Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 038

Thursday, May 10 2001

• Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Re: behavior of g'dolim during the Gulf War
• Re: VIDC #9: MC vol. 1 p. 98
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #8: MC vol. 2 p. 136
• Re: IDE, IDT & Pesach Sheni
• Re: behavior of g'dolim during the Gulf War
• Lubavitch and the State of Israel
• Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• RE: Lubavitch and the State of Israel
• RE: Lubavitch and the State of Israel
• pesach sheni
• Kol Bo & Women and Kabbalat Shabbat
• shamor ve-zachor
• RE: kel erech apaim
• RE: gazing at the moon
• Making 3 Shidduchim
• Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Headcovering In The Time Of The Gemara
• RE: pesach sheni
• RE: pesach sheni
• Re: Some Pesach Sheini questions
• origins of 2 Seder customs
• Re: Some Pesach Sheini questions
• Re: gazing at the moon
• Re: Making 3 Shidduchim
• shir shel yom
• Re: shamor ve-zachor
• Lubavitch and the State of Israel
• Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• Re: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• Re: Lubavitch and the State of Israel

Regarding the gemara in Sanhedrin 65b re: Rava using the Sefer Yetzira
to create a human being, the Margaliyot haYam indicates that this *body*
didn't have nishmat chayim [speaking ability] and wasn't really alive.

Josh

In a message dated 05/08/2001 5:54:21pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> 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.
 
See the story of R' Chananiah and the golden chair leg - taanit IIRC 24 or 25

KT
Joel

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?

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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. 

The mother was poreish when she was born, no?

On Sun, 6 May 2001 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps 1) Tos. obviously disagrees. 2) from "Ach" we learn that we do
> apply the rule of EHbMAH by a Mitzvah (Al Kol Ponim Pidyon Haben).

Ah, but why not? The Haflo'oh does say such a chiddush (#2) - obber fahr
voss?

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

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Micha Berger wrote:
> I do not see the similarity suggested by RYGB [between RCM's chluk
> and the OS]:

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

RYGB:
>: May well be the OS... 

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

I stand corrected. My hasty parallel was more in terms of the hafko'oh
coming between the kotton and the shor.

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

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.

Well, that would mean that because we are in galus we re-enact avdus on 14
Iyar?

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

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:47:20PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
:> The gemara says that Ya'akov was worried that he might have used up his 
:> zechusim ("katonti")....

: See the story of R' Chananiah and the golden chair leg - taanit IIRC 24 or 25

25a, but the inyan starts on the previous amud.

See the Maharal on it. The three legs of the table are Torah, Avodah and
Gema"Ch. Since R' Chaninah ben Dosa was so poor (no flour for challah,
living on carob, couldn't afford to waste the vinegar in his Shabbos
lamp, etc...) he and his wife were patur from much of chessed. Now that
he had his wealth, they had to earn the third leg of their table --
what they did until now wasn't sufficient.

Unless you want to say that this is what "using up zechuyos" means.

It depends whether you see zechus as an commodity that can be counted,
or a personal status, the cause of sechar.

-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?

To again bring the level of discourse to the higher plane of Avodah,
the quote that R' Eric Simon cited from Chabad of South Bay (is that
the correct source?) is somewhat surprising. Official Chabad doctrine,
harking back to the Rebbe Rashab, is that Chabad is more anti-Zionist
than Satmar, it is just that: a) they see no reason to publicize that
stance; b) they are committed to the security of the people and land
while possessing a strong aversion and antipathy to the State.

I am, therefore, surprised at the iteration of a more accepting
philosophy of the State. I am cc'ing this message to my family group,
which includes several very knowledgable Lubavitch uncles and cousins,
perhaps one will respond.

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

The question of what factual knowledge is contained in torah she'be'al
peh has long been a point of contention between the rationalist and
pietistic schools of thought. The pietists had gained the upper hand
since the late middle ages, but the controversy has resumed in modern
times. It seems to me that the pietistic or traditional school of thought
must be able to show how scientific facts and mathematical relationships
can be obtained from torah she'be'al peh (or be'chetav), if they are to
have credibility in the intellectual realm. Just to posit such knowledge
on the part of some leading talmidei chachamim - without any evidence,
is simply not adequate. Why should we have to accept such assertions as
simply a matter of belief, particularly, when these chachamim have not
made such claims of knowledge for themselves?

Moreover, the halachic literature contains more than a few instances of
error in matters of physical fact. There is no such thing in reality as
the spontaneous generation of complex living forms. Nor does the sun heat
up the underground water sources at night. Nor can an animal live without
a heart. It can live, however, without one kidney, or if superficially
wounded by a predator. Such errors may not have a practical effect on
halacha, but they do call into question the assertion made that chazal
were privy to all the secrets of nature.

Yitzchok Zlochower

The "quote" was from R' Harry.

And certainly goes against *everything* I've heard from Lubavitchers
here in E.Y.

Akiva

At 07:42 AM 5/9/01 +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>The "quote" was from R' Harry.
>And certainly goes against *everything* I've heard from Lubavitchers here in
>E.Y.

No, I have seen the passages of the Rashab inside and heard this position 
b'al peh from several very knowledgeable Chassidim.

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

With regards to Richard Wolpoe's question- the Pesach sheni was eaten
at night. See the Rambam Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:3.

Just out of interest:
> The Gilyonei HaShas on Berachos 24a brings down a Kol Bo that
> specifically forbids women reading megillah for men because of kol
> isha.

One of my rabbonim once mentioned that the Kol Bo's author's real name is
unknown, but analysis of some of the expressions would tend to suggest a
female writer which would thus justify the anonymity!

Daniel

Daniel Eidensohn:
> 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

I assumed that "be-dibbur echad" did not mean all these things were
sais simultaneously but rather as a halachic statement that the various
items are really two sides of the same coin rather than being separate
dinim.

Eli Turkel

> According to the various siddurim I have looked at one does not recite
> kel erech apayim (right before taking out the Torah) on the same days
> one does not say lamnatzeach...

> 1. 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 we
> skipped tachanun and kel erech apayim and did say lamnatzeach.
> Is this common practice?

Yes, I have noticed that many/most people omit kel erech apayim whenever
tachanun is omitted (but I have never seen it "officially" omitted by
the chazan/shul). I believe that people omit it only due to ignorance
and nothing more. I know of one rav who b'davka says kel erech apayim
out loud on days when tachanun is omitted so as to let the olam know
that they should say it. (Why he can't just make an announcement I don't
really know....)

KT
Aryeh
aryehstein@yahoo.com

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

IIRC (sorry, I have no sources and I could be wrong about this), the
"prohibition" to gaze at the moon only applies during kiddish levana, when
it would look like one was davening to the moon.  At other times, it would
be OK.  

KT
Aryeh
aryehstein@yahoo.com

After checking archives and searching over the net, I see there is no
answer to this question... is it just a "women's saying" or is there
an actual citable source to the statement that "a person who makes 3
shidduchim gets a chelek in olam haba"?

HG Schild
hgschild@hotmail.com

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

This is perhaps another illustration of how reducing an Oral Tradition
to text helped to make it less understood.

Those aggados that were meant as "Meshalim" or a bit of hyperbole were
probably said with facial expressions (e.g. a wink) or body language that
made it understood not to be taken literally. When committed to paper
they did not have emotions <sigh> that help to punctuate the feelings
associated with the text.

OTOH, leaving off these details allowed for a chance to re-interpret
them later on, and may have provided a higher level of flexibly.

Illustration:
Kayin exclaims "gadol avoni minso"
This has been interpreted as an exclamation "GADOL AVONI MINSO!"
and as an interrogative: "gadfly avionic manse??"

Certainly if we had a tape recording of Kayin's voice the original
intention would be self explanatory. OTOH, leaving that out leaves room
for pertain to find different meanings.

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

Mordechai (Phyllostac) noted on Areivim that R. Berel Wein had written
that in the time of the gemara they wore yarmulkas (or an equivalent)
under a sudar.

The Malbim in his Artzos HaChaim to Shulchan Aruch 8 EY 4 goes through
just about every relevant gemara and concludes that in the time of the
gemara most people went bareheaded and only talmidei chachamim or those
in their presence covered their heads. See also the Malbim in siman 2 HL
43 where he quotes the Shu"t Maharshal 72 and Shu"t Tashbetz 549 among
other sources.

Gil Student

From: fish [mailto:fish9999@012.net.il]
> With regards to Richard Wolpoe's question- the Pesach sheni 
> was eaten at  night.   See the Rambam Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:3.

Which helps to explain
1) Eating Matzah the night after Pesach Sheini
2) That some siddurim omit Tachanun for TWO days of Pesach Sheini

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

From: fish [mailto:fish9999@012.net.il]
> With regards to Richard Wolpoe's question- the Pesach sheni was eaten at
> night.   See the Rambam Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:3.

Richard Wolpoe <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>:
> Which helps to explain
> 1) Eating Matzah the night after Pesach Sheini
> 2) That some siddurim omit Tachanun for TWO days of Pesach Sheini

Richard,

Your second premise concerning 2 days of Tachnun omission flies in the face
of the great Posek of our generation - Reb Artscroll.

In his classic siddur, Yitschak Yair, Reb Artscroll notes that in some
congregations tachnun is omitted on Pesach Sheni and in Chuts L'aaretz also
on the fifteenth of Iyar.(Pesach Sheni Sheni Shel Galyous - Hagaos Menachem
Moshe d'IBI).

Menachem

R. Shalom Berger wrote:
> Can a Niddah eat from a Korban Pesach?

Lichora not, because the whole din that someone tameh cannot eat from
a korban is learned from a nidah in parshas Tazria ("bechol kodesh
lo siga").

> 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? 

As did people who did not own land in Eretz Yisrael. And someone tameh
lemes such as an avel, a doctor, and a member of the chevra kadisha.
And a woman who gave birth to a girl within a month before Pesach or a
boy on Erev Pesach. Ones, rachmana patreih.

> (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)

Regardless, a woman is not chayeves in Pesach Sheini. See Pesachim 91b,
Rambam hilchos korban pesach 5:8.

> A colleague suggested that one fulfills the obligation by being "Manuy" on
> the Korban, even if one does not eat from it. 

Only someone who is fit to eat the person can be "manuy" on the korban
pesach. See Rambam hilchos korban pesach 2:2.

Gil Student

Now that even Pesach Sheni is past us, I'm curious if any others have
heard of the following 2 Seder customs, which I have seen:
1. Standing for the bracha "Go'al Yisroel" at the end of Maggid (I heard
this minhag originated with Hasidim in the Carpathian region - any 
confirmation of this?)
2. Eating "koreich" for afikoman (i.e. eating the matzo with maror)
Kol tuv- Herschel (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

R. Shalom Berger wrote:
>> Can a Niddah eat from a Korban Pesach?

On 9 May 2001, at 9:22, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> Lichora not, because the whole din that someone tameh cannot eat from
> a korban is learned from a nidah in parshas Tazria ("bechol kodesh
> lo siga").

But by Korban Pesach the psukim speak specifically of "tamei *la'nefesh*"
which I would understand to be tumas meis. OTOH, I know someone with
tumas sheretz could not eat from the Korban, but I'm not sure he'd be
chayav in Pesach Sheini. Maybe if you have a tuma other than tumas meis
you can't eat from the korban but you don't have to bring Pesach Sheini
(said with no sforim available :-).

> Only someone who is fit to eat the person can be "manuy" on the korban
> pesach. See Rambam hilchos korban pesach 2:2.

IIRC though one only has to be manuy (and fit to eat) at the time of
the Shchita. If he subsequently became tamei, he would not have to bring
Pesach Sheini.

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

From:  aes@ll-f.com (Stein, Aryeh E.)
> IIRC (sorry, I have no sources and I could be wrong about this), the
> "prohibition" to gaze at the moon only applies during kiddish levana, when
> it would look like one was davening to the moon.  At other times, it would
> be OK.  

I looked up hilchos kiddush levana and the fear of appearing to bow to
the levana (similar to what R. Aryeh mentioned) is brought in MB 14 on
SA OC 426 : 2.

However, mentioned separately just before that, in MB # 13, appears
what seems to be a separate inyan of not gazing at the moon, for which
a reason is not given in the MB. I guess my query is prompted by that
Mishna Berura, rather than the former, where the reason seems clear,
as R. Aryeh pointed out.

Mordechai

On 9 May 2001, at 9:20, Howard Schild wrote:
> After checking archives and searching over the net, I see there is no
> answer to this question... is it just a "women's saying" or is there
> an actual citable source to the statement that "a person who makes 3
> shidduchim gets a chelek in olam haba"?

I understood it was three shiduchim in a year. Our shadchan (Adina's
former roommate and the sister of one of my oldest friends) did that
the year she fixed us up.

-- 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.

From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
> What is the reason for the differences between sefard and ashkenaz as
> to whether alenu or shir shel yom is the last prayer in schacharit.
> Interestingly, in the main shul in Berlin which davens ashkenaz they
> switch the order at the end and use the sefard order from ashrei on
> (no idea if this is post war or an older custom).

Siddur Eizor Eliyohu (Yerusholayim 5760) in notes on / under shir shel yom 
states that shir shel yom does not appear in early Ashkenaz siddurim, but the 
Ram"a says to say it and it appears in the (presumably early) siddurim of the 
Sepharadim. This seems to indicate that it was first accepted by the 
Sepharadim and only later by the Ashkenazim. 

Perhaps that has something to do with the matter - and also the time when 
aleinu was accepted by these respective communities as a daily recitation at 
the end of tefillah (perhaps at different times), in addition to it's 
original (ikar) role in musaf of Rosh Hashanah.

Mordechai

Daniel Eidensohn:
>> 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

Eli Turkel:
> I assumed that "be-dibbur echad" did not mean all these things were
> sais simultaneously but rather as a halachic statement that the various
> items are really two sides of the same coin rather than being separate
> dinim.

You are expressing the opinion of the Ibn Ezra. The Ramban specifically
says that shamor v'zachor - and not the other changes - were described
as dibbur echad because they are inherently not interchangeable. The
Maharal (Devarim 5:12) and the Mizrachi note the problem with the
Ramban's explanation. (Prof Ezra Melamed's translation) "....thus the
question remains. Why should this discrepancy between "Remember" and
"Observe" be treated differently from other discrepancies such as 'for
in six days G-d ' ..vs 'you were a slave in Egypt?' Why did the Sages
not say in this connection as well that the two different reasons were
spoken in one utterance? It seems however and this is the real point,
that they only drew this inference when the essence of the Commandment
was involved. Certainly, anything in the Decalogue in Deuteronomy which
simply offers an alternative reason, or an additional explanation,
is no cause for question. Clearly, Deuteronomy has the purpose of
adding clarification, but when all is said and done the essence of the
Commandment remains unchanged..." See R. Hartman's notes to the Gur Aryeh.

There is obviously a lot more to the issue. Especially since the Mechilta
also says that the entire 10 commandments were said bedibbur echad. "It
simply teaches that G-d after having spoken all the Ten Commandments in
one utterance then went back to the beginning and repeated them one at
a time." the Netziv says that only Moshe Rabbeinu actually heard both
versions and in Devarim he communicated the additional information that
had been said at Sinai. Rav Sadiya Gaon asserts that both versions were
written on the Luchos one version on each of the two tablets.

                            Daniel Eidensohn

From my cousin, a Rosh Yeshiva in one of the Lubavitcher Yeshivos, and a 
Talmid Chochom of considerable stature:

>Correct. I have myself heard the Rebbe ZTL many times speak out against
>the whole concept of aschalta degeula in the sharpest terms etc.
>On the other hand the Rebbe also was totaly involved with the security of
>EY, against giving anything back, while stressing that it was ONLY a
>Pekuach Nefesh issue, not a zionist issue. All this we heard countless
>times over the years.

>This was also the basis of his invovment with EY issues (in addition to
>Yiddishkeit issues). [Chabad would never field a list or join the gov't
>on halachik grounds IIUC].

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

From: Yitzchok Willroth <willroth@jersey.net>, on Areivim:
> As for tuition, you might have a point, but it depends on one's ma'aser
> cheshbon. Since tuition is not a ma'aser eligible expense unless
> you've asked the school for a breakdown of the true cost of education
> vs the amount of full tuition used to offset tuition adjustment of
> other students, and are counting that portion as ma'aser, eliminating
> tuition adjustment doesn't have an impact on what is available for
> other causes. This entire approach is a bit of a tzarich iyun anyway,
> as even full tuition isn't the total cost of running the school divided
> by the number of students - it's actually far less, as outside donations
> also counterbalance tuition adjustments (as do government grants and
> subsidies, etc...).

Is it clear that the cost of educating one's children doesn't count towards
maaser?  At what point (eg Bar Mitzvah) is a father deemed to have fulfilled
the basic mitzvah of V'shinantam l'vanecha for a son, so that subsequent
payments count as maaser money?  What about for a daughter, for whom a
father has no formal chiyuv of teaching Torah?  I seem to recall that (in a
related matter) some hold that when a child is over a certain (young) age a
father has no chiyuv to support his children, so all expenditures count as
maaser.  Can anyone elaborate?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:39:44PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Is it clear that the cost of educating one's children doesn't count towards
: maaser?

I once again must ask -- is it so clear that ma'aser is a halachah,
and not "merely" a minhag yafeh? (R' Frand concludes the latter.) If "only"
a minhag, is it meaningful to kler such detailed she'eilos?

-mi

On 9 May 2001, at 20:11, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M quoted:
>> Correct. I have myself heard the Rebbe ZTL many times speak out against
>> the whole concept of aschalta degeula in the sharpest terms etc.

Does this go so far as to claim that Chabad accepts the three 
shvuos as still being in force today? Or is their problem with the 
depiction of the State as aschalta d'geula and maybe also with it's 
secular basis? 

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

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


[ 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         ]