Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 085

Friday, August 10 2001

• Re: anvatnut of R. Zechariah b. Avkilus (was Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael and Misc.)
• Re: Vort from Bnei Yissaschar
• Yerushalayim
• Re: Avodah V7 #81
• Re: Avodah V7 #84
• Re: 4 hours; that is, one third of the day
• Taz on shachris
• 4 hours, that is, one third of the day
• Re: Avodah V7 #82
• Parashas zachor
• hilchot waiting-in-line
• Re: Shelled eggs, and peeled garlic/onion left overnight
• Bava Kama
• Re: Three Divrei Torah from the Dor Revi'i
• Re: anvatnut of R. Zechariah b. Avkilus (was Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael and Misc.)
• Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael and sinners
• Re: Parashas zachor
• Re: hilchot waiting-in-line
• Re: Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael and Misc.
• Re: Bava Kama

From: "Rabbi Y.H.Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il>
> 4. On the meaning of the "anvatnut" of R. Zechariah b. Avkilus, Midrash
> Eichah is an later and inferior source as compared to the Talmud....
>                       What does an argument over muktzah have to do with the
> destruction of the Temple? R. Zechariah b. Avkilus declined to decide
> between the opinions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai because he did 
> not see himself as worthy of doing so, and this characteristic
> indecision/modesty in the case of Bar Kamtza led to the churban.

See Chasam Sofer on Gitten (56a) for a intresting pshat on this issue.
Also in Chasam Sofer Al Hatora (R. Stern's edition) end of Voeschanon.

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

The Shaar Yissascher (from the Munkatcher - grandson(?) of from Bnei
Yissaschar) writes that "Chamisha Asar B"av" is the "Gimatriya of Ksiva
Vachasima Tova", and that the minhag is to wish Ksiva Vachasima Tova
from then.

A Ksiva Vachasima Tova
Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

[Also noted by Alan Davidson <perzvi@juno.com>   -mi]

If ein maskirin batim birushalayim, and some say even mitos, lefi she'ena
shelahem, how did those people get those houses in the first place?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Eli Linas <linaseli@netvision.net.il>
>Professor Shipley sent Father a table showing when the sun was 18 degrees
>below the horizon in Boston throughout the year. Since the sun appears to
>make a 360-degree circuit every 24 hours, this 18 degrees correspond to
>1.2 hours or 72 minutes. Although values vary somewhat with season, location,
>etc., they are all within reasonable agreement with the 72 minutes usually 
>attributed to Rabbeinu Tam.

I beg to differ, it doesn't even come close at all in Boston, in any season
of the year.

kol tuv
yosef stern

R' Eli Linas explained about astronomy and twilight: <<< ... When does
the depth of darkness stop changing? Once the sun drops 18 degrees below
the horizon..... Professor Shipley sent Father a table showing when the
sun was 18 degrees below the horizon in Boston throughout the year. Since
the sun appears to make a 360-degree circuit every 24 hours, this 18
degrees correspond to 1.2 hours or 72 minutes. Although values vary
somewhat with season, location, etc., they are all within reasonable
agreement with the 72 minutes usually attributed to Rabbeinu Tam. ... >>>

I find this to be very interesting, but I'd love to see the table which
the Professor had sent. The math is perfect, provided that the
"360-degree circuit" goes straight up and down, i.e., at the equator. At
our latitudes, the sun rises high in the sky, but is never directly
overhead, nor is it directly below us at night. It (appears to) move at
an angle, so it takes longer to reach any given point (such as 18
degrees) above or below the horizon than it would at the equator.

In fact, the Tables of Sunrise Sunset and Twilight, published by the U.S.
Naval Observatory, bear this out. According to them, at the equator, it
really does take between 69 and 75 minutes (depending on the time of
year) for the sun to reach 18 degrees below the horizon. But in
Yerushalayim (31.8 degrees north latitude), it takes between 81 and 99
minutes. In New York (40.7 degrees) it takes between 91 and 126 minutes.
In Boston (42.4 north) it varies between 94 and 136 minutes. The farther
north you go, the longer it takes the sky to get dark.

We tend to think that only the summers of the far Arctic experience the
"24-hour day". And that's true as far as the sun failing to go below the
horizon. But points as far south as a mere 53 degrees north latitude will
find that the sun fails to get 18 degrees below the horizon for the
entire time from May 14 until July 28. This includes the cities of Vilna,
Kovno, Minsk, Grodno and Slutzk. The total darkness described by
Professor Shipley does not occur there for over ten weeks every year.

Akiva Miller

On 8 Aug 01, at 10:39, Eric Simon wrote:
> Another question of mine: does the fact that the Rabbanan hold that
> shacharis is until chatzos (at that Mishna), even though it is not the
> halacha we follow, have any present halachic significance? 

It means that you can daven Shachris until Chatzos, but you will 
not have the reward of Tefilla b'Zmana. 

-- Carl

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

RES> Another question of mine: does the fact that the Rabbanan hold that
> shacharis is until chatzos (at that Mishna), even though it is not the
> halacha we follow, have any present halachic significance? It seems as
> though the Taz (at 89:1) might be alluding to that

The Taz is strictly ruling according to Rabi Yehuda. He mentions Rabanan
for inference purposes as to the limits of R"Y.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
> The halacha (in Rambam, Hilchos Tefilla 3:1; Sh.Ar. 89:1, etc.) is that
> one can daven shacharis "until four hours, that is, one-third of the day."

> The obvious question, to me, is: why the extra phrase? We know that
> 'hours' are proportional hours, right? (After all, this is lifted right
> from the first sentence of the Mishna at Perek Daled at Brachos 26a).

Most know hours are proportional hours but not everyone.

...
> Another question of mine: does the fact that the Rabbanan hold that
> shacharis is until chatzos (at that Mishna), even though it is not the
> halacha we follow, have any present halachic significance? 

Given that many Chassidic Rebbes do daven until Chatzos (the Lubavitcher
Rebbe and his father-in-law would, as does the Munkacs Rebbe), there are
two things to consider.  First, at least in Chabad circles this is
understood to mean one should say Karbonos (in their entirety) before the
first 1/3 of the day, Shemonah Esrei can be said afterwards. 
Additionally, if one begins Pesukei D'Zimrah before a particular zeman
they need not rush to finish Shemonah Esrei on time (there is a similar
logic given that it is customary in most circles to daven Maariv early
Friday evening while finishing Shemonah Esrei and saying vayechulu at the
proper time).  If part of the davenning is at its proper zeman that is
all that matters.  

From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
[del]
> ROY in a famous tshuva against shaitels compiles the opinions of over
> 100 poskim. Approximately three are in favor of shaitels, one completely
> against (ibid) and most ruling that das yehudis requires more than just
> a shaitel. Most of these 100 poskim are chassidishe who allow a hat on
> a shaitel. ROY rules that there is no acceptable minhag, especially by
> Sefardim, to simply wear a shaitel. ROY does not rule that a shaitel is
> nothing min haTorah though he notes that such a shita.

> Therefore, even though ROY summarizes quite clearly in favor of simply
> a tichel/mitpachat, his logic in doing so does not exclude a shaitel
> plus hat.

Here is where there is a mistake.  ROY's shitta of psika is as
follows:

1) Statement of the question and parameters.
2) Opinions plus some level of comments (sometimes no comments at all)
3) Psika l'Halacha.

So, the fact that ROY brings forth other ideas has nothing to do with
ROY's logic regarding the issue, and you cannot learn about his logic
from his quotes. You can only learn about his logic from the final
section where he actually discusses the issue and paskens.

From discussions with ROY in person, he has paskened, time and again,
that a woman can wear any cover (hat or tichele) that covers her hair,
leaving a Tefach on all sides (including the "sideburns" and "bangs" which
he allows) but a sheitel is NOT considered any kind of hair covering --
and it is to be treated as though it is the woman's natural hair, i.e. --
must be covered, not with a token covering, but with a full halachic
covering leaving only a Tefach.

BTW, for anyone who intends to go to Prague, there is a Minyan at the
AlteNeuyShul everymorning at 8:00 throughout the summer.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Parashas zachor is read the Shabbos before Purim.  As a mitzva de'oraisa,
its reading predated Purim.  When was it read then?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[Thread from Areivim]

The following is a brief snippet from a Project Genesis translation of R. 
Tzvi Shpitz's weekly Choshen Mishpat column.

<quote>
Question:
Is it Halachically permitted to cut ahead of others waiting on line?

Answer:
A. It is definitely forbidden! It is an Issur D'Oraysah (a Torah prohibition 
- [as opposed to an Issur D'Rabbanan, a Rabbinic prohibition]) to go ahead 
of others waiting on line. Someone who does so, transgresses the prohibition 
of theft, and is obligated to reimburse the people behind him for the time 
that he stole from them, unless they unanimously agree to forgive him.
</quote>

<http://www.torah.org/advanced/business-halacha/5757/vol1no04.html>

This is in contrast to the article on Shema Yisrael by R. Yitzchok 
Silberstein and R. Tzvi Yabrov.
<http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/oqueue2.htm>

Gil Student

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< And this is unlike the trichinosis connection
to banning pork, as in both cases, Chazal tell us this is medical
legislation. My difficulty is that these aren't the greatest medical
threats in the world. Using current methods, it's hard to show
statistical correlation. If Chazal had advanced medical knowledge and
used it to create these issurim, where's the ban on fats? >>>

May I suggest that certain things are difficult to forbid for technical
reasons. Meat and fat cannot be banned totally, and I don't know how a
partial ban would work. But peeled garlic, or fish with meat, those
things are very simple to legislate.

But, like R' Micha, I have some very basic questions about the nature of
medical legislation in halacha:

When Chazal created issurim for purely medical reasons, why did they
legislate them as independent halachos (or minhagim), rather than cite
them as examples of an already-existing halacha (V'nishmartem M'od
L'nafshoseichem)?

When modern medical opinion conficts with ancient medical opinion, many
poskim offer the simple conclusion that "nature has changed". Is no one
willing to suggest that the ancients were wrong?

These questions presume that Chazal based these issurim on their own
medical observations. But if Chazal actually based these issurim on Torah
MiSinai or some other sort of revelation or tradition (akin to the
definitions of treifos), then the questions go away. Is it possible that
we've been chasing shadows, and that in actual fact these issurim really
are more of a religious nature than of a medical nature?

Akiva Miller

RES>On Bava Kamma 9b-10a...
> It would be more economical to establish
>   ox > fire  && fire > ox
>   fire > pit && pit > fire
> In that case, one would immediately have
>   ox > pit && pit > ox
> by transitivity, without having to go into the details.

> Do you know (or have a theory) as to why this baraita wasn't originally
> composed in the more economical way? ...

The Rishonim ask a similar question. They note the discrepancies between
the reasons given in the Mishna vs the reasons given in the braisa.
The Raavad has an answer, quoted in Shita Mkubetzes and in the Meiri.
The Raavad claims that the braisa is not learning out the sources of the
avos-nezikin like the mishna. Rather the braisa is listing distinctions
(chumros) between the different categories. So, according to the
Raavad, we would not want to use the transitive property to shorten the
braisa. The whole purpose is to list as many as possible distinctions.
Perhaps your question helps lead the Raavad to his conclusion.

Shlomo Goldstein

From the Dor Revi'i website: www.dorrevii.org

Subject: Re:  Dor Revi'i on v'haya eiqev tishm'un

V'haya eiqev tishm'un et ha-mishpatim ha-eileh, v'shamar ha-Sheim 
Eloqekha et ha-brit v'et ha-hesed:  

Now the question is plain:  why, if the Children of Israel observed the laws 
that the Eternal commanded them, would their reward not be complete 
even if the Eternal did not remember in their behalf the covenant that He 
made with their forefathers?  

Our master "distilled his speech like the dew" (Deuteronomy 32:2) and 
explained the verse according to the Rambam (Hilkhot M'lakhim, chapter 
9) who said:  "Everyone who accepts the seven Noahide Laws has a 
portion in the world to come, provided that one accepts and performs 
them because the Holy One Blessed Be He commanded to do so in his 
Torah.  But if one performs those commandments because of his own 
judgment, he is not a ger toshav and is not included among the righteous 
of the nations."  The Keseph Mishnah questions deeply to find out from 
where in the Talmud the Rambam deduced this.  Now consider what our 
Master found in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b-3a) where the verse 
(Habakkuk 3:6): "He looked and shook the nations" (ra'ah va'yater 
goyim) is explained as follows:  "He saw that the nations of the world were 
not observing the seven Noahide laws, so He permitted them."  The 
Gemara concludes that this means even if the Gentiles observe the 
Noahide laws, they receive no reward for doing so.  Now every intelligent 
person must ask:  if the fathers sinned, not wishing to walk in His ways, 
and did not observe the seven Noahide laws, why should the reward of 
the children who uphold those laws conscientiously be withheld?  
"Because the fathers have eaten sour grapes, should the teeth of the 
children be set on edge?"  (Jeremiah 31:29)  The Rambam, in his wisdom, 
therefore found it appropriate to explain that the Gemara meant that by 
"permiting" the seven Noahide laws, the Eternal decided that the Gentiles 
would not be rewarded for observing those laws if they did so because of 
the dictate of their own judgment and reasoning.  Only if they observe 
those laws because the Eternal commanded them to do so will the Eternal 
reward them.  

However, that is not how Eternal conducts Himself with the Children of 
Israel who are sustained by the merit of their ancestors.  For even if they 
observe His statutes and keep His laws only because of the dictate of 
their own reason, should they succeed in finding any reason to observe 
them, the Eternal will not deny them benefit from them but will give them 
their reward in the merit of their ancestors as He promised them.

Now the word "eiqev" (because) denotes a reason or explanation, which 
is why the Scripture writes "v'haya eiqev tishm'un" (and because you will 
hearken).  Thus, even if you will observe these laws because of some 
ulterior motive within you that causes you to observe and to fulfill them, you 
will, nevertheless, still be able to partake of the reward.  And the Scripture 
then explains the reason:  "the L-rd your G-d will keep with you the 
covenant and the steadfast love which he swore to your fathers to keep."  
He therefore chose their descendants.  And their fulfillment of the 
commandments, whatever their intention in doing so, will be significant and 
acceptable to Him.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Dor Revi'i on v'akhalta v'savata u-veirakhta

v'akhalta v'savata u-veirakhta:  The Ramban wrote as follows:
    when you will eat and you will be satisfied in this good land, you 
    will, as a result, bless the Eternal.  However, the tradition of our 
    Sages is that the verse prescribes a positive obligation.  And the 
    meaning is therefore: "you shall bless the L-rd your G-d" 
    (t'vareikh et ha-Sheim Eloqekha) and this is similar to the verse 
    (Deuteronomy 22:8):  "you shall make a parapet for your roof" 
    (v'asita ma'akeh l'gagekha).

And our master says that the comparison between the two verses is not 
accurate, because the latter verse begins "when you build a new house," 
so that it is clear that the remainder of the verse "v'asita ma'akeh 
l'gagekha" (you shall make a parapet for your roof" must be understood as 
an imperative.  But here, the Scripture is providing a narrative of future 
events after the entry into the Promised Land, so there is no necessity to 
understand the verb "u-veirakhta" as an imperative (i.e. t'vareikh) rather 
than as a simple foretelling of the future.  

However our master says that the words of our Sages are "like nails 
fastened" (Ecclesiastes 12:11) in a secure place and they properly proved 
their interpretation, because after this verse, the Scripture says 
(Deuteronomy 8:11-14):  "Take heed lest you forget the L-rd your G-d . . . 
lest when you have eaten and are full . . . then your heart will be lifted up, 
and you forget the L-rd your G-d."  Thus, from the following verses it is 
evident that, by eating and becoming satisfied, one naturally tends to 
forget, not to bless, the Eternal.  So how could the Scripture have 
contradicted itself by first foretelling that, after eating and becoming 
satisfied, the people would be aroused on their own to thank the Eternal 
and immediately thereafter warn that if they become well satisfied they 
should not forget the Eternal?  The Sages therefore properly said that the 
verb "u-veirakhta" (you will bless) must be understood as an imperative, as 
a Divine commandment of the Eternal.

Now the reason that the Scripture did not employ the imperative form 
(t'vareikh) may be attributed to the desire of the Scripture to provide a hint 
for the following saying of the Sages:
    How can I not lift up My countenance to them?  For I wrote in 
    My Torah:  "and you will eat and you will be satisfied and you 
    shall bless the L-rd your G-d."  But they are punctilious and make 
    a blessing after eating only the amount of an olive or an egg.

The Scripture therefore writes "you shall bless" in the narrative form 
"u-veirakhta" to bear witness, as there is nothing for which no hint can be 
found in the Torah, that in the future they will recite the blessing also for a 
quantity of food (equal to an olive or an egg) less than that over which they 
were Biblically obligated to recite a blessing.  In this light, we can explain 
away an objection that might have been raised:  if one is not obligated to 
recite a blessing, then it is a blessing in vain.  However, according to what 
we have said, since the Torah provided a hint for the making a blessing on 
a lesser quantity of food, such a blessing is not a blessing in vain.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re:  Dor Revi'i on v'atah yisrael mah ha-Sheim Eloqekha sho'eil
         mei-imakh

v'atah yisrael mah ha-Sheim Eloqekha sho'eil mei-imakh ki im l'yirah . . .:  

See the Ramban who wrote that this entire passage is connected to the 
end of the next verse which concludes "for your own good" (l'tov lakh).  
But our Sages, as is well known, did not share this interpretation.  And it is 
obscure why, according to the Ramban, if it is all one idea, the Scripture 
splits it into into two verses.  Moreover, why does the second verse begin 
"to keep the commandments" (lishmor mitzvot) instead of "and to keep the 
commandments" (u-lishmor mitzvot)?

It therefore appears to our master that the only reason that the Eternal 
gave us His commandments and his laws, commandments pertaining to 
human beings that are all concerned with the conduct of people made of 
earth was to straighten their ways and to "melt away their dross as with lye" 
(Isaiah 1:25) to bring them closer to the Eternal to worship Him and to 
reverence Him.  "Out of them shall come the cornerstone, out of them the 
tent peg" (Zechariah 10:4) with which to take and elevate these clumps of 
clay so that they should love the Eternal and cling to Him.  And this is the 
very "top stone" (Zechariah 4:7) with which to subdue our sensual nature 
and to cast off its yoke from upon our necks.  And this is what the Scripture 
asks:  "What does the L-rd your G-d require from you, but to fear the L-rd 
your G-d . . . to love Him, to serve the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and 
with all your soul?"  For the desire of the Eternal and His longing when He 
gave us the Torah was that it should purify human beings originated from 
dust and elevate them to serve Him with all their hearts and all their beings.  
And the Scripture says "in all His ways" to teach us that the duty of the 
heart is to remove from within them the heart of stone and to replace it with 
a heart of flesh so that they will travel in the ways of the Eternal.  As the 
Sages said, just as He is merciful, so also should you be merciful; just as He 
is gracious, so too should you be gracious.  These are the ways of the 
Eternal Being.  

And in the second verse, the Scripture is referring to those positive 
commandments that a person must do actively with his own hands, and to 
the negative prohibitions from which one must turn back and stand at a 
distance.  The verse says:  "to keep the commandments and statutes of 
the L-rd, which I command you this day for good," which means that the 
Eternal enlarged and magnified the Torah with commandments governing 
our conduct for our own good in order that we might more easily achieve 
our ultimate goal to reverence the Eternal and to love Him and to become 
complete in our characters and our personalities.  For these positive and 
negative commandments will help you in purifying yourselves and in 
elevating yourselves to be able to reverence and love the Eternal and to 
attain a lofty and exalted character.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:06:37pm EDT, Chaim G Steinmetz
<cgsteinmetz@juno.com> writes:
> See Chasam Sofer on Gitten (56a) for a intresting pshat on this issue.
> Also in Chasam Sofer Al Hatora (R. Stern's edition) end of Voeschanon.

any possibility of a quick summary?

KT&SS
Joel

From: "Rabbi Y.H.Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il>
> ..On the Satmar Rav's conditions for aliyah. Maharam Rottenberg, quoted  in
> Sefer Tashbatz 559, states that sinning in Eretz Yisrael, "the King's
> palace," is worse than sinning abroad, and ...mitzvah of aliyah
> applies only if the person will observe all the mitzvot carefully there,
> while those who are frivolous about observance would do best if they stayed
> away. He cites Yirmiyahu 2:7, "vatavo'u vatitamu et artzi."  However, Yalkut
> Shimoni 1038, ....says the opposite: "the Kadosh
> Baruch Hu declares,  would that My people were in the Land even if they
> profane it (metam'im otah)," citing Yechezkel 36:17. The resolution of the
> apparent contradiction is that Maharam Rottenberg refers to individuals
> while the Midrash is referring to the Jewish people. In Maharam's time only
> a handful of individuals lived there, and his statement applied, but today
> most of those who identify themselves as Jews live in Israel, and the
> Midrash's statement applies.

I, of course, am absolutely no match to RYHH's knowledge and lomdus,
but it seems strange that if its only a few baalei aveira - - it's a no go,
but if it's in big numbers - then it's beseder.
Some new version of Tuma Hutra betsibur?

Also, wouldn't the Maharam mention such a heter?

But, "Im kabolo hi nekabel"...
However I decided to see if the SR himself explains this Yalkut.
And indeed he does so in the VM - Maamar Sholosh Sh'vuos,
[S' 103, p. 114/5] with a completely different pshat, one
which shows that there are no contradictions.

Needless to say that he TOTALLY rejects any similarity to the
pshat offered by our RYHH.

His explanation - which BTW also VERY clearly resolves RMB's concerns
about 'ein tzdik bo'oretz asher yaaseh tov velo yechto' - shows
that the Yalkut is indeed referring to such people [who sometimes may
sin, followed by tshuva - "..avol lo CV al haporshim miHatorah Hakedosho
v'einom klall 'Amoy'..."

He offers a second very interesting pshat as well.

For those who don't have the VM, I can fax the pages if they contact me.

Shlomo B Abeles
mailto:sba@blaze.net.au

In a message dated Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:08:20pm EDT, Gershon Dubin
<gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes:
> Parashas zachor is read the Shabbos before Purim.  As a mitzva de'oraisa,
> its reading predated Purim.  When was it read then?

1st question - why is it only once a year (ein hamet nishtacach always
    struck me as non-compelling) and that the Rambam's position(daily)
    seemed more logical
2nd question - does the mitzva duraita require a kria, if so why?
3rd question-ma nishtana this zchira from all others(5)

Perhaps the answer to your question (lshitatcha) is that it was read as
part of the regular kriat hatora cycle - problem though if they were on
a triennial cycle or a leap year(problem for us too?)

KT & SS & may we hear bsorot tovot meartzenu,
Joel

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> The following is a brief snippet from a Project Genesis translation of R.
> Tzvi Shpitz's weekly Choshen Mishpat column.
...
> This is in contrast to the article on Shema Yisrael by R. Yitzchok
> Silberstein and R. Tzvi Yabrov.

Despite any differences in what they hold one MAY do, they would probably 
all agree that one SHOULD give up one's place in line to a Rosh Yeshiva 
etc... whose time is presumably "worth more" if he could get to the Yeshiva 
a few minues earlier. IIRC, Teshuvot V'Hanhagot (I will BL"N look up the 
Siman over Shabbat) from Rav Sternbuch says one should do this, unless it 
appears as if the Rosh Yeshiva could have sent another member of the family 
but chose to go himself to take advantage .....

How does this reconcile with V'Kidashto for Kohanim ? Are they only first 
L'Dvar Mitzvah ?

Stuart Goldstein

On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 01:24:57PM +0200, Rabbi Y.H.Henkin wrote:
: 1. Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Someone quoted an unnamed sefer as stating
: that most Rishonim agree with the Ramban that Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is a
: mitzvah from the Torah, but see Bnei Banim, vol. 2  no. 42, that most
: Rishonim disagree with the Ramban, and also vol. 3 nos. 30-31....
: they disagree with Rabbeinu Chaim in Tosafot Ketuvot 110b who held that
: there is no mitzvah of aliyah at all today, not even dirabanan (or kiyumit),
: and not that they agree with the Ramban.

There are two questions: 1- whether there is a mitzvah di'Oraisa of
yishuv E"Y; 2- if not, is there a chiyuv di'Oraisa mishum some other
din.

For example, the Radaq holds that kiyum of any mitzvah in chu"l is only
something similar to doing so midin chinuch. In which case, do other
mitzvos di'Oraisa create a chiyuv (or at least kiyum) di'Oraisa in making
aliyah -- even if he were to disagree with the Ramban on yE"Y?

: 2. On the Satmar Rav's conditions for aliyah. Maharam Rottenberg, quoted  in
: Sefer Tashbatz 559, states that sinning in Eretz Yisrael, "the King's
: palace," is worse than sinning abroad, and that the basic mitzvah of aliyah
: applies only if the person will observe all the mitzvot carefully there,
: while those who are frivolous about observance would do best if they stayed
: away. He cites Yirmiyahu 2:7, "vatavo'u vatitamu et artzi."  However, Yalkut
: Shimoni 1038, based on Eichah Rabbah 3:7,  says the opposite: "the Kadosh
: Baruch Hu declares,  would that My people were in the Land even if they
: profane it (metam'im otah)," citing Yechezkel 36:17. The resolution of the
: apparent contradiction is that Maharam Rottenberg refers to individuals
: while the Midrash is referring to the Jewish people. In Maharam's time only
: a handful of individuals lived there, and his statement applied, but today
: most of those who identify themselves as Jews live in Israel, and the
: Midrash's statement applies.

One could also be mechaleik by saying that the yachid runs a risk of being
metamei ha'aretz, but the tzibbur has a net gain. And therefore both are
true even though they imply opposite effects.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Art Werschulz <agw@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
:RES>On Bava Kamma 9b-10a...
:> It would be more economical to establish
:>   ox > fire  && fire > ox
:>   fire > pit && pit > fire
:> In that case, one would immediately have
:>   ox > pit && pit > ox
:> by transitivity, without having to go into the details.

:> Do you know (or have a theory) as to why this baraita wasn't originally
:> composed in the more economical way? ...

On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 12:56:59PM +0300, S. Goldstein wrote:
: The Rishonim ask a similar question...

Until seeing this comment I was going to reply by mooting the question.
Saying that "chamur beshor mibor" and "chamur bebor mishor" shows that
the fact that one din is chamur by one, it does not imply a general kal
vachomer releationship between them. A is more chamur in one axis, B is
more chamur in the other. Had RSG not implied that the Ra'avad doesn't
consider this trivial, I would have simply said that ">" is a poor model
-- and that in itself is the whole point of the conclusion!

BTW, not only is the mishnah often shortened for mnemonic purposed (and
sometimes overly shortened [chasurei mechasrah vihachi ketani]) we do find
cases of redundancy. Where the gemara concludes that the extra words aren't
there to provide a chidush but to continue the language already used, to
keep the rhythm. Sometimes it's the longer quote that's easier to remember.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

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


[ 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         ]