distinguishable
from planets -- they must be at least beinonim (and may even be q'tannim)
and there should be no need for a boqi.

As for RYZ's other puzzlement <Then there is the puzzling statement
that the proof stars must be average in both brightness and size> it
would seem that there is indeed no difference between "large" and "bright"
in the talmudic usage. We moderns accept the existence of the third
variable -- distance -- and thus may understand that intrinsically bright
star may yet be an apparent -- and thus halochic -- "qoton", but ancients
viewed fixed stars as residing all at the same distance -- the radius
of the sphere with which they were associated. So size should essentially
be taken as a synonym for brightness -- this at least is r. beinish's
suggestion and it seems eminently reasonable.

Mechy Frankel                                   W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com                    H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

On 19 Mar 2001, at 22:02, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> Personally, I was not convinced by the sevarah, especially when the
> potential issur is just drabbanan and there are other snifim l'hakel....
>                                And, I understand not relying on mechiras
> chometz for oneself, but why be machmir on the mechirah made by someone
> else?  Surely, chachamim were not gozer the k'nas in such a situation.

There are people who are machmir not to sell Chametz Gomur at 
all. There is one family that gives us their Chametz Gomur as a gift 
before Pesach and we sell it and give it back to them after Pesach 
(they don't make a tnai - the gift is absolute - but we always insist 
on giving it to them after Pesach).

AFAIK every Badatz EC Hashgacha here includes - for several 
weeks after Pesach - hashgacha that any baked goods were made 
with flour that was ground after Pesach. Given that the Badatz has 
hashgocho on Angel Bakery in Yerushalayim (the largest in the 
country), this is a tall order.

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

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

(I sent to this Areivim by mistake.)

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> There are people who are machmir not to sell Chametz Gomur at 
> all. 

I understand that chumrah (many poskim believe that to be ikar hadin; I know
RYBS didn't like selling chametz gamur; Bli Neder, I will try to put myself
into the position of holding that chumrah this year).  But that is a chumrah
on a deoraissa of bal yeira'eh bal yimatzay.  I'm arguing that even if one
holds like that chumrah, it doesn't make sense to be machmir not to buy
goods from others who sold their chametz--that's an issue of knas
m'drabbanan.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> There are people who are machmir not to sell Chametz Gomur at 
> all. 

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:15:10AM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: I understand that chumrah...

I don't (although I was raised keeping it). Mima nafshach: either
the mechirah is good or it isn't. The question of whether the food is
chameitz gamur or not is unrelated to that of mechirah. Unless you are
trying to build some kind of s'feik s'feikah, how does limiting the
items for sale help?

-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

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> She'arim Metzuyanim Bahalacha on Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, 117:4
> "City water, which comes through pipes to houses, whose administrators
> mix in additives to clean it, and there are those who worry that these
> additives are made from chametz -- one should never the less say that
> it is permissible...

A number of years ago, someone realized that people fish in the Kinneret
during Pesach and likely use Chametz for bait. Real chametz. As a result,
the water supply from the Kinneret to Yerushalayim is shut off during
Pesach, and we get our water from elsewhere. Nevertheless, I know people
who put water in tanks before Pesach - at least for drinking.

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

Based on all of the discussion of z'manim recently, I thought I would relate
the following.

Yesterday I ended-up davening mincha at a shtiebel near me that I hadn't
davened in for a very long time. I seemed to recall them davening mincha b/w
10 and 20 minutes after the shkeiah. Shkia was at 6:08 yesterday, so when I
left my house at around 6:35, I figured I was too late for that minyan and
would find a minyan elsewhere. When I passed the shul and read the sign, I was
pleasantly surprised to see that I was actually early! Mincha was scheduled
for 6:45 and didn't actually start until 6:50.[1] What's interesting is
that maariv was listed as being 7:15, still before 72 min. after shkia. I
know there are other shuls that conduct themselves similarly. I guess it's
comparable to those that daven mincha before shkia and maariv right afterwards,
before tseis. Here mincha is before the shkia shnia d'Rabbeinu Tam and maariv
after it, yet before tseis.

By the way, boruch hashem, I finally made it back to R' Chaim Leib Katz,
shlita: I davened maariv there and asked him for a brochoh afterwards. One
of the most special minyanim in Borough Park.

- Noach

[1] I made the mistake of assuming that the baal hatefilah would start from
korbonos. Nusach sfard says korbonos before ashrei but I have found that
some minyanim have the baal hatefilah start from ashrei and this threw me
off and caused me not to start shmoneh esrai w/ the tsibbur. When the Baal
Tefilah started ashrei I was in the middle of the Tomid. I skipped to ashrei
right after I finished the tomid but the ball ha tefilah was so fast that
I didn't finish in time.

I heard that R' Moshe Feinstein, z'l, held that as long as any part of shmoneh
esrai was said while the tsibbur is still davening it is considered tefilah
b'tsibur but that the other poskim say that in order to be tefilah b'tsibur
one must start shmoneh esrai w/ the tsibbur.

- Noach

I must disagree with RHM regarding the Langer case.  Rav Goren put out a
book explaining his psak.  I read it a few years ago, almost cover to cover.
The main issue was that the first husband had been romantically involved
with the woman (then a teenager) back in Poland, before the Holocaust. He
was a goy.  He made her pregnant (but I am not 100% sure on this prat).  A
private, secret conversion and wedding took place.  There were numerous
testimonies that the husband behaved as a goy both in Poland and Israel.  He
went to church and ate pork, and took his Jewish children to church as well.
When asked (in Israel, by the dayanim) he could not complete the pasuk of
Shma or the bracha on tfillin.  Rav Goren determined that his conversion was
a sham, so the ORIGINAL kiddushin had no validity.

Daniel

At 08:30 AM 3/21/01 +0200, Carl Sherer wrote:
>How can there be Chassidus without a Rebbe (or at least the
>memory of a Rebbe in the past, as Lubavitch or Breslev for
>example)? Does wearing the lvush and keeping certain known
>Chassidishe minhagim (e.g. how you wind your tfillin) make you a
>Chassid?

I think Chassidus does value the concept of tzinoros of kedusha via 
tzaddikim, and that may be a core value in Chassidus (i.e., if you do not 
accept the concept of tzinoros or shevillin you cannot be defined as a 
Chosid), but I do not think one need affiliate with a certain tzaddik and 
his particular tzinoros in order to be a Chosid.

Actually, while levush and minhag are sociological identifier, I would 
assume a "Chossid Amiti" is one who practices the derech avodah of 
Chassidus. In my opinion, one may even daven Ashkenaz and be a Chosid.

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

On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 12:49:14AM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:                ... as can be seen in the following Responsa of the Rambam:

: 263. And the Karaites are not those that the Rabbis call minim, but they
: are those who are called tzedukkim and baytusim - not Samaritans...

: [In Mishne Torah, Hilchot Shechita 4: 14,16, the Rambam distinguishes
: between those who would deny the sanctity of the written torah, and the
: Saduceean sectarians who deny the validity of the oral torah and Rabbinic
: decisions. The shechita of the former is as invalid as that of a Gentile,
: while the latter may shecht under supervision.]

My understanding from the Gemara is that the problem with Shomroni shechitah
isn't that they're minim. Rather, because they understand "lifnei iveir"
to be about tripping blind people, and therefore do not believe in an
issur in causing others to sin. There is nothing kepping a Shomroni from
selling you treif meat. In fact, the Gemara allows you to eat from his
shechitah if he eats from the same animal, therefore proving that he trusts
the shechitah for himself.

Can someone explain the Rambam?

-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

I suggested that kapparah refered to /k-p-r/ as a separation that keeps
something in, roughly "containment of the animal urges". RRW suggested
it is more related to a separation that keeps something out, closer to
"protection from the punishment".

First, I might point out that this is the machlokes the Gra and RSRH
that I alluded to earlier. The Gra sees kapparah as the greatest of
the three (silach lanu, michal lanu, kapper lanu), because it's about
eradicating the key cause of cheit. RSRH sees it as the least because
it doesn't remove the cheit, "only" the onesh.

Second, RRW (or perhaps a VBM email) connects the word to Noach's teivah,
"vechafata oso". However, since the next words are "mibayis umichutz",
it would seem that /k-p-r/ does no refer to protection or containment
in particular, just the idea of enclusure. No help there. One would also
have to explain whether the kappores was to keep out or keep in.

"Kofer nafsho", a bribe, does better fit the idea of protection from
punishment without mitigating the cause.

Speaking of punishment as effect... I'm still wondering how punishment
could be kept out from someone who did not have a corresponding change
in etzem (back to "ba'asher hu sham"). Li nir'eh keeping punishment
and keeping the cause of sin out are two phrasings of the same idea,
inseparable. Perhaps they are, and the machlokes is only over which
aspect of the activity is captured by the word.

-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

R' Elazar M. Teitz:
> More detail can be found in the biography of my father by my sister,
> Dr. Rivkah Blau, now being published by Ktav, titled "Learn Torah, Live
> Torah, Love Torah; HaRav Teitz, The Quintessential Rabbi. (I couldn't
> resist the opportunity to plug the book.)

I too wished to plug a book by a family member but could not quite figure
a graceful way to do so -- i.e. an avodah hook that would ostensibly
render such mention merely an en passant consequence of the posting's real
focus on some manifestation of avodas hashshem, a particularly difficult
task in the instance considering the nature of the subject matter. But
I was inspired by R Teitz's success at that kind of thing to redouble my
efforts and can now, b"h, report to you that sheila's (cutting edge etc)
tome on certain highly technical aspects of internet messaging security
(you can check it out by searching her name on amazon, or, next month,
browsing shelves in Borders -- BTW be assured it would make a delightful
and certain to be treasured wedding or bar mitzvoh gift, party favor,
coffee table conversation piece,...etc, bulk purchases are particularly
encouraged) which is scheduled for publication in April represents a
new addition to an exclusive group.

Which is secular s'forim which include the classic and inscrutable-to-the-
general readership signature roshei teivos (in hebrew lettering to be
sure) "TVSLBO" = tom v'nishlom shevoch l'eil boreih olom". Now this is a
classic closing line that appears at the end of many published s'forim
-- notably editions of the of the midrosh rabboh and, episodically, in
published medieval and acharonic works -- though I am uncertain of its
original provenance. But as far as I know -- which may not be very much
in this instance -- the first manifestation of such use in a completely
non-jewish context was in the preface to Herbert Goldstein's wondrously
lucid text on classical mechanics published by Addison-Wesley (written
in the 50s -- goldstein was professor at columbia u), which used to
be the standard reference for all first year graduate students. In the
sixties, the mysterious hebrew lettering appeared in another textbook
by walter hauser (boston) who wrote an undergraduate text on the very
same subject. Now that my wife has also used the same formula to close
her preface, I am moved to ask (is that avodah-grist or what? hmm, this
could work for mail-jewish too) are there any other instances or academic
works of whatever secular discipline known to the readership that have
similarly cited this "insiders" formula, or are the two -- now three --
books cited above the only members of this highly exclusive literary club?

Mechy Frankel                       W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com        H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:39:08AM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: RCPS himself provides two answers, the first, highly Ba'aleibattish, one I 
: believe none of us proposed:
: Bittul Chometz (BC) can only take place b'lev, so there is no brocho, 
: as  opposed to Talmud Torah (TT), that, since it can be fulfilled verbally, 
: was susceptible to a takkono to make a brocho - once the takkono was 
: implemted, it extends even to TT b'lev.

I think it's the /reverse/ of an idea found in a number of our answers.
A number of people suggested that BC's problem is that the underlying
mitzvah is /more/ bipo'al than TT.

E.g. from R' Chaim Brown:
> 5) By T"T there is never a ma'aseh mitzva b'poel. By tashbisu one can
> be mekayeim the mitzva with a peula, so the chachamim were not mesakin
> a bracha on a kiyum b'lev (similar to above, but more straighforward
> for those who aren;t Polish : )

> 6) R' Shimon/Telz - by T"T it is the machshava itself which is the
> kiyum. By bittul, the machshava is just a means of causing siluk reshus;
> it is the siluk reshus which is the cause of the kiyum of the mitzva.

Or R' Chaim Markowitz:
>                                                Bittul by hirhur is totally
> b'leiv so no bracha nothing tangible was accomplished. However, torah
> is b'etzem "seichal nivdal" and not a davar gashmi so hirhur b'torah is
> the equivilant to accomplishing something tangible so you make a brachah.

RYGB continued:
: Poilisher Derech (this is for real!): R' Yosef Engel in the Lekach Tov klal 
: 11 attempts to prove that all Birchos ha'Mitzvos, including Birkas 
: ha'Torah, are the same category and geder as Birkas ha'Nehenin...

Of course this assumes that birchas haTorah is a birchas haMitzvah, as
opposed to RCM's teirutz #4 that it's a bichas hashevach and therefore
neither mitzvah has a birchas hamitzvah. And then of course there's
the shitah that the berachah on TT is di'Oraisa.

-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

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


[ 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         ]