Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 060

Wednesday, November 28 2001

• Re: Ikkarim as Halakha?
• Re: techelet
• chabad customs
• [none]
• destroying property
• Destroying a cheftza shel issur
• Chazon Ish on Nature
• Re: Rambam on nature of G-d
• Re: Chazon Ish on Nature
• Re: Not in Heaven: R' Eliezer Berkovits
• FW: Rav Berkovits
• Dor Revi'i and the siddur
• ikkarim and halacha
• Re: ikkarim and halacha
• Breaking Glass Under Chupah
• Re: z"l and zt"l
• RE: zaddik
• zaddik
• Protest-boundaries , halacha and when not to protest
• Protest-boundaries , halacha and when not to protest
• Re: Not in Heaven: R' Eliezer Berkovits
• Re: Rabbi Dr. Bekowitz
• zaddik
• Re: gerut

On Sunday 25 November 2001 23:50, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> Regrdless of how literal the Rambam MEANT his ikkarim, they were not
> accepted at face value BUT they wer accepted.

Rabeisai, I believe that this statement by our eminent oveid, RRW,
makes further discussion of the topic questionable, as it seems that one
leading ikkarim-as-halakhah proponent states that even as the ikkarim
are halakhah, zei meinen nisht (nit for Litvakken) vos ihr meint az
zei meinen.

May be the gap between ikkarim as halakhah and ikkarim not as halakhah
is nonexistent after all.

Methinks, though, that Rambam would be (is) quite horrified by such a
change of meaning of his ideas, although that IS BESIDE the point. <smile>

Arie Folger

Let me clarify a few points.

1. Since there is not really a halachic process for dyeing techeiles,
it would seem to me that a process that starts with dam chilazon
(assuming the right species is used) and ends up with a colorfast blue
dye may very well be kosher, regardless of whether it was the original,
ancient process. Thus, if Radzyn is right about the cuttlefish, then
their process may be kosher even if not the original process. The key
issue would be the role of ingredients other than the cuttlefish ink.
Tosafos does suggest that perhaps techeiles refers to the dye mixture
of dam chilazon and the sammanim. Rashi said the sammanim are just for
dyeing aids (e.g. mordant).
 Since Tosafos does not go with this answer, I believe the clear
implication is that the other chemicals could have an important role.
The Gaon Shmuel bar CHofni writes "the information has come down to
us that it (techeiles) was dyed with the blood of a aquine (marine)
animal called chilazon mixed with another (substance)" -translation
from Rabbi Herzog. If the other substance was just a mordant I don't
think this statement would have been needed given the use of sammanim
in the gemara. As for Rambam, since he says the dam chilazon is black
like ink, yet holds that techeiles is blue, he certainly seems to hold
that the process changes the color. So, Radzyn has a lot to go on here.
In truth, the question can be asked in reverse "what source is there to
say that the dye color must come exclusively from the dam chilazon and
not the mixture". Seems to me that the argument against other ingredients
playing a role is one of intellectual aesthetics - it certainly is more
satisfying to think the color comes exclusively from the chilazon.

2. As for uniqueness of dam chilazon. If sepia officinalis ink is mostly
like other squid and cuttlefish ink, I don't think this poses a problem
for Radzyn. There are the other descriptions of Chazal to uniquely
identify sepia officinalis (availability and physical descriptions),
and I believe this was the approach taken by the Radzyner. The issue
of lack of uniqueness would be more of an issue if it meant that there
would have been imitations, i.e. would fakers have chosen to use the
process with an alternative source rather than relying on indigo for
their unholy endeavors.

3. The Radzyner used the cuttlefish ink rather than the blood because
(1) Tosafos Shabbos 75a says the dye source is not the life blood, and
(2) the Rambam says the dam chilazon is black like ink.

4. As for iron in cuttlefish ink, I took a quick glance through my
notebooks and all I could find easily is that iron is one of three
metals in large quantities in the digestive gland of the cuttlefish.
Cuttlefish ink has many important enzymes along with the melanin, and
has interesting properties in terms of binding metal ions. I'll try
and check more into this and get back to you.

5. As for Rashi and Rambam never having seen the chilazon/dyeing process,
yes one should be careful in the exactness with which one analyzes their
descriptions. However, one also should note that it is precisely because
of this that when they are explicit it is noteworthy. If Rambam said the
dam chilazon is black like ink, he had to have a significant reason - it
is certainly *not* what one would have speculated. I saw in R Borstein's
Hatecheiles that there is a reference to Tolaas Techeiles by Rabbi Shem
Tov Gefen who is supposed to list some sources for Rambam's comment.
However, the inexact or incomplete or vague descriptions by commentators
who lived long after the tradition was lost should certainly be understood
with appropriate circumspection.

mendel

I was in a chabad shul this shabbat and they have a new (less an year)
siddur which has a detailed discussion of their customs in English. Some
things were not clear to me

1. For lechem mishne they say the 2 challot should be side by side covered
by ones 10 fingers. I always thought that one is on top of the other and
the order is given by kabbalah with differences between shabbat eve and
shabbat morning

2. For lechem mishne they say each person who receives a piece says their
own beracha (but not over the wine of kiddush). I was always taught they
if each person makes their own beracha they lose the lechem mishne.

3. I was all confused by their shalashudus. In Hebrew they quote the
SA which in their quote clearly says the preference is to use lechem
mishne and fruits etc are definitely a last choice. In the English they
say that the Chabad minhag le-chatchila is to use fruits and
not bread and for the meal to sing niggunim. 
So does the custom depend on whether one can read hebrew?

4. Their measurements seemed to be the same R. Chaim Naeh (eg 86 ml of
wine). Was this always so - is this from Baal haTanya?

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 11/26/2001

Shoshana Boublil wrote on Areivim:
>And I thought that nowadays, with easy plane rides and various ways of 
>getting cheaper group fairs (and especially
>with the empty hotels in Israel) -- it would be easier to keep the Mitzvah 
>of Shalosh Regalim and I was going to get to see the full Areivim/Avodah 
>contingency here in Israel in Jerusalem this year.

Is there a mitzvah of aliyah laregel if you are not going to visit har
habayis? This is a serious question, not a setup or sarcastic response.

Gil Student

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> > Is there any heter in Choshen Mishpat to destroy another person's
> > possession because that possession is halachically objectionable?

> There's the Gemara of a (IIRC) Tanna who ripped the dress off a women (whom
> he thought was Jewish) because it wasn't proper.


The Gem. is at 20A in Brachot. See it at
http://www1.snunit.k12.il/snunit/kodesh/bavli/brcu020a.html .

R' Ada Bar Ahava saw a "Cutit" in the market wearing a Karbalta. Thinking
she was Jewish he got up and ripped it off. When it turned out that she
was not Jewish he had to pay 400 zuz [R' Shteinzaltz - for embarrassing
her].

What is a Karbalta? Rashi, a Chosheve garment. Maharshal on this - it's
not nice to wear such an expensive garment outdoors without covering it.

Aruch - A red garment (a.k.a. not Tzanuah).

R' Shteinzaltz - a Shatnez garment.


Kol Tuv,
Moshe

Sadya had asked [on Areivim]: "Is there any heter in Choshen Mishpat to
destroy another person's possession because that pocession is halachically
objectionable">

See: CM 421:13 in the Rema [and which is discussed in the Nosei Keilim]
"ve'chein mi she'hu TACHAT RESHUTO [emphasis mine] v'ro'eh bo she'hu oseh
dvar aveira, RASHAI [emphasis mine] l'hakoto u'l'yasro kedei l'hafrisho
m'issur, v'ein tzarich l'havi'o l'vet din" [quoting the Trumat haDeshen
Siman 18].

Josh

The Chazon Ish writes in Yevamos 57:3 (and in various likutim such as on
Rambam, Hilchos Shechitah 10:13) that, even though the nature of animals
has changed (nishtanah hateva) in regard to treifos, since the halachos
were determined during the 2000 years of Torah (from Avraham to appr. the
close of the Mishnah) they cannot be changed based on current nature.

However, in other places that he mentions nishtanah hateva he recommends
changing halachah. For example, in Yoreh Deah 155:4 the Chazon Ish
permits violating Shabbos for the needs of a baby born in its eighth month
because nishtanah hateva and the baby is viable. Why doesn't he say that
the halachah must remain as it was established during the period of Torah?

Gil Student

From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
>>I believe that Rambam's definition of a'hdut haBore & noncorporeality
>>to be philosophically derived. Those who keep tabs may have noticed that
>>this is the only ikkar on which I posted, mentioning as a normative but
>>differing position the various inyterpretations of 10 sefirot.

> Unity and incorporeality are logically entailed by the existence of G-d. A
> being who lacks these attributes simply wouldn't be G-d, according to
> the Rambam.

Thank you for confirming <smile>.
Now,  do you think that the logic through which Rambam links unity and 
incorporeality applies to those who believe in 10 sefirot? The fact that the 
adherents of 10 sefirot entertain their notion of unity and incorporeality is 
irrelevant to the question as to whether the Rambam would consider the 10 
sefirot compatible with either?

Arie Folger

> The Chazon Ish writes in Yevamos 57:3... even though the nature of animals
> has changed (nishtanah hateva) in regard to treifos, since the halachos
> were determined during the 2000 years of Torah (from Avraham to appr. the
> close of the Mishnah) they cannot be changed based on current nature.

> However, in other places that he mentions nishtanah hateva he recommends
> changing halachah. For example, in Yoreh Deah 155:4 the Chazon Ish
> permits violating Shabbos for the needs of a baby born in its eighth month
> because nishtanah hateva and the baby is viable. Why doesn't he say that
> the halachah must remain as it was established during the period of Torah?

treifos is halacha l'Moshe while the other is not.

Akiva Miller:
> I would just add that another pre-requisite to "de-textualizing halacha"
> would be that we'd have to undo the condition which "textualized" it to
> begin with. As I understand it, this was our lessened mental abilities,
> i.e., our (or at least our leaders') inability to remember the entire
> body of Torah Sheb'al Peh without writing it down.

Hmmmmm. AIUI the reason was that the persecutions kept us from properly
studying it (nafka mina - once persecution is gone would we revert to
non textualization) Is anyone aware of any sources on whether we will
revert to nontextualization in Ymot Hamashiach(when no persecution)?

KT
Joel Rich

With regard to the discussion of R Eliezer Berkovitz (respecting RYGB's
rule for honorifics, but as he was partially my teacher he is one on
whom one could claim a certain obligation (on me, not the olam) for an
honorific..)
We should separate two issues: 

1) Whether we believe the proposals in Not In Heaver (I believe a
fuller and more scholarly presentation is in Hahalacha, Kocha vetafkida,
published in Mossad harav Kook)) have intrinsic merit, or are too radicall
and perhaps dangerous

2) The status of the individual who proposed them

The discussion of the first has merit. I think that the discussion has
focused too much on the apparaent resemblance to Conservative ideology
rather than the nherent merit of the proposals - another sign of how
much of halachic thinking is governed by reaction to the Reform and
Conservative rather than intrinsic halachic merit.

However, the second discussion is highly problematic. Even if we assume
the worst is true (and that is something I would vigorously debate),
there is still the rambam in
hilkhot talmud torah 7:1 chacham zaken bechochma vechan nasi shesarach
eyn menadin oto befarhesya beolam ...
vehaside hachachamim hayu mishtabchin shelo nimnu leolamlenadot talmud
chacham
It is this reluctance that seems lacking today, where every deviation
from current standards is scrutinized. That this is casually done after
mitah is even more reprehensible. I would suggest that there is a far
greater problem with the examiners than the examined.

Meir Shinnar

[Note from the moderator: I do not think the latter discussion is
appropriate. If we were discussing theory, rather the labeling of a
contemporary, I would not object as strenuously. -mi]

David Glasner wrote:
> On those points, he is in perfect sync with the
> Dor Revi'i, who, by the way, points out in his essay on Zionism that,
> based on the shemona esrei, the reinstitution of the sanhedrin must
> occur prior to the coming of the Messiah.

Does this mean that he held one can pasken based on the siddur?

Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 11/26/2001:
> with regard as how we pasken with regard to ikkarim, I saw this shabbat
> a letter from the Lubavitcher rebbe about techiyat hamesim....
> the LR states that in the days of rishonim both viewpoints were
> legitimate. he claims that the Ari "paskened" like the Ramban and
> therefore only that side is legitimate today.
> Do others agree that the the position of the Ari on issues is similar to
> that of the Mechabber on halachah? ...

The Rebbe was merely citing the opinion of the Tzemach Tzedek's sefer
"Derech Mitzvosecha"-Mitzvas Tzitzis, where the TT states that the view
of the Ramban is the accepted one al pi Kabala.

BTW, Rav Hutner also is of the same view, accepting the Ramban's
shita. His view is (I think) in one of the letters in "Igros of
Pachad Yitzchak". In that letter, he says taht even though the Ramban
is justified by the Kabala's view, people misunderstand the Rambam.
I don't have a copy of Pachad Yitzchak with me. Perhaps someone who has
a copy could look it up.

Thanks,

Raffy

Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 11/26/2001:
> Do others agree that the the position of the Ari on issues is similar to
> that of the Mechabber on halachah? In particular that implies we always
> pasken like kabbalah against philosophic opinions of rishonim.

As I have noted before the Arizal is a major point of dispute between the
Litvaks versus Chassidim and Sefardim.

Rav Bentzion Abbah Shaul says that the Arizal is binding because he had
ruach hakodesh
The Alter Rebbe letter #35 says a similar position but notes that this a
major point of dispute with the Gra

Rav Moshe Feinstein OH 4 #3- following in the path of the Gra  - says that
the rule of following Kabbala when there is a dispute of poskim does not
apply to the words of the Arizal.

Not clear what they would hold concerning hashkofa issues

I seem to recall reading/hearing that [RYBS] was opposed to the practice
of a chasan substituting a lightbulb for a glass - under the chupah -
Tried to track it down last night but couldn't -Anyone have any info?

warren

At 07:53 AM 11/27/01 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>This whole thread started when RYGB, objecting to my use of zt"l for
>Herzl, claimed that this use was so far out of the normative use of the
>phrase that it required editorial condemnation, a position I still
>find difficult to appreciate (I can understand reluctance to use the
>phrase zaddik, but given common usage of honorifics and elu ve'elu,
>I still don't understand the basis for the vehemence,( nor how could it
>have lasted for this long).

Perhaps part of the problem here is your incapacity to understand that I am 
offended by the usage in question. Here is something for you to work on - 
b'geder "noseh b'ol im chaverio!"

>We have now established that fairly normative sources have used the phrase
>z"l (again, I have seen zt"l, but can't locate it now). The argument
>is now made that there is a substantive difference between z"l and z"t.
>While there may be some who would make such a differentiation, I don't
>think that most are careful. Furthermore, as Micha noted, the basis for
>both phrases is the same.

I reiterate - I have *never*, ever seen Herzl called zt"l. Whatever the 
origins (and I agree that the origins are identical for z"l and zt"l), that 
is not where the use is holding today - witness the still smoldering fires 
over the JO's applying z"l rather than zt"l to RYBS (rectified, agav, in 
the obit for RAS, which was an official Editorial Board obit).

>Lastly, even if one believes that there is a a real, universally accepted
>difference between z"l and zt"l (a difficult position to uphold) and
>even if one believes that one could say only z"l but not zt'l on Herzl,
>it is still problematic to argue against it and claim it is not normative.

Shucks. Missed that problem.

>  There is a tshuva in Maase ish (brought in sde hemed, maarechet het, clal
>140) that there is nothing wrong in adding honor to someone who is
>deserving of honor, and one gives him more honor than he may deserve,
>that to be machanif only applies in giving honor to someone who is utterly
>undeserving.and the shitta mekubetzet on ktuvot 17:1 on kezad merakdin
>brings down that one is allowed to add to the title of someone even if
>he isn't deserving, like one praises a kalla even if she is not deserving.

Put up his picture and light candles in front of it - do honor all you like 
- but don't dishonor the concept of a "tzaddik".

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

RYGB 
> Ka'amur, hu asher dibarti lei'mor. The normative use of tzaddik when we
> say"ZT"L" refers ti RSG's shalem or tzassik gamur or the Rambam's chacham.

1)Is there any source for asserting that this is the "normative use",
or is this a svara? ( the fact that a semantic discussion can be so
heated should probably be the subject of another discussion. However,
given two definitions of a word, the assertion that only one is correct
in a given context would seem to require some proof)
2) The sources from Rav Kook were relevant to the discussion of whether
kavana leshem shamayim is necessary - which was RYGB's understanding
of the malbim and netziv he brought (something I disputed). Clearly,
Rav Kook held that while proper kavana is a good thing, trying to do good
is inherently good and is counted leshem shamayim (that is both simple
pshat and also the common understanding of Rav Kook) - one aspect of this
discussion. (I confess I find his interpretations of my texts puzzling..-
I would understand better frank disagreement with RAYK))
3) I continue to remain amazed by his taking offense, and find the whole
discussion counter to the whole spirit of avoda/areivim
Meir Shinnar

[I think this closes our third or fourth revolution of the same
arguments with little variation. Perhaps the conversation could be laid
to rest? -mi]

from: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
>1)Is there any source for asserting that this is the "normative use",
>or is this a svara? ( the fact that a semantic discussion can be so
>heated should probably be the subject of another discussion. However,
>given two definitions of a word, the assertion that only one is correct
>in a given context would seem to require some proof)

It requires no proof. It is one of the self evident truths. Indeed,
it is your refusal to acknowledge this self evident truth that is the
most stunning aspect of this entire discussion. You have re-defined
tzaddik by your own lights and determined, again, by your own lights,
that Mechallel Shabbos and Ochel Tereifos whose deeds were not at all
governed by a sense of Shivisi Hashem l'negdi tomid, was a tzaddik,
and then fail to misunderstand that others are affronted?!

>2) The sources from Rav Kook were relevant to the discussion of whether
>kavana leshem shamayim is necessary - which was RYGB's understanding
>of the malbim and netziv he brought (something I disputed). Clearly,
>Rav Kook held that while proper kavana is a good thing, trying to do good
>is inherently good and is counted leshem shamayim (that is both simple
>pshat and also the common understanding of Rav Kook) - one aspect of this
>discussion. (I confess I find his interpretations of my texts puzzling..-
>I would understand better frank disagreement with RAYK))

I *do* disagree with RAYHK - but that still does not put him on your
side of this equation! There is a vast gap between zechus and zaddik
that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

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

We all know that there is a din of tochahca. The question is whether one
should protest if it will be of no practical value. RYBS, as quoted by
RHS in Nefesh Harav , stated that symbolic protest which will have no
practical effect is important. We also have to be aware that if there is
Chillu Shabbos in Ranat Gan , then that is because there is something
wrong with our Shemiras Shabbos in Bnei Brak or KGH. We must never
be satisfied with the understanding that many of our fellow Jews are
truly tinoksos shenisbu. We must feel pain over Chillus Shabbos, etc.
( See Shimusha Shel Torah and R Nebenzahl' s sichos for an elaboration
on this theme.)

However, when we protest, the issue should be a dispute over a factually
proven problem , as opposed to a issue in dispute and where there is no
Kol Koreh from Gdolim. How much linger are the Shibab going to be the
leaders of the Chareidi street of public opinion? This appears to be a
legitimate issue for discussion.

The critical issue will be what do we do after the hafganah. Do we
feel any closer to our fellow Jew? Do they understand the beauty of
a life of Torah and Mitzvos? Highly unlikely, especially in a media
charged age. Even if we win the battles of Rchov Bar Illan and Gius
talmidei Chachamim or sheirut lami, are these real or pyrrhic victories
? These are some of the issues and the long term ramifications of where
we protest and how we protest that we should be all just a little more
cognizant about before we go to the streets.

            Steve Brizel
            Zeliglaw@aol.com

We all know that there is a din of tochahca. The question is whether one
should protest if it will be of no practical value. RYBS, as quoted by
RHS in Nefesh Harav , stated that symbolic protest which will have no
practical effect is important. We also have to be aware that if there is
Chillu Shabbos in Ranat Gan , then that is because there is something
wrong with our Shemiras Shabbos in Bnei Brak or KGH. We must never
be satisfied with the understanding that many of our fellow Jews are
truly tinoksos shenisbu. We must feel pain over Chillus Shabbos, etc.
( See Shimusha Shel Torah and R Nebenzahl' s sichos for an elaboration
on this theme.)

However, when we protest, the issue should be a dispute over a factually
proven problem , as opposed to a issue in dispute and where there is no
Kol Koreh from Gdolim. How much linger are the Shibab going to be the
leaders of the Chareidi street of public opinion? This appears to be a
legitimate issue for discussion.

The critical issue will be what do we do after the hafganah. Do we
feel any closer to our fellow Jew? Do they understand the beauty of
a life of Torah and Mitzvos? Highly unlikely, especially in a media
charged age. Even if we win the battles of Rchov Bar Illan and Gius
talmidei Chachamim or sheirut lami, are these real or pyrrhic victories
? These are some of the issues and the long term ramifications of where
we protest and how we protest that we should be all just a little more
cognizant about before we go to the streets.

            Steve Brizel
            Zeliglaw@aol.com

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>  Is anyone aware of any sources on whether we will
> revert to nontextualization in Ymot Hamashiach(when no persecution)?

There's a series of midrashim "leathid lavo X athidim livatel" - the
Rambam at the end of hilchoth megillah cites the version "kol hakthuvim".
You might check the other variants.

David Riceman

Harry Maryles (8:59) wrote:
> Don't you think that the concept of "returning Torah SheBal Peh to
> it's original pristine oral status" implies dispensing with the written
> Shulchan Aruch?

Yes restoring the Sanhedrin would mean replacing the Shulhan Arukh by a
higher authority. However, you began the discussion by comparing Rabbi
Berkowitz's attitude toward the SA with that of the Conservative movement.
I'm pointing out to you that there is a huge difference between abandoning
the Shuhan Arukh (and for purposes of this discussion let us stipulate
that that is what the Conservatives have done) and replacing it with
the renewed Sanhedrin.

> A reconvened Sanhedrin may be his means but in the end if one wants to
> return to the purity of Torah She Bal Peh one must dispense with the
> written Shulchan Aruch.

So?  v'khan ha-ben sho'eil:  Is that not what we pray for three times a 
day?

>> Well, based on the evidence adduced so far, you would have a 
>> difficult time classifying Dr. Berkowitz as such without also placing
>> the Dor Revi'i in the same category....
>> I would advise you to think long and hard before making such a 
>> pronouncement.

> I'm too lazy for that.

In that case, I suggest you not throw around the A-word quite so
casually.  Or is it more acceptable on this list to impute heresy to a
rav, gadol ba-torah u-v'hokhmah, than to use the tz-word within a 
radius of dalet amot of Herzl's name?

> But I don't think you have to place Dr. Berkowitz in the same
> category as the Dor Revi'i. I beleive that Dr. Berkowitz may have used
> the Dor Revi'i's principles as a springboard to advance his own theories
> about what can be done today with some of the more troubluing issues
> such as that of the plight of Agunos.

I do not place them in the same category. But the Dor Revi'i also wanted
to reinstitute the Sanhedrin and restore the torah she-ba'al peh to its
original state (that was one aspect of his Zionist vision) so that it
could deal with all the unresolved issues that have accumulated over
the past two millennia. And if it's not too much of a strain on you,
perhaps you might want to have a look at Hulin 6b-7a at the sugya which
begins "hei'id R. Yehoshua ben hamav shel R. Mei'ir liphnei Rebi."

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

[I think this closes our third or fourth revolution of the same
arguments with little variation. Perhaps the conversation could be laid
to rest? -mi]

from: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
>1)Is there any source for asserting that this is the "normative use",
>or is this a svara? ( the fact that a semantic discussion can be so
>heated should probably be the subject of another discussion. However,
>given two definitions of a word, the assertion that only one is correct
>in a given context would seem to require some proof)

It requires no proof. It is one of the self evident truths. Indeed,
it is your refusal to acknowledge this self evident truth that is the
most stunning aspect of this entire discussion. You have re-defined
tzaddik by your own lights and determined, again, by your own lights,
that Mechallel Shabbos and Ochel Tereifos whose deeds were not at all
governed by a sense of Shivisi Hashem l'negdi tomid, was a tzaddik,
and then fail to misunderstand that others are affronted?!

>2) The sources from Rav Kook were relevant to the discussion of whether
>kavana leshem shamayim is necessary - which was RYGB's understanding
>of the malbim and netziv he brought (something I disputed). Clearly,
>Rav Kook held that while proper kavana is a good thing, trying to do good
>is inherently good and is counted leshem shamayim (that is both simple
>pshat and also the common understanding of Rav Kook) - one aspect of this
>discussion. (I confess I find his interpretations of my texts puzzling..-
>I would understand better frank disagreement with RAYK))

I *do* disagree with RAYHK - but that still does not put him on your
side of this equation! There is a vast gap between zechus and zaddik
that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

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

In a recent shiur we were discussing the halachik status of a Kuti.
2 questions came up that I'd be interested in getting the chevra's
insights on.

1.The Kutim are described as gerei arayot as a nation and generally
(I think I found at least one exception in the Ritva) are assumed to
be either acceptable or unacceptable gerim as a nation. Why is this
a national rather than an individual issue - especially for the first
generation? Should there not need to be individual drisha vchakira to
determine the motivations and practices of the particular convert or his
ancestors (at least to the extent possible) rather than relying on rov?

2.I think we've previously discussed the concept of zachin ladam as it
applies to a ger katan who will be raised by nonorthodox parents. The
issue was that it may not(at least per R'YBS) be a zchut if we know he
won't be a shomer tora umitzvot. What about a grown individual - are
there any sources that say one is better off being a Jew even though a
choteh than being a shomer the zayin mitzvot completely? One possible
analysis - we know that perek chelek tells us kol yisrael yesh lahem
chelek....with certain exceptions. Is the olam haba of a Jew who didn't
do those exceptions but did sin (how much?) by definition greater than
that of a shomer the zayin mitzvot completely?

Sources welcome!

KT
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]