Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 105

Monday, February 4 2002

• Re: Sources for Matan Torah
• Re: Medrash Source?
• Re: din Torah
• Re: din Torah
• Re: Qinyan Sudor
• Re: Isha Psulah Ladun
• Isha Psulah Ladun
• Re: Din Torah
• Re: "New Route for Kohanim? Heard Nothing About It"
• Evidence
• Re: Evidence
• Re: Eid Mipi Eid BeIssurim
• Re: Lower Criticism
• Re: Piece by Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
• Re: Making a brocho for pleasure
• When Science Contradicts Torah
• Rambam: Hakdama
• Ma'alas Gerah
• Re: din Torah
• Thoughts on parashas Yisro

In a message dated 1/30/02 12:33:24pm EST, hgschild@hotmail.com writes:
> "Everybody" says that all Jewish Souls (Jews-to-be) were at Sinai with those 
> then alive (Midrash Tanchuma, many mefarshim in Nitzavim..where else? where 
> first?)
> but what is
> 1. The source for Souls of Future Gerim being there?

Shabbos 146a, the Chida in his Midbar Kdeimos explains based on this the 
Loshon Chazal "Ger" Shenisgayeir vs. "Goy" Shnisgayeir (as in Katan 
Shenisgadeil, etc.), since they were at Matan Torah they were always Geirim.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

>>>2. During krias Yam Suf, water _everywhere_ (other oceans, wells,
etc.) similarly split.<<<

I am still looking for 1. but 2. ayin Rashi beshalach 14,21 on Vayiboku
Hamayim: [bshem Mechilta] "...kol mayim shebe'olom.."

SBA

[Note about the reisha: This was sent before I approved RYZ's post. -mi]

On 31 Jan 2002 at 9:20, S Goldstein wrote:
>> The way I see the situation, I appointed a Shaliach l'Kabala (the
>> insurance agent) and the Mazik appointed a Shaliach l'Holacha (the post
>> office). If the check was sent unregistered (as appears likely), that is
>> a pgam in the appointment of the Shaliach l'Holacha, and... the Mazik...has
>> to pay me again.

> This might not be true if your agent asked that the check be mailed.

Why? If the agent asked that the check be mailed TO HER, it was not 
mailed TO HER. 

-- Carl

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: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Why? If the agent asked that the check be mailed TO HER, it was not
> mailed TO HER.

I meant unregistered as opposed to registered.

Shlomo Goldstein

RAmiller: <<I honestly don't know. I know that when I ask the rav to
sell my chometz, doing a kinyan sudar is an important part of my making
him my shaliach....>>

Nah

Mechy Frankel                       W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com         H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

Jonathan Baker wrote:
>Tosfos based his opinion on a gemara in the Yerushalmi Yoma 32a...
>But, if one reads on in the Yerushalmi, the gemara shlugs up the gezera
>shava, hooking the other side to another halacha elsewhere, and leaving
>this verse to prove (as in Shevuot 30a) that the witnesses and/or the
>litigants (each pair) must both be standing up in court. So Tosfos
>bases his ruling on a REJECTED DRASHA. Not a strong reed on which to
>balance a major halacha.

I'm not so sure the Yerushalmi rejected the drasha. It looks to
me like the Yerushalmi darshens the word "ve'amdu" to prove that the
witnesses/litigants must be standing. The gezera shava seems to stand.
Admittedly, I have only looked at the text and not mefarshim. Perhaps
they understood it differently.

Also, FWIW, IIRC R. Saul Lieberman used the rationale of isha pesulah
ladun in his teshuvah on ordaining women. He said that while semicha is
not dayanus, for it to have any serious meaning we should treat it with
the same weight. Or something like that. The teshuvah was published by
UTJ in Tomeich Kahalachah vol. 1. They included a photocopy of RSL's
handwritten teshuvah so no one could deny that he wrote it. It can be
found in the YU library.

Gil Student

I had written:
> :The closest he came was the citation of Niddah 49b/50a, which doesn't make
> :for a valid inference (All witnesses can judge; No woman can witness;
> :No woman can judge), except that he doesn't make the inference explicitly.
> :Rather, he makes the inference, and then bases it on the weak Yerushalmi
> :in Yoma, thereby shooting himself in the foot.
 
> :In Aristotelian terms:
 
> :All W are J,   No I is W   -->   No I is J;
> :where I: isha -- woman W: kosher Witness J: kosher Judge

WHOOPS!  I misread the mishnah, read it backwards.  That
should read All J are W, (which can also be read as "All -W are -J")
so All I is -W   +   All -W are -J   ->   ALL I are -J.

So the inference works.

Which leaves me wondering: why bring in the Yerushalmi? Is it just an
asmachta? Do we learn from klalim (I thought we didn't) in the mishna?
Where does the clal itself come from (all who are cosher to judge are
cosher to witness, but some who are cosher to witness are not cosher
to judge) - the Gemara doesn't say, but only addresses the issue of a
suma as an example of the latter. And Why Is Tosfos The First To Make
This Explicit? Is there some connection with the myth that "rashi's
daughters laid tefillin" - who would have been the mothers of the Tosfos.

I think that even before you discuss shlichut, you have to ascertain
what the halachic definition of a check is. The first sugya is "muchzak
b'shtar lo nechshav k'motzi elah k'machzik" (see: Tosfot Bava Batra 32b
d"h v'hilcheta, and SM"A Choshen Mishpat 82 s"k 45.

The problem ? The Ktzot there in the name of the Ramban indicates that
a shtar is muchzak only where there can be shiabud nechasim. Our modern
day checks [and please correct me if I'm wrong] do NOT engender shiabud
nechasim. Unless you go by the Rema CM 66:1 or consider modern day
checks a form of situmta (as per Chatam Sofer 66 oht Bet). So it *may*
be a kinyan gamur.

What's the halachic definition of a modern day check ??

Josh

On 30 Jan 2002 at 21:55, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> OK, here's where you came in: the avel was Rav Dovid Morgenstern, Rav
> Elyashiv's talmid. My conjecture was that if in fact he was makpid on
> this inyan, which many/most poskim hold is a mistake, it would be proof
> otherwise. This is the "Rashi" on my question.

I have been trying to avoid saying this publicly, but since RDM is my 
neighbor and since I davened in his house every morning (including 
Shabbos) when he sat shiva for his daughter R"L a bit over a year 
ago, I can be a witness to the fact that "three times" has nothing to 
do with it (in fact, IIRC, there was even a Rosh Chodesh during the 
week that he sat shiva for his daughter, and even if there wasn't, 
Shabbos morning and Shabbos Mincha, combined with Monday and 
Thursday, would make four times). 

Rather, RDM has a kpeida, which AIUI he got from RYSE, not to leave 
the house at all during shiva - even to go to shul. Because of that, 
when he sat shiva in Ramat Shlomo, we made a minyan in his house, 
even on Shabbos, and he apparently asked that the locals do the same 
in Flatbush when he sat shiva there two weeks ago. 

-- Carl

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
:Then there is also the issue of bringing shenei sa'aros, which could prove
:someone is chayav vs being a qoton, or the renoun besulim test.

This is an investigation of a metzius. If B"D does not do it on their
own, they need eidim. If they do it on their own, lo tehe shemia
gedola mere'iah as the Gemara mentions in Rosh Hashana in connection with
edus hachodesh. I'm not sure this is a separate category of "evidence"

:And what about "hamotzi meichaveiro alav *hara'ayah*"?

Until you show that the ra'aya is other than eidim, you are the motzi
meichaveiro in this case :-).

:Or the lack of formal eidus and derishah vechakirah if the dayanim know
:his guilt first-hand.

See above; see also the story of Shimon ben Shetach who could NOT act
on his knowledge when he saw, as an eid echad/umdena (different versions
of the story IIRC) without two eidim.

:I wonder if shetaros are evidence or eidus or their own category.

A properly executed shtar is "na'aseh kemi shenechkera edusam bebeis din."
Mi nitleh bemi?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 07:12:44PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:: Then there is also the issue of bringing shenei sa'aros, which could prove
:: someone is chayav vs being a qoton, or the renoun besulim test.

: This is an investigation of a metzius....

Which is a pretty good definition of evidence, no?

>                                       If B"D does not do it on their own,
> they need eidim.  If they do it on  their own,  lo tehe shemia gedola
> mere'iah...

But shemi'ah = eidus, and re'iyah = looking at the evidence. 

:: I wonder if shetaros are evidence or eidus or their own category.

: A properly executed shtar is "na'aseh kemi shenechkera edusam bebeis
: din." Mi nitleh bemi?

I was asking because a shetar is evidence of an eidus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 1/29/02 12:17:59pm EST, avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com writes:
> After all is said and done you MUST say that in general Eid Mipi Eid
> BeIssurin HAS TO BE believed, as you find all over in Shas: Omar R. x Omar
> R. x "this is Mutter/Osur/Tohor/Tomei".

> And if Eid Mipi Eid BeIssurin was not believed how do we accept the
> Halochos?

Since the Kneses Hagdolah brings no less an authority then the Beis
Yosef that holds that even by Issurim an Eid Mipi Eid is non Nemon, we
have to find distinction, among the possibilities is that in the case
of Omar R' Ploni he is not ruling on an item. However the fact is that
the brief quote from the Beis Yosef is talking where he came (for what
ever reason before a Beis Din, that may be different as brought from
the Ktzos WRT Hazamah).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/29/02 12:17:32pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> . Rather,
> the problem is with the scribes who write Torahs and inadvertently make

Why shouldn't this be obsolved with the Haga'ha Ksubos 19b and S"A Y"D
271:1 (and see Pischei Tshuvah Ad Heichon Hadvorim Magi'in), also what
about now that we have computer checking?

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/29/02 12:16:31pm EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com gave
over from RYK:
> Shuras hadin would have required them simply to stay in Bavel, 

See Rashi Vayikra 26:35 (and the Gemara Nisgaleh Avonom Nisgaleh Kitzom)

> The intent was to fortify us (TSBP) and
> isolate us from the umos (pitam veshamnam) as preparation for the future.

TSBP was written (mainly) towards the end of Bayis Shainee but Pitam
Doniel was Gozeir (A"Z 36a and Yerushalmi Shabbos 1:2) Mashma while
still in Bovel.

> This also explains why no king of the malchus beis David was appointed
> during the time of Bayis Sheni. To do so would have ascribed a more
> permanent status to the geula than was appropriate.

See Maharsha on Chagiga 16b Ereh Bnechama.

> Finally he explains with this the pasuk in the shiras hayam "ad ya'avor
> ...ad ya'avor" which the Gemara in Berachos takes as a reference to biya
> shenia. Thus, if not for geram hachet, there would have been no need
> for more than two biyos-one in the time of Yehoshua and one in the time
> of Moshiach. 

This could answer the question from the Mizrachi brought also in the Lechem 
Mishna Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 10:4 why this is not Chazara Bdavar Tov, as it 
will be fulfilled in the third Biah (which according to this Drush is really 
the true second).

> Yehi ratzon milifnei Avinu Shebashamayim shenishma venisbaser besoros
> tovos yeshuos venechamos vikabetz nidachenu me'arba kanfos ha'aretz

Omein.

In a message dated 1/31/02 12:06:45pm EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> Interesting piece in the Taamei Haminhogim b'shem the Bnei Yissoschor
> z'l; that for every hano'oh which there is no brocho eg enjoying music,
> marital relations etc, one should first make a brocho 'Shehakol' on a food
> or drink -- as this brocho 'patters' all hano'os... (Maggid Taalumah p 93)

See Tos. D"A V'al H'hodos Brochos 43a.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

[From Areivim. -mi]

From: Michael Feldstein <MIKE38CT@aol.com>
>> 4.  You believe that, in appropriate situations, the halacha based
>> on science which has been proven false must be adapted to reflect the
>> true scientific facts.  Can you give us some examples?

> I believe the permissability of smoking would be a great example.  Some
> authorities today absolutely prohibit it, most all prohibit starting
> and encourage stopping.  Yet 20 years ago there was more smoke in a typical
> Israeli yeshiva than in the back room of the Democratic party.

> The permissibility of organ donation by some rabbis, based on new information
> about brain death, would be another good example.

We may have discussed some of this in the past but I'm not sure so here
are just some of my thoughts on the subject of Science and Torah.

One of the more difficult issues facing a Torah Hashkafa is when
scientific discoveries contradict long held notions about certain
Hashkafic positions. An example of this is the fact that we Jews beleieve
the universe to be 5762 years old contradicts the scientific evidence
that the universe is approximaetly 15 billion years old.

What is a Torah Jew do? Does he just reject the scientific evidence and
continue believing? Or does he Reject the Torah Chas V'Sholom? The first
option leads to a sort of denial of reality and if one is honest with
himself one connot ignore the facts. The second option is to become an
Apikores. So.. What to do?

IMHO there are two options.

One option is to totally ignore the facts and say the G-d wanted to
fool us with so called evidence in an attempt to test our Emunah. In
this way we reject the scientific evidence trying to explain it away in
as simplistic a manner as possible. In the example cited above we would
simply say that HaShem created the world old. just as Adam was created
as an Adult so too was the universe creadted as an "adult". Evidence of
its "age" is not evidence that the Universe was created more than 5761
years ago.

The second option is to see if the scientific evidence really does
contradict the Torah. I think that if one studies the sources and the
evidence of science one will see that there is never a real contardiction
at all.

I prefer the second option.

In the above example the fact that the world is 15 billion years old does
not in fact contradict the Torah. R. Aryeh Kaplan presented a paper to
the Union of Orthodx Jewish Scientists in effect proving through classic
sources that the universe is in fact 15 billion years old.

The reason I prefer the second option is that it is just too simplistic
to ignore evidence. Why would G-d purposely fool us in only this way? Why
did he wait until science developed to the extent where it could show
clear evidence to seem to contaradict the Torah? How can anyone ever
study anythin with any kind of intellectual honesty if he sees the facts
and they contradict his beliefs? Is he just supposed to close his eyes
to the facts and say he sees it but doesn't beleive it? That would
be ridiculous and one could not function in the real world that way.
As R. Kaplan said if G-d wanted to fool us by giving us false information
then why not just say that the universe was created 5 minutes ago with all
memories in our brain designed to seem as though we have lived... whatever
age we are and with the sense of history as though it happened when we
have the intuition that it did? Obviously no one believs that but that
would be the same approch as option one. Science by it's very nature is
designed to seek the truth and when it finds it, it embraces that truth
until it is disproven with a newer scientific revelation.

How, for example does one explain an exploding star seen today that is
200 million light yeras away? The speed of light was proven by Albert
Einstien to be constant (at 600,000 miles per second, I believe). This
means that If the light from that exploding star travels at that constant
speed, it can be calculated at which point in history that explosion
took place. So when Scientists say that the explosion that we are now
seeing took place 200 million years ago, that contradicts the notion
that the universe is really only 5762 years old.

No. It is too wierd to say that the universe was created with the light of
an expolding star in motion at a point 5762 years prior to it's reaching
us now.

And this IMHO is a superior approach to the simplistic notion above
in that it recognizes the validity of the scientific method and the
dicoveries by that method of scientifc truths. There is no harm in
reconciliong science with Torah Hashkafa. To be so rigid about belief so
as to deny scienific evidence will "paint you into a corner" that may
ccreate a contradiction that you can not get out of with a simplistic
explanation his can ultimately result in a crisis of faith.

HM

Read through the Rambam's Introduction to the Mishneh Torah.

The Rambam lists three levels of Rabbinic Legislation: Gezeira, Takana
and Minhag. He clearly does not mean "Minhag" the way we use the word,
i.e. Eating Chicken Soup Friday Night. He is refering to a type of
legislation. How does a "Minhag" differ from a Takana?

If you do not have a definitive answer, but have a thought on the matter,
respond anyway. I have never seen anyone comment on the issue and would
appreceiate any insights, no matter how fleeting or non-definitive.

(Besides, my self-esteem suffers terribly when an avodah-post I write
is totally ignored.)

Thanks,
Raffy

In the context of whether an animal that eats its feces can be honestly
considered ma'alas gerah, I am trying to understand how the rishonim
translated the phrase.

Ibn Ezra (Vayikra 11:3) translated gerah from the word "garon" which
seems to imply regurgitating through the neck. That rules out our case
as being ma'alas gerah.

Rashi, based on Onkelos and R. Menachem Ibn Saruk, says the following
(from the old linear translation by R. Abraham Ben Isaiah and R. Benjamin
Sharfman):

"And it is probable that [the term Gerah] is of the [same] root [as]
'water drawn' (2 Sam 14:14) for it is drawn back into the mouth.
And the Targum translates it, 'dissolved food' for through being drawn
[back into the mouth] the food is dissolved and liquified."

This could very well include our case. Those two were pretty easy.
Rashbam understands gerah from the word "gargeres" which I assume means
neck - like Ibn Ezra. However, I saw that the Soncino Chumash explains
Rashbam as referring to "gargeres" in its meaning as berries. This does
not seem correct to me but I was hoping to get someone else's opinion on
this. If Soncino is correct, then that seems like a home run for our case.

R. Yonah Ibn Janach seems to have a very definite opinion on this but I
can't figure out what it is. In his Sefer HaShorashim (sv GRH, p. 99)
he mentions that he discusses it in his Sefer HaHashva'ah (to which I
do not have access) and then makes some grammatical observations that
I do not understand. Can anyone help?

If anyone knows of other rishonim whose views are relevant please
speak up. Thank you.

[Email #2. -mi]

I looked in Torah Shelemah and Rav Kasher has a nice footnote summarizing
the shitos (vol. 28 ch. 11 n. 15).

RMMK quote R. Yonah Ibn Janach as translating gerah as "meshichah"
which seems like what Rashi said. This is exactly what R. Yonah Ibn
Janach said but without the grammatical comments it seems clearer.

He quotes Rashbam verbatim and then says "vechen beSefer HaShorashim
leRadak" and quotes Radak who makes it very clear that he is talking
about chewing one's cud through the "garon".

Gil Student

On 1 Feb 2002 at 9:17, S Goldstein wrote:
> From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
>> Why? If the agent asked that the check be mailed TO HER, it was not
>> mailed TO HER.

> I meant unregistered as opposed to registered.

I assume that the agent did not specify (and did not feel the need to
specify), but that someone who was sending a check in the mail, who knew
that he was paying his way out of a lawsuit (especially in Israel where
most people do not send checks by mail) would have been ing ordinary
care by sending the check only by registered mail.

Are you suggesting that the agent could have pattured him if she told
him to use a less than ordinary standard of care and he did so?

[Email #2. -mi]

On 31 Jan 2002 at 21:14, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> What's the halachic definition of a modern day check ??

In EY at least, I would argue that there is a shiabud nechasim in a
modern day check. If a check is returned, you can take it to hotza'a
la'poal and they will go and take the checkwriter's nechasim from him
(within very few limitations - and yes, in practice, I have seen this
happen to people). None of us should know from such things. How is that
not a shiabud nechasim?

-- 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.

RYBS notes that for the first luchos, it's HQBH who sends Moshe down to
bring them to BY. For the 2nd, however, Moshe Rabbeinu first had to carve
the luchos and bring them up the mountain, only there to be engraved.
The reason is that the first time aroud, Moshe served as the Chasan's
sheli'ach leholachah. Since BY, the kallah, was not ready to accept,
the qiddushin needed to be repeated. But the second time, Moshe served
as BY's sheli'ach leqabalah. Ad kan RYBS.

In terms RYGB discussed in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n005.shtml#20>, the original
plan was for the luchos to be Is'arusa dile'Eila (IdE), HQBH bringing
qedushah down to man. However, the second luchos were man raising himself
up to qedushah, Is'arusa dileSata (misacronymed with a taf, not a saf,
to IdT). This would explain also why the first luchos were sapphire,
sky blue from the "tiles under the kisei haqavod", the color of sky, of
techeiles, and of Herod's bais hamiqdosh. The 2nd luchos were ruby -- adom
like the adamah, like the blood of a basar vadam, a color of gashmiyus.

===


In the pesuqim after the aseres diberos (aseres hadevarim), Rasi cites
two machloqesin. On 20:19, he describes two views of ma'amad har Sinai
(MHS). The first is that qavod shamayim and the qolos descendent on har
Sinai, but HQBH be'Atzmo remained transcendent in shamayim. The second
is that shamayim itself descendent to the mountain, so that HQBH both
remained in shamayim and spoke from atop the mountain.

A couple of pesuqim later, on "mizbach adamah" (20:21), there are also
two shitos given in Rashi. The first is that the Torah is prohibiting
building a mizbei'ach on legs -- it must touch the ground. The 2nd is
that the Torah is telling you to fill the mizbei'ach with dirt, so that
the ground itself is the substance of the mizbei'ach.

Li nir'eh the two machloqesin are connected. The qedushah of the
mizbei'ach is being given as a model of that of MHS. Which explains the
parashah's placement here. If you say that HQBH stayed transcendent but
revelation only touched the earth, then the mitzvah of mizbach adamah
requires placing the qedushah of the mizbei'ach in contact with the
ground. If, however, MHS was the unity of heaven and earth, then the
earth itself must be given that qedushah.

===

Also, in the parashah of mizvei'ach, I found an interesting (to
me) remez:
(20) lo sa'asun iti elohei chesef... (21) mizbach adamah... -- First
the mizbei'ach is connected to the issur of avodah zarah.

(22) ve'im mizbach avanim ta'aseh li, lo sa'aseh es-hen gazis, ki
*charbekha heinafta aleha* -- shefichas damam.

(23) velo sa'aleh bima'alos... lo *sigaleh ervaskha* alav -- gilui
arayos.

===

In the haftorah, when Yeshaiah is afraid that his nevu'ah meant the
end of his existance, he says (6:5) "oy li ki nidmeisi". The Rishonim
grapple with the word "nidmeisi", finding shorashim like /dvm/ or
/dmm/, to imply termination. The Dubno Maggid translates the phrase
as "because I have been living in an illusion", and then procedes
to draw a mussar lesson about not fooling yourself.

I'd like to suggest my own chiddush, which I think is quite loyal to
the diqduq. Here Yeshai'ah is in the midst of a prophetic vision
when he realizes something: the vision is more real than he is!
Whereas the thought the mal'achim were the mashal, Yeshaiah suddenly
perceives that it is /he/ who is the dimyon, and they the true reality.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

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


[ 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         ]