Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 005

Wednesday, March 20 2002

• Re: When did Mosheh write the Torah?
• Re: Haftara on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut
• Re: Segulos
• RE: Haftara on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut
• Re: Avodah V9 #4
• Pesach wine and seating/staggering
• Re: Several Disputed of the Rambam and Ra'avad in Hil. Chometz u'Matzo Chaps. 6-8
• Re: Eliyahu's cup
• Re: Eliyahu's cup
• Toras Hagadah (with apologies to Rabbi Blum)
• Toras Haggadah II
• Re: Avodah V9 #4
• Re: conflicting reports
• Re: "Ve'od Toneh Bar Kapporo...
• Re: what we daven for?
• Re: 'Nishama should have an aliya' - universal to say it to yohrzeit observer?
• halachic trickery
• Re: 'Nishama should have an aliya' - universal to say it to yohrzeit observer?

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 02:56:22PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Tosfos BM 84a says that Reish Lakish had orignally been a talmid chachom
: who knew a lot but went off the derech and became an am haaretz and
: robber until restored by R. Yochanan. The Doros Rishonim violently
: disagrees says he had not been frum before and this proves that the
: rishonim had no interest in historical facts. Are you rejecting the
: position of Tosfos when asking your question?

No, I was simply unaware of the Tosafos on it.

Thanks for the implied compliment, but you overestimated me.

In any case, every acquisition of Torah is a reacquisition. If not because
of teshuvah, then because of one's pre-birth awareness of Torah. So the
notion that R' Yochanan was koneh over a long time while Reish Lakish
was bivas achas still stands.

To put it another way, it's more relevent how Reish Lakish made his
torah *his*, not whether he learned it in a short time or over a long
period before that acquisition.

-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

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 12:28:19PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Which is exactly my chakirah WRT haftorah on YKK: (1) Is the haftorah of
: taaniyos an integral part of kriyas hatorah and therefore no torah -> no
: haftorah (even w/o brachos). Or: (2) Is the haftorah a separate chiyuv in
: some sense ...

Doesn't the word "haftorah" itself imply it was viewed as the "conclusion"
of leining, and not bifnei atzmah?

-mi

Micha Berger wrote:
>: I found no mention of gilui panim and hester panim.

> Nor did I say you would. Otherwise I would have started out with
> sheim amro. You asked for somone who treats the worlds as distinct.
> And that he does.

No, this time I think you miss my point. You have attempted to harmonize
three families of concepts: kabbalistical concepts like gilui panim and
hester panim and olamos haelyonim, popular concepts like segulos, and
Newtonian (for lack of a better term) concepts like teva (by which you
mean the modern model, not the Aristotelian model). I know of attempts
to harmonize some pairs of these (for example, early on I suggested
that segulos are related to the mechanism that the Ramban suggested
for kishuf). I also know of statements, (e.g. that Ramban in Acharei
Moth I cited in my previous email about "eilu hamithchashvim b'teva")
that some pairs of these are irreconcileable.

Your question
: <<<  why segulos? Why leave around something that when
: properly understood reduces bechirah? What is the offsetting benefit? >>>

makes several assumptions: it assumes

(1) there is a mechanism teva

(2) segulos work using a different mechanism than teva

(3) observing segulos gives you more information about spiritual things
than you would get living a normal life

(4) this extra information reduces your bechira.

I suggest that these assumptions conflate contradictory sources, some
of which I recognize and some of which I don't. To take them in order,

(1) I suspect that the Ramban (and possibly NH) recognize "teva" as a
false, Aristotelian construct which they must discuss because it has
entered the popular imagination but which they don't believe.

(2) I don't know a source for; I suspect that you are trying to harmonize
modern physics with applied kabbalah. In particular, I don't know of a
source which believes in teva, believes in segulos, and believes that
they are induced by distinct mechanisms. It was that source which I
intended to request.

(3) I also don't know a source for and don't have a good guess about why
you believe it (RAM and I have both been pushing this one). Of course
this depends on finding a source for (2).

(4) I do know a source relating bechira to knowledge. It is Socrates.
I don't know of any Jewish parallel. Certainly most of the kabbalistical
sources I know emphasise the yetzer hara as the primary source of bechira
(and that includes the passage in NH I cited).

> What conflict of paradigms? I'm talking metzi'us, obvious fact from
> observation. The more reason you have to believe you're more than chomer,
> the easier it is to deny oneself the ta'avos gashmiyos.

Student (not RGS, William Gosset) once wrote to Fisher "when you write
"it can be proved that ..." I just accept it on faith, but when you write
"it is obvious that ..." I know I have a grueling time ahead of me."
What's obvious to you is not obvious to me.

>: You will have noticed in 3:12 that he restates the Ramban in Parshas Shoftim
>: I cited earlier about the mechanism of kishuf.  That certainly implies the
>: continuum of natural->supernatural.

> Why? Just because the rambam speaks of a continuum, someone who agrees
> with another nequdah of his does?

No, because he quotes a couple of sentences almost word for word.

> In any case, your model doesn't explain Abayei's chaqira. He explicitly
> says that the connection between spilled beer (which I guess you /should/
> cry over) and povberty is NOT teva but INSTEAD it's segula.

I don't recall the terms teva or segula in that gemara. It is you who
assign it that particular theoretical superstructure, and I suggest that
the superstructure is a conflation of contradictory sources.

David Riceman

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 12:28:19PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>: Which is exactly my chakirah WRT haftorah on YKK: (1) Is the haftorah of
>: taaniyos an integral part of kriyas hatorah and therefore no torah -> no
>: haftorah (even w/o brachos). Or: (2) Is the haftorah a separate chiyuv in
>: some sense ...

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Doesn't the word "haftorah" itself imply it was viewed as the "conclusion"
> of leining, and not bifnei atzmah?

That's generally the case.  I was wondering whether the haftorah of a
ta'anis is different in that it *also* stands b'fnei atzmah as divrei
kibbushin.  (They weren't going to change the name from haftorah to
something else just because it's a taanis.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> How do the meikilim get over the objection that the paper is brought
> over the techum (which is certainly the case outside of NYC)? As I see
> it this is the real problem. Since the paper is being brought for you
> (you pay for it to be brought, unlike the mail) what can the heter
> be? There must be a heter since virtually everyone reads the paper,
> even rabbonim (just listen to their sermons!. So I ask again, what is
> the heter re. the techum. Thanks for any leads.

Actually, R. Hershel Shechter said this very thing at a Catskills Hotel
where he was the scholar in residence. The Hotel stopped getting the Times
on Shabbos.

Jordan

R. Arie Folger has posted a comment referring to an article in the BAR
that I have not seen. But I would like to point out that we do not need
archeological findings to prove that the reason that wine was diluted was
not because it was very high in alcohol. That seems to be a popular myth,
but is untrue.

Grape juice becomes wine through the helpful contribution of little
beasties we call single-celled organisms (one group used in bread
production is called yeast). All of these beasties love sugar (fructose,
sucrose, what-have-you), and upon discovering some gorge themselves on
it and reproduce like crazy, so you soon have many thousands of them
gorging themselves and reproducing. This contiues until either a) the
supply of sugar is exhausted; or b) the environment becomes inhospitable
to the cuddly beasties. Now the beasties ingest the sugar and excrete
alcohol and carbon dioxide. In bread making, the heat of the oven kills
the beasties, and the alcohol (which has a low boiling point) evaporates,
leaving only the spaces where the carbon dioxide bubbles were. In grape
juice, however, the juice was left to ferment, somebody having discovered
that the alcohol lets you forget all your troubles.

However, HQB'H, in His wisdom, created a limiting mechanism to the
alcohol content of natural drinks. The aforementioned beasties, it must
be remembered, are living in a solution with their own excrement. As with
all living organisms, they cannot survive to long in their excrement. And
so it is that these single celled beasties, sadly, expire when the
alcohol content of the solution reaches about 16%. Even reaching that
concentration requires ideal conditions. Normally, when the alcohol
content reaches 12% the reporduction of the beasties slows to a crawl,
and no more alcohol is produced. This applies to beer and vodka and
whiskey as well as wine. To get any alcoholic drink much over 6 proof,
therefore, requires tampering with the divine laws of nature. This
is done by distilling the alcohol, i.e. heating the beverage until
the alcohol boils off but the water remains; the alcohol is captured
and then used. Sometime it is added to a beverage like wine that has
already reached its natural limit, e.g. cognac. Wine at the time of
the g'moro, or during the entire ancient period, was never more than
12%-14%. (And that was only if the wine was stored so that alcohol
would not evaporate. In the normal production process at the time of
the g'moro, the fermenting grape juice was left in the vats for a time,
which caused some evaporations and reduction of the alcohol. Therefore,
after being diluted 3 to 1 as specified by Hazal, the wine drunk was
never more than 3%-4% alcohol.

This applies to wine made from grapes with sufficent sugar. That is true
of real grapes, but not of their American second cousins, Concord grapes
(a native American species that is of a different genus than grapes in
Europe and the Middle East. Concord grapes are naturally low in sugar,
and all the sugar is used up by the time alcohol content reaches about
5%-6%. The beasties then die of starvation, not suffocation. To get to
a higher alcohol content, wine makers have to add sugar to the Concord
grape juice. One other little-comprehended fact is that the b'tzira of
'anavim was and is during the fall. Grapes left on the vine after the
picking season shriveled and molded (and some specialty wine is made
using these grapes with the "royal rot," which are very sweet). Until the
19th century, by the time spring came around there was NO grape juice to
be had for love nor money; it all had fermented. Commercial production
of grape juice depended on the discoveries of Louis Pasteur, and did
not begin until the 20th century. The primary halakhic significance of
these facts is that the arguments that many have used to argue that the
4 kosos must be of wine, not grape juice, fall apart. People in Egypt
did not drink wine versus grape juice in the spring; they drank wine
versus water or beer. It was not derekh herus to drink a beverage with
more alcohol; it was the only beverage available. The Amora who forced
himself to drink wine for the 4 kosos and had a headache for the rest of
the year did not due so because grape juice was posul, but because he had
no other choice. Grape juice is called yayin by Hazal, but specifically
yayin migitto (from the vat), becase after a month it had fermented enough
that is was no longer juice but wine. The g'moro says that yayin migitto
was posul for the n'sokhim on the mizbeah, but there is NO discussion of
it either in the g'moro or the Rishonim regarding Pesach any more than
there is discussion of wine produced on Mars. Some rishonim (the Rambam
not among them) prefer red wine. But what the Rambam does say lahalokho
is that the 4 kosos must be shtiya 'areva, i.e. pleasant to drink; that
is the requirement of derekh 'herus. Based on that, R. Chayyim Brisker
paskened that grape juice was kosher for the 4 kosos; more than that, it
would follow that if a person dislikes alcohol, he would not be m'qayyem
the mitzva with wine, since that would not be shtiya 'areva. [However, R.
Chayyim, true to his approach, was maqpid not to drink grape juice
for the first kos, since the Rambam paskens lahalokho that the wine of
qiddush -- not the 4 kosos -- must be kosher for the mizbeah. Besides,
all grape juice produced commercially is m'vushal according to most,
since heat is used to kill our friends the beasties. I don't believe
there is any grape juice bottled anywhere that is not m'vushal.]

Those aharonim (RMF and the books quoting him; were there others who
paskened independently on this issue?) had no halakhic arguments, but only
the feeli9ng they brought from Europe that wine was considered to be the
drink of prestige and presumably would not have been served to slaves.
However, all the evidence we have is that slaves did drink wine and
beer (presumably their owners did not want them to die of dehydration,
and water in those days had lots of organisms in it and was not drunk in
large quantities). Furthermore, even were someone to insist that wine is
preferable to grape juice nowadays because today it is more prestigious,
I would argue that the wine should be diluted by grape juice or water down
to 3%-4% alcohol, since that is the wine that Hazal were talking about.

Hazal had no problem getting inebriated with 4 kosos of that proof!
Therefore, to get back to the title of this post, it is clear that
heseiba would not have been mandated by the inability to stand or walk
straight after 4 kosos. However, the requirement that the qorban Pesah
be consumed bahavura/bahabbura does mandate that all the participants
of the seder recline/sit facing each other (with the exception of the
shammash/waiter, and a kallo within shneim-'osor hodesh).

Seth Mandel

All rights reserved by Seth Mandel, 2002

Related to this is a discussion RCBrown and I had back in v5n4-n7 titled
"Re: eating matzah and maror together", which also involved the usability
of koreich if you didn't hold like Hillel.

My question was how Hillel can be in such a machlokes, as the qorban
pesach was done in the same place by the whole people for centuries
already -- how were there still two shitos? I therefore surmised that
everyone did koreich, but were mesupaq if it was a chiyuv or a hidur.

To which RCB noted the problem of bitul mitzvah bemitzvah (or not), etc...

-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"

From: Gil Student <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> I did not find anyone who said that the fifth cup is called the Cup of
> Eliyahu because we don't know what to do with it and Eliyahu will explain
> it. Perhaps I did not look hard enough or perhaps it is an urban myth.

This reason is quoted in the name of the Gra in Sefer Matamim, Yitzchak
Lipi'atz, 1890, republished 1993, page 88. An additional reason, cited in the
name of the Kedushas Levi, relates to Eliyahu's role as harbinger of the
future redemption and release from the yoke of 'Rome', which was established
the day Eliyahu ascended to heaven. See also Mishna Berura 480:10 and Shoot
Shtei Lechem (46; cited in Torah Lodaas, Pinchas, 5761, Hebrew section) for
additional reasons.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: Based on this, those gaonim rule that we really drink five cups at the
: seder. Some rishonim say that there are really five words referring to
: redemption and add "ve-heveisi" as the fifth.

But doesn't the gemara itself mention four leshonos? Are there divergent
girsa'os?

And what about the shitah in the gemara that relates the four kosos to
the four times the word "kos" appears in the story of the sar hamashkin?
(BTW, this shitah has the beauty of tying the whole ge'ulah to something
that happened before the shibud, stressing the order of refu'ah coming
before the makkah.)

: R. Menachem Kasher has a 19-page essay on this in the back of his Haggadah
: Shelemah....

RMK's desire to add a fifth cup bizman hazeh is in line with his general
belief that Medinat Yisrael is the qiyum of qibbutz galiyos, and therefore
of "veheiveisi".

-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"

(In the course of trying to come up with interesting things to say at
the Passover Seder, I came across some interesting stuff on the Haggadah
Shel Pesach and would like to share it with the Chevra. It is based on
a Shiur given by Rabbi Pam, ZTL. - HM)

R. Yitzchok Zev Soloveichik writes that his father, R. Chaim Soloveichik
used to begin his Seder on Pesach with an explanation of the Mitzvas
Hagada with the following query: "Apparently the Mitzvah of Zchiras
Yitzias Mitzrayim (YM) is something we are Noheg all year, so "Why is
this night different than all other nights?" He answered that there are
three differences that apply to Pesach night:

 1) Every other night it is sufficient to merely
mention YM, even to yourself, but on Pesach night we are required to tell
it to your children in a "question and answer" fashion... "V'Higadita
L'Vincha".

2) Every other night it is sufficient to merely mention it, but on
Pesach night one must "tell the story" of YM and it's various details
as to how we went from slavery to freedom.

3)On Pesach night there is the additional requirement to explain
the reasons of the Mitzvos of the night as Rabban Gammliel (RG) says,
"Anyone who does not say these three things on Pesach... did not execute
his obligations. And these are: Persach, Matzah, and Marror.

His explanation was extracted from the words of the Rambam(Beginning
of Chapter 7 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah): In that these three things
are included in the Mitzvah of Sipur YM. It is a Mitzvas Aseh to tell
the story of all the miracles and wonders that were done fore our fore
fathers on the night of the 15th of Nissan, as the Torah says: "Remember
the this day which you exited Egypt"... the Mitzvah of telling over the
story to your children (...that is: Sipur to others) (Point 1). Also one
is required to "begin with our lowly travails and end with praise". How
so? We begin by stating that at first our forefathers were idolaters
in the days of Terach and we end with the fact that G-d brought us to
Ultimate Truth and thus separated us from the "Nations". So we begin
"Avodim Hayinu L'Pharoah B'Mitzrayim... (Point 2). Then the explanation of
the Mitzvos of the night as per RG. These... are called Hagada (Point 3).

There are many Chidushim found in the words of R. Chaim. For one thing
the fact that he holds that these are D'Oraisa requirements means that
you are not Yotze if you do not incorporate these three elements on
Pesach night. But many Rishonim hold that you ARE Yotze with just the
mention of YM alone. For Rabbenu Yeruchem in the name of Rabbenu Peretz
(and so also, the Pri Chadash) brings as one proof that the reason you
do not make a Bracha on Sipur YM is because the main Chiuv of Sipur YM
was already fulfilled by it's mention in Kiddush. The Rashba answers this
question by saying that the reason you do not make a Bracha on Sipur YM
is because of the rule that one does not make a Bracha on Mitzvos that
do not have any Shiur (exact measurement). This is in fact why one does
not make a Bracha on Tzedaka or Kibud Av. In fact, the Pri M'Gadim and
the Minchas Chinuch in fact Paskin that you are Yotze the D'Oraisa of
Sipur YM on Lel Pesach with the mere mention of it.

The question arises, what then is the meaning of RG's statement about
"not being Yotze Your Chov"? The Maharsha answers that RG was talking
about being Yotze the Mitzvos of Pesach, Matzah, and Marror without
it's explanation and was not talking about the Mitzvah of Sipur YM. As
the Ran says: "He is not properly Yotze". The Tzelach too states that
RG was talking about Pesach, Matzah, and Marror and not Sipur YM. This
contradicts R. Chaim's view according to the Rambam.

Never-the-less, The GRI'Z (through one of his Talmidim in a Sefer called
Emek Bracha) explains that the Haggadah, which is taken from a collection
of sayings spread out in the Michilta and Meseches Pesachim was indeed
written in exactly the way R. Chaim saw the requirements of Sipur and
if one looks at the construction of the Hagadah one can easily see this.

HM

The Haggadah States that "In every generation we are required
to see ourselves as though we ourselves made the exodus from
Egypt. L'fichach... Therefore we are Chaiv to praise G-d and say before
before Him Shira Chadasha... Hallelu-ya."


The question arises what is the connection between these two things:
Why... "Therefore"?

Rabbi Yitzchok Zev Solovechik explains it using the Shitas HaGeonim
brought down by the Ran in Arvei Pesachim.

There are two types of Hallel. 1) Hallel of Kriah which is said on
the eighteen days which they were Koveah. 2)Hallel of Shirah that
one says whren he is saved from personal travail, but NOT when one's
friend is saved from travail, if he himself was not involved or saved
from that travail. The Hallel of the Haggadah is a Hallel of Shirah,
not of Kriah. Therefore we say "In every generation we are required to
see ourselves as though we OURSELVES made the exodus from Egypt." If
we don't see ourselves that way then it would not be possible to say
Hallel K'Din. L'fichach... This is why we say "In every generation
we are required to see ourselves as though we OURSELVES made the
exodus from Egypt." IN THIS WAY, then, we are Chaiv... from the din
of Hallel shel Shira...to praise G-d and say before before Him Shira
Chadasha... Hallelu-ya."

HM

On 19 Mar 2002 at 11:29, Jordan Hirsch wrote:
> Actually, R. Hershel Shechter said this very thing at a Catskills Hotel
> where he was the scholar in residence. The Hotel stopped getting the Times
> on Shabbos.

I would think that a hotel in the Catskills, which likely has a large 
amount of land, could be cholek a tchum to itself which may change 
the psak. This is unlikely to be the case for most homes, except for 
wealthy estates. 

-- 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.

In a message dated 3/5/02 6:20:26pm EST, Daniel Eidensohn yadmoshe@012.net.il
writes:
> I am not sure what you mean by bias especially cultural ones. If all the
> Jews I know wear hats - is my judgment that some one without a hat is not
> Jewish - is that a cultural bias? ...

> In sum: the mere observation of an apparent disparity does not justify a
> reflexed interpretation of psycholgical bias or cultural bias.  While  it is
> obvious that people have biases or reflexive use of schemata but I don't see
> the value of assuming them as "the explanation" in a particular case without
> clear evidence.

It's reall simple.

A typcial Yeshiva Bachur sees a Yid with a bare head. He concludes that
Yid is not frum

A yekke or Sephardi would not reach the same conclusion.

Each one EXPECTS things to be a certain way.

In some shuls if you have yartzeit you get the amud, in others you need
to be a member

Yet how many people get brogez because the local shul does not live up
to their expectation?

In Breuer's only one aveil says kaddish at a time. and a guest is often
not going to get that kaddish. Is he sentitled to impose HIS needs upon
the local paradigm? Well many do. That's the way it usually goes.

and whenf a Jew puts on a hat it is out of kavod and respect. Conversely
a Xtian would remove his hat out of the same sentiment.

The exceptoins are those well-travellled folks who have multiple maps and
can see more clearly which realities are native and which are parallel
but foreign etc.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RSBA writes:
>"Ve'od Toneh Bar Kapporo...velomo ein me'orvin
>bo dvash mipneu shehatorah omroh ki chol se'or vechol dvash lo saktiru
>mimenu.."
>There is no such a maamar in our Bavli or Yerushalmi (or any anywhere
>else - AFAIK).

While it is true that the maamarim [there are *two* Tani Bar Kaparas]as
such do not exist, there are pretty close parallels:
1. Yerushalmi Yoma 4:5 (41d)
2. According to the Orhot Hayim (of R Aharon ha-Kohen of Lunel) it is found 
in Yerushalmi Orlah. [Not found in modern editions or 5 manuscripts I 
checked, but, then, I'm not sure where in Orlah it might have gone. This 
might be a printer/copyist's error in the OH or an indication of 
differences with our Yerushalmi.]
3. Bavli Keritot 6b. Cf. Tosafot to Shevuot 10b sv Mutar
4. As mentioned, Siddur Rav Amram Gaon quotes it [obviously just quoting 
the Gemara as he had it in front of him]
5. Again, as mentioned, Mahzor Vitry (siman 77 and 101) does as well.
6. Shu't haRadbaz in three separate places (II:653; III:527; IV:35)

RSBA is to be commended for his tabulating of what he has called in the
past "phantom maamarei Chazal" [a listing of certain importance] but,
alas, this instance I'm afraid doesn't qualify.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 04:08:50PM -0500, arnold.lustiger@exxonmobil.com wrote:
: Unfortunately, I am also new to this thread, but at the risk of repeating
: an earlier participant, this shita would seem to be difficult according
: to the Rashi in Megillah 17b, which states that the bracha of Go'al
: Yisrael in Shmoneh Esrei specifically means "that we should be redeemed
: from the tzoros that that we encounter constantly"...

Lately I've been playing with the idea of semichus ge'ulah letefillah. Why
does someone who do it get the appelation "ben olam haba"?

Li nir'eh chazal are saying something fundamental about the relationship
of emunah to bitachon. Ge'ulah (and for that matter the entire seder of
Shema) is about emunah, belief in the ikkarei emunah, belief that HQBH
saved us in the past.

It is only through belief that HQBH *could* save us that one can get to
the bitachon that He *will*. And without bitachon in future hashgachah
peratis (be it REED's or CI's bitachon) the bakashos of shemoneh esrei
make no sense.

Someone who is someich ge'ulah letefillah takes absract beliefs and
turns them into hope for the future, and trust that his own life has
tachlis.

A side question: How does a "ben olam habah" differ from all of BY who
"yeish lahem cheileq le'olam haba"?

-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"

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:39:38PM -0500, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: 1) Do misnagdim / non-hassidim accept the idea?

: 2) Should Kabbalistic (esp. fine and more advanced concepts) ideas be
: out in the public square and in common / every day discourse (esp. among
: the masses) ?

Obviously misnagdim and chassidim have different answers for that one.

In any case, I'm not sure this situation is an example. The idea
of causing the rabbim to do a mitzvah to raise the fortunes (or the
"location", if the two concepts are different) of the deceased is the
tachlis of saying qaddish, no? Isn't the idea as old as the rasha (*)
who disturbed R' Aqiva's dreams in order to get his son to learn Barechu?

*) How much of a rasha was he really? After all, he had enough zechus
to be able to appear to R' Aqiva. AFAIK, most people who are in gehenom
during that first year do not have the authority to interrupt the sleep
of one of history's greats.

-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"

[As RSS writes, he's making comments about a scenerio being discussed
on Areivim. -mi]

>>I have another question about Josh Backon's story on the TV crew that exposed 
>>the rabbi giving out hashgachas without checking credentials.

... [Discussion US legal definition of entrapment sent to Areivim. -mi ]

>I cannot believe that halacha says you can't expose a faker (whose activities 
>cause others unwittingly to sin by eating treif) by trickery. 

I am studying maseches Shavuos, and just last week ran across the
following passage on 31a:

A baraisa states (losely translated): "if a teacher tells a student
. . . I am owed a maneh by Ploni, but I have only one witness, from
wheredo we learn that the student should not join the witnesses? The
Torah states, "Midvar Shesker Tirchaf" (Distance yourself from falsehood).

The Gemara goes on to explain that the teacher is not asking the student
to testify falsely, but "rather, where the teacher said to the student,
'I certainly have one witness, come and stand there with him but do not
say anything, for then you will not utter a falsehood.' [the baraisa
teaches that' even such a case is assur because shene'eamar 'midvah
sheker tirchaf."

Rashi: by standing with the witness, you will help give the impression
that I have two witnesses to support my case. The debtor might therefore
be prompted to admit the truth.

Me: This seems to be a case where trickery is assur d'oraisa. On the
other hand, we also learn all over the maseches (as well as Bava Metzia,
etc.) that cases involving money (and land, and slaves) are substantially
different than other cases.

Thoughts?

Based on the above, is it an issur d'oraisa to engage in such trickery?
Does it matter if the result of the trickery will prevent others from
eating traif? (If the answer to the last one is yes, I would point out
that in the baraisa, the trickery was intended to prevent someone from
swearing falsely. _And_ we learn, at the top of 39b, that the entire
world, even tzaddikim, are punished when someone swears falsely!)

Confusedly yours,
-- Sholom

In a message dated 3/20/02 9:17:18am EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In any case, I'm not sure this situation is an example. The idea
> of causing the rabbim to do a mitzvah to raise the fortunes (or the
> "location", if the two concepts are different) of the deceased is the
> tachlis of saying qaddish, no? Isn't the idea as old as the rasha (*)
> who disturbed R' Aqiva's dreams in order to get his son to learn Barechu?

Yes, but if that were it why didn't the alleged rasha just have R' Akiva
say Kaddish for him? There must be something additional in the parent
child relationship (i.e. per R'YBS one is only truly "alive" if he lives
in the past present and future - by being a link in the mesora chain)

KT
Joel

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


[ 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         ]