Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 076

Monday, July 23 2001

• Re: Vsen Tal Umatar
• Re: Vsen Tal Umatar
• Which comes first - truth or peace?
• Aristotle and Olam Haba
• Rambam on Aristotle
• RE: Emes . .
• Emes . . .
• Re: Which comes first - truth or peace?
• Re: Rashbaz on salaries for rabbanim
• Re: perfect prophecy of parents in naming children
• the 24,000 that died in a plague
• Re: Which comes first - truth or peace?
• Rav Schwab on Tefila
• question on tefila
• Re: question on tefila
• RE: Rashbaz on salaries for rabbanim
• Re: perfect prophecy of parents in naming children
• RE: Rashbaz on salaries for rabbanim
• RE: Rashbaz on salaries for rabbanim

At 01:40 PM 7/18/01 -0400, saul guberman wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:06:04 -0700 Eric Simon <erics@radix.net> writes:
>> _My_ big question: why does halacha still apparently use the Julian 
>> calendar?
>The Gregorian calendar came into use somewhere in the 1500's.  The Jewish
>calendar was codified by Rav Nachson Goan in the 1100's. 

"[T]he Jewish calendar being codified" doesn't necessarily mean that the
"Julian date" of the equinox has to get used, does it?  After all, we are
not even _using_ the Jewish calendar for this calculation!

Either say: "the equinox/tekufos Tishri is Sept 22 Gregorian Date" or say
"the equinox/tekufos Tishri is Sept 9 Julian Date", but to say "the
equinox/tekufos Tishri is Sept 22 Julian date" is 13 days off,
astronomically speaking.

Am I making sense?

In other words: it is fine and good that the Jewish calendar was codified
before the Gregorian calendar existed, but sinec we aren't even _using_ a
Jewish date, but rather describing an astronomical event, why are we using
an clearly and obviously incorrect date?

The whole point of this, as described in Taanis, is to dealy praying for
rain for 60 days after the equinox so that those who live in Bavel can get
home from EY after Sukkos.  That we still do this because we follow
minhag/halacha avoseinu is fine by me -- except for the fact that we now
pray for rain 73 days after the equinox.

Isn't there a good argument for making it 60?

-- Eric

On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 01:40:19PM -0400, Saul Guberman answered Eric:
:> _My_ big question: why does halacha still apparently use the Julian 
:> calendar?

: The Gregorian calendar came into use somewhere in the 1500's.  The Jewish
: calendar was codified by Rav Nachson Goan in the 1100's.  

I think this discussion is being conducted under a misapprehension.

When we talk about Tekufas Shemu'el being the same as the Julian calendar
we don't mean that we hold like the old secular calendar. Rather, that
both systems use 365.25 as an approximation of the true number of days
per year. Calling it "Julian" is more convenient than "using a 365-1/4
day 'year'" but in this situation it's misleading.

Any calendar must be an approximation. The ratios between day, month and
year lengths are, as far as we know, irrational. The Gregorian calendar
is a closer approximation, but it's still an approximation. IOW, this is
the same issue as pi = 3 and sqrt(2) = 1.4 -- lehalachah, they're "close
enough". Perfection is impossible, one can always find yet another digit
beyond the decimal point.

We paskened lehalachah that 365.25 is good enough. Therefore we
don't update that approximation just because we have a more accurate
measurement.

FWIW, we don't use tekufas Shemu'el in determining the length of a year.
Our calendar looses about a day every 216 years. The Julian calendar looses
a day in a little over 133 years. If we were really relying on the same
estimate, we'd have a similar error. (The Gregorian calendar, for
comparison, loses a day around every 3,333 years.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                          - R' Binyamin Hecht

>> I don't know whether the Kotzker said this or not (does anyone?),
>
>I also heard it as being a Kotzker vort on the midrash that Emes was
>opposed to the creation of Adam because he would be kulo sheker and
>Shalom was opposed because he would be kulo meriva. The midrash says
>HKB"H threw Emes down; the Kotzker asked why Emes and not Shalom, and
>answered that without Emes, Shalom is no problem.

From Rabbi Menken in Torah.org's "Lifeline" last week:

====
The Medrash Rabba [Genesis 8:5] says in the name of Rabbi Seemon that when
G-d wanted to create man, the attending angels divided into groups to argue
the matter. "Kindness and truth encountered each other; righteousness and
peace kissed each other" [Psalms 85:11]. Kindness said "create him, for he
will perform acts of kindness." Truth said "do not create him, for he is
entirely lies." Righteousness said "create him, for he will do righteous
acts." And Peace said "do not create him, for he is full of argument." What
did G-d do? He took Truth and cast him to the ground.

The Kotzker Rebbe, famed for his sharp comments, asks the following
question: what about Peace? Fine, the majority was now in favor, but
nonetheless is there not a lack of Peace? So he answered: without Truth,
Peace is trivial to achieve.
====

One can learn that truth comes before peace, but can't one also learn from
this that chesed comes before both of them?

-- Eric

I know this topic was discussed a few weeks ago, but due to work and
laziness I didn't get around to typing this up till now. I heard a
shiur on the topic of what is a goy obligated to believe in from Rav
Meir Stern Rosh Yeshiva of Passiac and here is a synopsis of what he said.

Is a goy obligated to believe in the Yichud of HKBH?

1) Emes L'Yaakov Parshas Yisro: A goy has to believe that HKBH is the
ruler of the world but he is not m'chuyav to believe in kadmus. As
defined by Rav Stern this means I goy can believe in "yesh m'yesh" and
does not have to believe everything was created yesh m'ayin. Rav Yaakov
writes that a rayah to this is from a Rav Nisim Gaon in his hakdamah to
shas. Rav Nisim Gaon says the only thing included in the issur of Avodah
Zarah (for a goy) is what is muchrach from one's seichel. Therefore,
Rav Yaakov says we see that Aristotle was not able to figure out that
a concept of kadmus/yesh m'ayin existed. Therefore, a goy does not have
to believe in kadmus.

2) Chazon Ish Y"D 62:20 : The Chazon Ish writes that a ben noach is
muzhar on minus. What is the m'kor? He answers that the m'kor is the
fact that the yesod of the 7 mitzvos are kabbalas malchus shamayim. If
a ben noach doesn't believe in HKBH as king then why should he accept
the 7 mitzvos. Only if you give HKBH the koach of a melech, then one can
talk about being obligated to do what he says. (Rav Stern compared this
to a Ramban in Yisro on the 1st dibra)

What the Chazon Ish doesn't say is if a goy has to believe in kadmus.

3) Dibros Moshe Bava BasraCheleik 1 He'orah 79: Rav Moshe zt"l is even
more extreme. He says that a goy has to believe in HKBH and the torah
as we believe in it-i.e. nothing has changed. Presumably this means
believing in kadmus and everything else we are m'chuyav to believe
in. His rayah is from the sugyah in Bava Basrah 16b. The gemara discusses
the 5 aveiros Eisav did on the day he sold the bechorah. One of them is
"Vayevez Habechorah" Rav Moshe understands this to mean peshuto k'mashmaoh
(not like Tos) . he says that if you are mevazeh something you are in
effect saying you don't need it and you don't believe in it. Bizayon has
elements of Kefirah. So we see that Eisav was punished for not believing
in the torah.

I should just point out that Rav Stern felt Rav Moshe's rayah was not
so muchrach but this is his rayah.

cmarkowitz@scor.com
212-390-5297

I think this did not go through originally:

I'm wondering if it is possible that this question is dependent on
whether the Rambam held that a Gentile only has to believe in the first
five ikkarim (those that have to do with HKBH) or that he has to believe
in all 13 ikkarim (including the ones about nevuah and Torah).

Gil Student

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Actually, I believe he quoted RMF. In either case, I heard from a nephew
> who asked him directly that R' Moshe justified his lax attitude in giving out
> te'odot ishur to aniyim on the grounds that [chesed precedes emes] in the
> 13 Middos.

I don't understand this.  What chesed is there in giving tzedakah to someone
who is not an ani?  In the case of tzedakah, doesn't the emes (of whether or
not he is an ani) directly impact whether or not there is any chesed to be
applied?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Eric Simon wrote:
>2. Shmiras HaLashon requires that we avoid "emes" for the sake
>of others at times, right?

Excellent point! We are permitted to lie for the sake of "shalom."
Evidently, shalom and emes are not identical.

Gil Student

On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 05:05:57PM +0200, Rena wrote:
: Some time ago, there was a discussion on the list about which came first,
: truth or peace...

: from Rav Ya'akov Menken of project Genesis...
:> The Kotzker Rebbe, famed for his sharp comments, asks the following
:> question: what about Peace? Fine, the majority was now in favor, but
:> nonetheless is there not a lack of Peace? So he answered: without Truth,
:> Peace is trivial to achieve.

First, this quote compares shalom to emes, not chesed.

It doesn't directly state which is supposed to be the higher priority.
OT1H, the Kotzker appears to be ridiculing shalom without emes. OTOH,
this is the action of HKBH being discussed -- in the medrash, emes had
to bow out to make way for shalom. So how can the Kotzker ridicule
the decision?

From a transcription of R' Frand's tape, paraphrasing R' Shlomo Breuer:
:                                 ... there is something that comes before
: Peace... and that is Truth. As much as we emphasize the importance of
: Shalom [peace], in the final analysis Shalom is important up to a certain
: point -- and that is the point of Emes [truth]....

This does clearly place emes ahead of shalom. So, the priorities are
(in descending order): chesed, emes, shalom.

R' Dovid Lifshits repeatedly defined shalom not just as a lack of discord
and of violence, but he ties it to sheleimus. Not just unity, but unity
toward the proper purpose. Therefore, li nir'eh, it is in concert with
RSB 's statement that the ideal that define that purpose come first.

One last question, though: given that chesed isn't the same as shalom,
can we assume that gevurah isn't the same as emes? We aren't just calling
"chesed" a personality trait, and "shalom" the ideal it allows. So, can
one just say that "gevurah" is the ability to stand firm with the "emes"?

In which case, where does gevurah fit into all this?

On to more pragmatic concerns...

On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 04:37:46PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> Actually, I believe he quoted RMF. In either case, I heard from a nephew
:> who asked him directly that R' Moshe justified his lax attitude in giving out
:> te'odot ishur to aniyim on the grounds that [chesed precedes emes] in the
:> 13 Middos.

: I don't understand this.  What chesed is there in giving tzedakah to someone
: who is not an ani? ...

We aren't talking about sheker, we're talking about a lack of derishah
vechakirah.

I think the point was that it's better to err on the side of letting
tzedakah reach a number (what number?) of people who don't need it than
to let one ani go without.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Sorry for the delay in getting back on this one.  If I've correctly
understood how this system works, then this discussion better belongs on
"Avodah".  I'll quote the text since it's been over a week:

> Yes, but look at the beginning of that paragraph where the Rashbatz says
> that he circulated his kuntres on this topic among the gedolei hador and
> they said "yashar veyeyasher."  Both from this and from the strength of his
> arguments it is clear that he felt that he was correct and that the Rambam
> was not.  The fact that he was not comfortable doing it is not necessarily
> relevant.  He looked into the sugya, found that it was mutar, and circulated
> his findings among other gedolim (similar to the more recent Seridei Eish)
> who agreed.  In addition to writing, I think, five teshuvos on the matter,
> he also incorporated it (lengthily) into his commentary on Avos which was
> part of his four volume philosophical magnum opus.

>> In short, to say that Rashbaz "vehemently" opposed the Rambam on
>> this is to overstate the case.

> Perhaps.  But his arguments speak much louder than maybe he did.

> On the other hand, saying that he felt it was "bedi`avad" is also
> overstating the case.  It is absolutely clear from his pesakim that he felt
> it was permissible "lehkatehilla."

Actually, a series of seven teshuvot: Tashbaz I:142-148, each dealing
with a specific aspect, which shows how deeply concerned he was about
this question. In 147 he deals specifically with the Rambam. (In Magen
Avot he refers to a "kuntress" on the issue, apparently refering to this
series of teshuvot.)

I accept the correction that I was wrong to use a halakhic term like
bedi'avad, since Rashbaz definately considered this mutar lekhatehilla.

Rashbaz was very deeply troubled, though, by the "super-halakhic" aspect
of this problem, as his life story clearly shows. He returns to this
aspect at the end of his series of teshuvot (I:148). He calls it "tov
ve-yashar" not to take a salary, though he immediately explains why it
may be right to do so anyway. (He also calls it "tov ve-yashar" for the
talmidim to learn a trade - they don't neccessarily fall into the category
of public officials like dayyanim that Rashbaz is writing about, and for
whom he found what he considered to be a definate heter.) His comments,
especially in Magen Avot, show that he tried hard to balance the fact
that posekim/dayyanim taking a salary was a time-honored custom (despite
the Rambam) with his deep personal ambivalence regarding the practice.
It seems to me that this personal ambivalence had it roots in the model
of the Spanish gadol ba-torah, who in general learned an honored trade
and earned his own livelihood.

Seth (Avi) Kadish
Karmiel, Israel

Carl Sherer wrote:
>See Gemara Yoma 83b, Breishis Rabba 37:7, Tanchuma
>Haazinu 7, Sefer Chasidim 460.

I don't see the ra'ayah from Yoma 38b. Bereishis Rabbah is a ra'ayah
fahrkert. Here is a loose translation of that passage that I had tried
to post earlier.

Bereishis Rabbah 37:7 (source for Rashi, Bereishis 10:25)

"Rabbi Yossi said: The Early ones would know their ancestry (yichuseihem)
and would derive a name to reflect the name of the occurence. However, we
do not know our ancestries and derive a name for the name of our fathers.

"Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: The early ones would use Ruach Hakodesh
and would derive a name to reflect the name of the occurence. However, we
do not use Ruach Hakodesh and derive a name for the name of our fathers.

"Rabbi Yossi ben Chalafta said: Eiver was a big prophet who derived to
reflect the name of the occurence."

Gil Student

I've read that there is a mystical tradition that somehow connects the
24,000 that died in the plague surrounding Zimri/Pinchas' actions with the
24,000 students of Akiva who died.

Can anyone elaborate on this?

-- Eric

In a message dated Wed, 18 Jul 2001 3:48:35pm EDT, Eric Simon
<erics@radix.net> writes:
> From Rabbi Menken in Torah.org's "Lifeline" last week:
...
>> The Kotzker Rebbe, famed for his sharp comments, asks the following
>> question: what about Peace? Fine, the majority was now in favor, but
>> nonetheless is there not a lack of Peace? So he answered: without Truth,
>> Peace is trivial to achieve.

> One can learn that truth comes before peace, but can't one also learn from
> this that chesed comes before both of them?

In his dvrei zikaron for R'YBS, R Twersky IIRC dealt with this medrash,
he felt the "catuv hashlishi" was "or zarua latzadik ulyishrei lev simcha"
which IIRC (I'm out of town w/o sfarim) Rashi in taanit explains that
being a yashar is a higher level than tzadik. R' Twersky connected this
to the netziv on why sefer breishit is called sefer hayesharim - that the
avot modeled this yashrut- being totally immersed in torah and defending
the proper derech while being concerned about and treating in a dignified
manner all those around them, even nonJewish rshaim(eg sdom). All this
without ever compromising emet. He felt R' YBS exemplified this mida -
may we all be zoche, especially at this time of year, to imitato dei on
this mida as well and in the zchut of this may this be the last "three
weeks" we commemerate as a time of sadness.

KT
Joel

Rav Schwab explains the phrase "male'ah ha'aretz kinyanecha" as follows:

A kinyan is a way of demonstrating ownership in something.  Kinyan
chazaka for karka comes immediately to mind, but hagba'ah,  meshicha, 
etc. are also ways of showing that something belongs to you.

He explains the above phrase,  therefore, that the world is full of
examples whereby HKB"H shows his ownership of
the world.

He tells a story of how when he was first in an airplane that flew above
the clouds,  he davened (in a private room,  BTW,  vehamaskil yavin)
birchas yotzer with more kavana than he had ever had in his life,  while
gazing out on the amazing view of the world from that vantage point.

When he came back and told Rav Breuer of this experience,  Rav Breuer
remarked with a smile "I get the same feeling from looking at a daisy".

He also quotes Rav Yerucham in this context, that we make a beracha
"shekocho ugevuraso malei olom" upon hearing an earsplitting, startling
thunder clap.  Rav Yerucham said that we should get the same feeling of
being overwhelmed upon making a shehakol on a glass of water.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

We find that Chazal were careful that each beracha contain only one
theme.  Therefore,  they asked such questions as why we mention gevuros
geshamim in techiyas hameisim,  why we say havdala in chonen hada'as,
etc.

It occurred to me to ask (after how many times saying it??) why in
birchas avos we say,  after zocheir chasdei avos,  >>umeivi go'el livnei
veneihem<<. 

How does this phrase fit into birchas avos?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 02:11:14PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: It occurred to me to ask (after how many times saying it??) why in
: birchas avos we say,  after zocheir chasdei avos,  >>umeivi go'el livnei
: veneihem<<. 
: How does this phrase fit into birchas avos?

The Gra makes birchas Avos out to be an elaboration of "haKel haGadol
haGibbor vehaNorah", which he takes to be a list of four nouns (the
latter three could be adjectives or "the Great One, the Mighty One,
the Awesome One").

To see how this answers the question, see Appendix A of "Ashirah
Lashem" (<http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml>). <grin>

In short, there is no "haNorah" without "meivi go'el".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       "The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust, and not be afraid" (Isa 12:2). -Shalhevesya

From: Seth & Sheri Kadish [mailto:skadish@attglobal.net]
> Rashbaz was very deeply troubled, though, by the "super-halakhic" aspect
> of this problem, as his life story clearly shows. He returns to this
> aspect at the end of his series of teshuvot (I:148). He calls it "tov
> ve-yashar" not to take a salary, though he immediately explains why it
> may be right to do so anyway....                          His comments,
> especially in Magen Avot, show that he tried hard to balance the fact
> that posekim/dayyanim taking a salary was a time-honored custom (despite
> the Rambam) with his deep personal ambivalence regarding the practice....

This discussion IIRC arose in connection to supporting learning by kollel
yungeleit who are not on their way to become rabbonim or mechanchim.  From
Seth's comment WRT talmidim, it would seem that Rashbaz would be against
supporting such yungeleit.  Is this conclusion directly supported by the
Rashbaz' words, or just an extrapolation from the fact that Rashbaz is
defending the custom of the time, which was just to support public
officials?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 18 Jul 2001, at 18:27, Gil Student wrote:
> Carl Sherer wrote:
>> See Gemara Yoma 83b, Breishis Rabba 37:7, Tanchuma
>> Haazinu 7, Sefer Chasidim 460.

> I don't see the ra'ayah from Yoma 38b. 

That should be 83b. The Gemara about the innkeeper with the 
name that indicated a propensity to steal (I'm in the office with no 
sforim...).

-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459

From: Feldman, Mark [mailto:MFeldman@CM-P.COM]
> This discussion IIRC arose in connection to supporting learning by kollel
> yungeleit who are not on their way to become rabbonim or mechanchim.  From
> Seth's comment WRT talmidim, it would seem that Rashbaz would be against
> supporting such yungeleit.  Is this conclusion directly supported by the
> Rashbaz' words, or just an extrapolation from the fact that Rashbaz is
> defending the custom of the time, which was just to support public
> officials?

Here is the whole quote, which appears *after* Rashbaz says that the
community is obligated to support "parnasim" (which in this context means
rabbinic leaders who are dayyanim and posekim), as well as those who are
still studying in order to serve in such a capacity later, and to provide an
appropriate physical place for Torah study:

Ve-efshar lomar, she-ha-chakhamim ha-memunim parnasim al ha-tzibbur, afilu
efshar la-hem la`asot melakhah, ein la-hem la`asok bi-melakhah ba-dorot
halalu she-nitma`atu benei aliya, ve-otam mu`atim im ya`asku bi-melakhah
bifnei amei ha'aretz yizdalzelu bifneihem...

*Aval ha-talmidim,* ha-tov veha-yashar la-hem she-ya`asku ba-Torah lishmah,
lo al menat she-yikare'u chakhamim, ve-sof ha-kavod lavo.  Ve-yilmedu gam
ken umanut, veshe-ya`asu toratan keva u-melakhtan ara'i, uva-zeh tihyeh
toratan mishtameret u-melakhtan mitbarekhet..."


Shabbat Shalom,
Seth

From: 'Seth & Sheri Kadish' [mailto:skadish@attglobal.net]
> Ve-efshar lomar, she-ha-chakhamim ha-memunim parnasim al ha-tzibbur, afilu
> efshar la-hem la`asot melakhah, ein la-hem la`asok bi-melakhah ba-dorot
> halalu she-nitma`atu benei aliya, ve-otam mu`atim im ya`asku bi-melakhah
> bifnei amei ha'aretz yizdalzelu bifneihem...

> *Aval ha-talmidim,* ha-tov veha-yashar la-hem she-ya`asku ba-Torah lishmah,
> lo al menat she-yikare'u chakhamim, ve-sof ha-kavod lavo.  
> Ve-yilmedu gam ken umanut, veshe-ya`asu toratan keva u-melakhtan ara'i, 
> uva-zeh tihyeh toratan mishtameret u-melakhtan mitbarekhet..."

Couldn't one argue that (1) this is a preference ("hat-tov veha'yashar")
rather than actual halacha, or (2) the same reasoning that applied in those
times to rabbanim should apply today (the "dor yasom" after WWII) to regular
kollel yungeleit since "she-nitma`atu benei aliya"?

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         ]