Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 037

Tuesday, May 8 2001

• Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• is olam habah our "goal"
• Re: Ibn Ezra & Shamor V'Zachor
• Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Misc. corrections and comments
• Re: Davening in Biblical vs Mishnaic Hebrew
• Re: Ibn Ezra & Shamor V'Zachor
• Re: Misc. corrections and comments
• : kel erech apaim
• Pesach Sheini
• Re: IDE, IDT & Pesach Sheni
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #8: MC vol. 2 p. 136
• VIDC #9: MC vol. 1 p. 98
• Re: VIDC #9: MC vol. 1 p. 98
• gazing at the moon
• Re: Ten Steps to Greatness
• Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Re: behavior of g'dolim during the Gulf War
• Women and Kabbalat Shabbat
• Re: Dor Revi'i on emor el ha-kohanim
• Re: Pesach Sheini
• Some Pesach Sheini questions

On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:38:56AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: Then how would you explain the story in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 
: 65b) when one of the Amoraim (Rava or Rabba depending on the 
: girsa) created a person? Would you argue that's allegorical? 

I would take a more "agnostic" stance. They were used for allegory. No
one cared if they were historical or not. The historical content is
of no importance, as that's not the point. And therefore stories were
used regardless.

And I would apply the same idea to the medicine mentioned in the gemara.
Chazal weren't interested in recording medical findings. Those that found
their way into the Gemara did so because they are useful meshalim -- not
because anyone is attesting to their effectiveness.

I'd prefer that than being the subject of the adjectives the Rambam uses
to describe people who insist that every aggadic story is literally true.

-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

Carl Sherer wrote:
> Then how would you explain the story in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 65b)
> when one of the Amoraim (Rava or Rabba depending on the girsa) created
> a person? Would you argue that's allegorical?

R. Avraham ben HaRambam did.
     
Gil Student

With regards to the question of how much, if at all we should focus on "olam
haba" I suggest looking at what the Rav zt"l wrote in Ish Hahalacha(p.36 in
the Hebrew Ish Hahalach)as to why the "ish hahalacha" prefers this world to
the next.

> Correction 20:1

correction to the correction. The source I quoted was Ibn Ezra 19:17. The
Ibn Ezra wrote a short and long commentary to Shemos.  Shemos 20:1 is in the
long commentary. My quote Shemos 19:17 was from the short commentary.

>> Even if we attempt to get around this difficulty by saying that G-d
>> improved the sense of hearing to enable the Jews to hear these sounds
>> simultaneous we run into another problem. There is a rule that whoever
>> explains a particular occurrence in the Torah by miraculous events which
>> are not stated in the Torah nor are known by tradition - the explanation
>> can not be true. Even if you find such such comments in the Talmud -

> Lichora Tzarich Iyun, We learn from it Lhalacha that one cannot hear 2 Kolos
> from one source "Mah Shein Ho'ozon Yochol Lishmoa,

The Netziv (commentary to Mechilta) notes that there is a dispute between
the Mechilta and the gemora (Rosh HaShanna 27a) ["But can two distinct
sounds be heard at once? Has it not been taught 'remember' and 'observe'
were spoken in a single utterance, a thing which transcends the capacity
of the human mouth to utter and of the human ear to hear'?] The gemora
asserts that it was miraculous since it is impossible to hear two sounds
simultaneously while the mechilta says only that it was impossible to say
two things simultaneously. The mechilta asserts that only the sound from
G-d was unitary while the people in fact heard two sounds one after the
other as the verse (Tehilim 62) 'G-d spoke once but twice I heard this'
" Thus according to the Netzivs comments - the mechilta agrees with the
Ibn Ezra that there was no miraculous hearing while the gemora disagrees.

> as to what exactly transpired see Ramban Shmos 20:8

The Ramban seems to be largely in agreement with the Ibn Ezra. He
acknowledges that there are significant differences between the text
found in Shemos and Devarim. He acknowledges that 'shamor' was Moshe
Rabbeinu's comment that G-d had also said 'shamor'. He also indicates that
the differences between the two texts - aside from zachor and shamor - do
not relate to meaning so they do not have to be justified. This is totally
consistent with the Ibn Ezra. Thus the only point Ramban seems to disagree
with the Ibn Ezra is whether the meanings of zachor and shamor constitute
minor differences. Ramban arguing that they are the only significant
differences between the two texts because they deal with positive and
negative mitzvos while Ibn Ezra says they are also insignificant.

The Ramban (Shemos 20:8) [R.Chavell translation] " Our Rabbis have said
that they were both spoken with one utterance. The Rabbis were not so
particular as to comment on the other changes of language between the two
tellings. They commented only on the above mentioned change because their
intent is to point out that zachor is positive commandment and shamor
is negative. ... It would not have been proper for Moshe to change G-d's
words from a positive to a negative command - therefore the Rabbis were
careful to point that they were spoken by G-d. However the change in
the 2nd commandment...and all such similar changes in the rest of the
Ten Commandments do not matter for it is all one. This explanation of
why the Rabbis were particular to comment only on the one change will
not be entertained by one who is not used to the ways of the Talmud
[R. Chavell notes "a veiled criticism of Ibn Ezra who continued to raise
difficulties on this saying of the Sages and finally concluded that reason
does not bear out all these words. To this came the retort of Ramban
'this explanation'...] ....But I wonder - if 'remember' and 'observe'
were both said by G-d why were they not both written in the first
Tablets? Only 'remember' was written and Moshe explained to Israel that
'observe' was also said with it. This is indeed the true intent of the
saying of the Rabbis that they were both spoken with one utterance...."

It would seem that that the Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Rashba [and Ohr HaChaim,
Megila 31] had no problem with saying that Moshe wrote a text which was
in part not literal quotes from G-d as long as it didn't change the
meaning and had been approved retroactively. The dispute between Ibn
Ezra and Ramban seems solely as to whether the difference in meaning
between shamor and zachor are major or minor.

It is important to note that Chazal said other things were said
simultaneously - this fact seems to be inconsistent with the Ramban.
Gemora (Shavuos 20b), Mechilta (Yisro), Sifri, Peskita

                                                   Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 5/7/01 9:08:32am EDT, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> Then how would you explain the story in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 
> 65b) when one of the Amoraim (Rava or Rabba depending on the 

Use of Sefer Yetzira as also in the case of Egla Tilsa (which has Halacic
ramifications) does not require the human genome. (Not to say that it
is not to be found in Torah see intersting Tiferes Yisroel on the Mishna
enumirating the 248 Eivorim of a man).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

1. For quite some time I owe a correction to R' Moshe Feldman who caught
me out. I often speak and write while my mind is still in neutral.
But in my comments on LED's and molid ur vs molid ohr (fire vs. light)
I'm afraid I went forward while my mind was in reverse.

In mentioning that molid ohr is considered by R' L"Y Halperin as
mid'rabbanan, I somehow called it a tolada. This made no sense as a
tolada of a d'oraita is also mid'oraita.As he should, R'MFeldman called
me to order..

The wording I should have used in correctly passing on R' Halperin's
statements is that both molid ohr and molid zerem, because they are
similar to issur of tikkun kli, are tikkun d'rabbanan.

2. Sometime ago R' SethM commented on one of my postings (perhaps in
Areivim or Mesorah?) that I quoted sources that showed I had books
that even he did not have. The reply I owe is that one doesn't have to
have the books. All one needs is a secondary source that quotes all the
primary ones. Thus I make the undeserved impression that I have and know
all the ancient sources.

3. A short time ago re: aveilut in sefirat ha'omer and the crusades,
I wrote that Natronai Gaon mentions only not marrying from Pessah
to 'Atzeret, Hai Gaon adds not doing any melakha from sunset until
shaharit. I made comments on the term shaharit and on the lack of any
other simanei "aveilut" at that time and the difficulty in terming as
aveilut not performing melakha.

R' GershonD requested a source and I posted the Otzar Hageonim
328. Someone else, probably our resident encyclopedia of sources RYZ,
posted the KSA 120:10 and MB as sources.

I cannot connect the other sources to the subject. They say that one
should not do melakha from sunset until he counts the 'omer. R' Hai Gaon
says quite clearly "until shaharit". I feel the need to repeat again a
paraphrase of a remark of R' Pin'has Vardi, a talmid chakham and magid
shiur in our community. "Hai Gaon had an excellent command of the Hebrew
language. If he had wanted to say "until counting the 'omer he could
and would have said it very clearly. But, he said "until shacharit',
knew what he was saying, and meant exactly that.

It appears to me that the change in the wording, which results in
indicating something altogether different, was made at a time when the
intent and reasoning behind Hai Gaon's statement had been long forgotten.
True, the modern statement is good advice and parallels the gemara in
Berakhot that tells one to daven ma'ariv immediately lest one eats
a bit,drinks a bit and then falls asleep and remains asleep until
morning. But, it in no way resembles the original statement and is
certainly not what R' Hai Gaon had in mind.

The other teirutz, that R' Akiva's talmidim died at night, also seems
to me quite weak.

But, BT"W, what did R' Hai have in mind?

K"T,
David

R' Seth wrote <<Hazal never mix up the gender of the numerals
(e.g. you will never find sh'mona 'asar b'rakhot, although you will
from Israelis).>>

No, you will not hear sh'mona 'asar b'rakhot from Israelis. You will
hear sh'mona 'esrei. Both the word sh'moneh and the word 'asar have
practically vanished from the language except for CQ's and ancients.

With that comment, I have fulfilled my duty of adding my $0.001 to R'
Seth's excellent remarks.

David

In a message dated 5/7/01 4:25:09pm EDT, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
> The Netziv (commentary to Mechilta) notes that there is a dispute between
> the Mechilta and the gemora (Rosh HaShanna 27a) ...The gemora
> asserts that it was miraculous since it is impossible to hear two sounds
> simultaneously while the mechilta says only that it was impossible to say
> two things simultaneously. The mechilta asserts that only the sound from
> G-d was unitary while the people in fact heard two sounds one after the
> other as the verse (Tehilim 62) 'G-d spoke once but twice I heard this'
> " Thus according to the Netzivs comments - the mechilta agrees with the
> Ibn Ezra that there was no miraculous hearing while the gemora disagrees.

Loi Zachisi Lhovin wouldn't the I"E consider the hearing of things in a 
different order then they were said a Nes in the hearing side too ? 

In any case my point was that the Gemara which is brought down Lhalacha 
maintains that one can hear 2 words at the same time the miracle of Zochor 
Veshomor was that it was said by the same entity, (while IIUC the Ibn Ezra 
says that one cannot hear 2 sounds simultaneously).

>> as to what exactly transpired see Ramban Shmos 20:8

> The Ramban seems to be largely in agreement with the Ibn Ezra...

> The Ramban (Shemos 20:8) [R.Chavell translation] ...
> [R. Chavell notes "a veiled criticism of Ibn Ezra who continued to raise
> difficulties on this saying of the Sages and finally concluded that reason
> does not bear out all these words. To this came the retort of Ramban
> 'this explanation'...] ....But I wonder - if 'remember' and 'observe'
> were both said by G-d why were they not both written in the first
> Tablets? Only 'remember' was written and Moshe explained to Israel that
> 'observe' was also said with it. This is indeed the true intent of the
> saying of the Rabbis that they were both spoken with one utterance...."

According to the Ramban (in my Chumosh) they may have both been in the first 
Tablets! 

IIUC R' Chavel picked up on the main difference between the 2 approachs, and 
not that ..

>   The dispute between Ibn
> Ezra and Ramban seems solely as to whether the difference in meaning
> between shamor and zachor are major or minor.

> It is important to note that Chazal said other things were said
> simultaneously - this fact seems to be inconsistent with the Ramban.
> Gemora (Shavuos 20b), Mechilta (Yisro), Sifri, Peskita

LAN"D it is not a Stira the Ramban was not going to be Kruchla (see Torah 
Temima for list and Pshat).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/7/01 4:39:10pm EDT, dbnet@barak-online.net writes:

> RYZ, posted the KSA 120:10 and MB as sources.

> I cannot connect the other sources to the subject. They say that one
> should not do melakha from sunset until he counts the 'omer. R' Hai Gaon

Luckily I can't take credit for this one :-)

However for the original question of RGD (which I think was specificly
about women), see S"A Horav O"C 493:9 who says that those women who do
not count Efshar that they should refrain from work all night.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
> In the shuls that I go to nevertheless one does not say kel erech
> apayim whenever Tachanun is not said. e.g. on Pesach sheni...
> Is this common practice?

A common error - rather.

SBA

Given: the Pesach Sheini was slaughtered on Iyyar 14.

When was it eaten with matzos and marror - during that day or during the
evening?

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 11:48:18PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: V'ullai yesh makom l'yashev ba'zeh why the minhag is to eat matzo on 14 
: Iyar, not 15 Iyar bo'erev as would properly correspond to the actual event 
: of a Pesach Sheni: the minhag is to memorialize not the "k'zeisa pischa 
: v'hallel poka igra" - which even by Pesach Sheni is the IDE - but the IDT 
: of the hiskarvus implicit in the Hakrovo.

Sometime around last Pesach, I suggested four reasons
for mitzvah matzah (and consequently issur chameitz). (see
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n480.shtml#12>) In historical
order:

1- lechem oni (poverty) -- of life in Mitzrayim itself;
2- the "chok olam" of the night of yetziah;
3- lechem oni, she'onim alav divarim harbei -- which I argue can't be the
   same as a chok, for which there are no answers;
4- "vayei'ofu es habatzik ki lo hichmitz" -- leaving bizrizus.

By having the matzah before the night in which the Pesach would have
been eaten, you are intentionally placing yourself before the ge'ulah.
This eliminates the choices except for #1 - reenacting the eved's matzah
in Mitzrayim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
(973) 916-0287                    result in holding back from others?

On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:08:35AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: The OS himself answers that since a person who is a tereifah is in the 
: category of subject to the rule of law, we must therefore judge his ox 
: according to the rule of law, and that requires the judgement to be 
: rendered before the litigant...
:                    The kattan, however, is not in the category of subject 
: to the rule of law, and the ox is therefore regarded, technically, in this 
: case, as an ox of hefker, and in order to remove its potential danger, may 
: be judged and is judged unilaterally.

: R' Elchonon (KS 2:39) resolves the paradox by quoting a Tosafos in Gittin 
: and saying that a kattan will eventually be b'toras misas beis din, while a 
: tereifah will not.
: RCPS, in a similar vein...

: So, the latter two resolutions necessitate the negation of R' Micha's 
: assertion:
: >OTOH, a katan is fully patur from the death penalty.
: ...In the vein expressed by RGS and RCM...

However, yeish li al mi lismoch -- the OS.

From what I see, the OS's chiluk is based on the idea that the tereifah is
within the set of oneshin, and the katan is not. From there is follows through
differently than I, being more "R' Shimon'dikke" (as RYGB put it) by
explaining why that chiluk has pragmatic differences; I relied on gezeiras
hakasuv.

I do not see the similarity suggested by RYGB:
: RCM's:

: >2) A koton doesn't have real baalus. Therefore, the petur can't carry over 
: >to his shor-it's not really his shor.

: May well be the OS...

This makes the chiluk about ba'alus, not about who is a bar chiyuvah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
(973) 916-0287                    result in holding back from others?

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> This would seem to contradict the Tzemach Tzedek 125 who rules that in
> a safek if a mother is a Bas Kohen or not we do not follow the Rov that
> most women are Bnos Yisroelim, because Ein Holchin b'Mammon Achar
> ha'Rov.

        Maybe I'm missing something. Shouldn't the status of the mother
be a kavua, while that of the baby be halech achar harov?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:34:01PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:         Maybe I'm missing something. Shouldn't the status of the mother
: be a kavua, while that of the baby be halech achar harov?

Good question, and I was tempted to say that was the chiluk. However,
the Tzemach Tzedek uses "ein holchin bemamon achar harov" and not kavu'a.

Why the TT doesn't use kavu'a is still tzarich iyun.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
(973) 916-0287                    result in holding back from others?

I recall that one is not supposed to gaze at the moon (mentioned in
hilchos Kiddush levana IIRC).

Definition of gazing ('histaklus') btw - also nogeia to histaklus beisha
and bikeshes - is staring / gazing with Kavonoh - not just a fleeting
unintended glance.

Anyway, last week I happened to learn of an event by a local astronomy
club (which they stage on occasion - but usually / often conflicts or
is very close to Shabbos) in which they set up telescopes and look up
at the sky, observe celestial bodies, talk astronomy, etc., which was
open to the public.

I took the opportunity of it being on a weeknight event to go down and
'check it out' with a friend. I was curious about it, and also, let us
remember that astronomy is spoken of highly in the gemara.

Being that the event started before 'tzeis hakochavim' (leinyan motzei
Shabbos), at first, the observing was focused on the moon.

Even though I remembered the admonition against gazing / staring at
the moon, I still gazed at it a bit. I thought to myself that licheora,
for scientific purposes it would be mutar.

(Note - those who are thinking that now they understand where my 'lunatic'
[actually scintillating] posts of last week came from should know that
this event took place Thursday night - after my 'controversial' postings
re mental health matters.)

My question is - is this inyan discussed anywhere, e.g. in any Shu"T
(re gazing at the moon in a context of astronomy) and also, what is
the mokor as to why one should not gaze at the moon - anything beyond
'al pi Kabbalah'?


Mordechai

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> Asher Yatzar is actually a sgula for cures from all kinds of
> sicknesses. ... When you say it, think of all the cholim you
> know who are looking for refuos....

Isn't asher yatzar shevach rather than bakasha? How does this relate to H.
Avoda Zara 11:12?

David Riceman

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Then how would you explain the story in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 65b)
> when one of the Amoraim (Rava or Rabba depending on the girsa) created
> a person? Would you argue that's allegorical?

What do you mean by allegorical?
If you mean that it never happened and was just a story - this is unlikely.
OTOH, it does not necessarily mean that the story happened literally either.

Illustration:
Yankee Stadium is called the "House that Ruth Built".
Is that allegorical?  Hardly, after all there IS a Yankee Stadium.

Did Ruth actually Build Yankee Stadium?
Well , it depends what you mean by "Built".  AFAIK he did not take a pick
axe and shovel.  Ruth's prodigious home-run capability - after migrating
from Boston to The Bronx - was "goreim" that Yankee Stadium would be built.

Similarly, if I said that RYBS was the Babe Ruth of Roshei Yeshivos, I would
not be referring to RYBS's ability to hit home-runs, rather I would be
alluding to one of several things:
1) that RYBS drew massive crowds to his public performances - simlar to the
way Ruth drew crowds
or
2) That RYBS became much more famous when he started to leave Boston for
Upper Manhattan! <smile>

So, indeed Ruth Built a Stadium and the Amoraim Created Rava/Rabba. 

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Shlomo Godick wrote on Areivim:
>I was told at the time that it was a machlokes rishonim on the
>nature and extent of hishtadlus (Ramban vs. someone else),  but I
>forgot the details (perhaps a reader can fill them in).

They say in the name of R. Yisrael Salanter that according to the Ramban 
hishtadlus is forbidden and according to the Chovos HaLevavos hishtadlus is 
an obligation.  R. Shlomo Wolbe dissected this in the second volume of his 
Alei Shor and proved that the Ramban does not hold that way.

Joel Rich wrote:
>But isn't the gemora very clear that one should not use up zchusim
>in this manner?

The gemara says that Ya'akov was worried that he might have used up his 
zechusim ("katonti").  The Emunah uVitachon that is attributed to the Ramban 
(in Kisvei HaRamban vol. 2) says that Ya'akov sinned by not having bitachon.

Gil Student

Meir Shinnar wrote on Areivim:
>With regard to women leading kabbalat shabbat.
>While there may be problems (relating to minhag bet haknesset, kavod
>hatzibbur etc) about women leading kabbalat shabbat, there shouldn't a 
>problem of kol isha, at least accordinng with many (? most poskim)

The Gilyonei HaShas on Berachos 24a brings down a Kol Bo that specifically
forbids women reading megillah for men because of kol isha. See also
Sedei Chemed vol. 4 p. 485 that quotes a Divrei Cheifetz who says that it
is only assur to listen to women singing erotic songs. The Sedei Chemed
says that the shitah is not crazy, but we should not follow it. See also
the letter from the Tzits Eliezer in the back of Shmuel Katz's Kedoshim
Tihyu in which the TE says that there is no way to permit a man listening
to a woman sing divrei kedusha and that any sources brought to permit it
(e.g. a Melamed Leho'il and a Chida) are either wrong or misquoted.

Gil Student

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website
www.dorrevii.org
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

Emor el ha-kohanim b'nei Aharon v'amarta aleihem l'nephesh lo yitama 
b'amav:  In the Midrash it is written (Leviticus Rabbah )

R. Tanhum ben R. Hanilai began as follows: "The promises of the L-rd are
promises that are pure" (imrot ha-Sheim imrot t'horot) (Psalms 12:6). And
are the promises of human beings impure? In the normal course of events,
a monarch of flesh and blood may enter into one of his territories, and
all the residents of the territory extol him. If their praise is pleasing
to him, he may say to them: "tomorrow, I shall construct bathhouses and
waterworks in this territory." If he goes to sleep that night, and does
not get up the next morning, what becomes of his promises? But the Holy
One Blessed Be He is not like this, but he is the true G-d, Who is the
living G-d and the eternal King.

Now R. Tanhum properly derived that the promises of the Eternal are pure,
i.e. promises that are true and may be depended upon. The promises are
called pure, because they come from a pure place and a holy source
that is immortal and thus can never become impure. But the promises
of flesh and blood are not pure and may not be trusted, because their
source is a decaying body that must eventually become a dead corpse.
The promises of such a being are therefore impure.

However, it still rests upon us to understand why R. Tanhum expounded
his words here in connection with this verse. And it appears to our
master that he wished to explain why the words "and you shall say"
(emor v'amarta) were repeated twice. The word "b'amav" (among his
people) which the Sages understand as a reference to an abandoned corpse
(meit mitzvah) is also redundant. For according to what we have just
said that the promises made by human beings are impure, one who relies
upon human promises defiles his soul with an impurity more severe than
that which is occasioned by entering a tent in which there is a corpse.
Now if a man actually sees today his friend and colleague with whom he
spoke yesterday face to face being laid to eternal rest, he will draw
the proper lesson that he should not place his trust in princes whose
breath will cease and who will return to dust. But if he does not see
this happen with his own eyes, he will not draw the lesson. And this
is why the wisest of men said (Eccleisastes 7:2): "It is better to go
to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting, for this is the
end of all men, and the living will lay it to heart."

Now the priests who have no portion or share in the land and whose
eyes are directed toward the holy offerings of the Children of Israel,
their tithes and their heave-offerings, to support themselves must be
especially on guard not to place their trust in human beings and not
to be overly regarding of the wealthy. So when the Eternal commands the
priests not to defile themselves by coming into contact with a corpse,
so that they will have no opportunity to see a dead person with their
own eyes and will therefore not be able from their own experience to
draw the lesson that they should not place their confidence in flesh
and blood and not depend on a fragile reed. The priests are therefore
susceptible to an even greater defilement than that of coming into
contact with a corpse, which would be to rely on the promises of flesh and
blood, thereby incurring a loss greater than their gain. The Scripture
therefore repeats the command to speak to the priests (emor v'amarta)
"none of them shall defile himself for the dead" (l'nephesh lo itama).
The priests may not permit themselves to be physically defiled through
contact with any corpse. But beyond this, they must guard their souls from
being defiled "among their people" (b'amav), by placing their trust in
any person still living among their people. And that is why the Midrash
for this poroshah begins here with the holy verse "The promises of the
L-rd are promises that are pure."

David Glasner
glasner@ftc.gov

Why don't we say tachanun at the mincha of the day prior to a non-tachanun
saying day?

KT
Joel

A few questions that were raised over Pesach Sheini:

Can a Niddah eat from a Korban Pesach?
As I believe she cannot, are we to conclude that a significant part of
the Jewish people regularly missed participating in this Mitzvat Aseh
sheyesh bo Karet? (and if she missed the Korban Pesach, it is likely
that she would be in a similar state of Tum'ah at Pesach Sheini, as well)

A colleague suggested that one fulfills the obligation by being "Manuy"
on the Korban, even if one does not eat from it. If so, can someone who
is Tamei fulfill the obligation in such a way, even though they cannot
eat from the Korban? If that is true, why is there a need for Pesach
Sheini at all?

When someone brought a Pesach Sheini, could others who fulfilled their
obligation already join in eating from the Korban?

I look forward to your insights,

Shalom Berger
Alon Shevut

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


[ 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         ]