Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 076

Thursday, December 12 2002

• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot (take advantage of everything that is mutar)
• Re: women and chanukiyot (take advantage of everything that is mutar)
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and neros chanukah
• Re: Rambam in Arabic
• Re: Rambam in Arabic
• RE: rambam's shitta
• Re: Blue Eyes
• Frumkeit
• Placing bids on Ebay for auctions that end on Shabbos
• Re: women and neros chanukah
• FW: women and brachot
• handshaking
• Ebay auctions closing on Shabbat
• Re: Rambam in Arabic
• [none]
• (Fwd) Finding the right one
• Re: silk-screened sifrei torah (STAM) and megillot
• Re: silk-screened sifrei torah (STAM) and megillot
• Chessed

After discussing it with Debbie, I figured out what my fundamental
question is with all this:

Why do you (or Bodner) feel it necessary to interpolate words and ideas
into the Gemara, the Rishonim, the Acharonim, to answer a question that
nobody until you (or Bodner) thought was a question?

Why bother to do all this to answer a question that nobody asked?

On 8 Dec 2002 at 21:35, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> RCS:
>> JJB
>>> RCS:
>>>> JJB:

>> First of all that Rashi and Tosfos are talking explicitly about
>> bentching, which is the subject of the exchange above. Second, it
>> cuts both ways since that Mishna is also the source of women being
>> motzi men with brachos. So, anywhere you don't want to accept the 

> HOW IS IT THE SOURCE FOR THIS?  There is NOTHING in either the
> Mishna or the Gemara or the Rashi or the Tosfos that broadens it
> AT ALL!

So where is the source? Yelamdeinu Rabbeinu!

>> klala, you can't have women being motzi men with the brachos other
>> than bentching. It cuts both ways. So go ahead and take your pick. 

> Or, since it says nothing, and one can motzi someone of equal
> obligation, (else tefilla betzibur wouldn't work), there is no reason
> to even think that in the general case, women can't motzi men.

And we ignore the Gemara in Brachos, we ignore the Gemara in Succa,
and we ignore any other Gemara that conflicts with today's politically
correct trends. And we ignore the Chafetz Chaim, who after all was just
some Rabbi in Radin. Please....

-- Carl

See the Avodah thread titled "Mishna Berura Reference" in the archives.

Gil Student

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2002 at 18:29, simchag@att.net wrote:
>> Certainly
>> looking at the list, it's the "frummies" who are more likely to have
>> the woman not light, and the "frummies" are generally considered more
>> concerned with "chumrot" than the just plain folks.

> Whom are you calling "fruhmmies?" (Ironically, I would guess that you
> classify me as a fruhmmie and yet my wife - who did not light when
> she was growing up - lights in my house). How does one qualify to be
> a "fruhmmie?" Rav Nebenzahl in one of his sichot in Bamidbar implies
> that we should all want to qualify to be "fruhmmies" regardless of
> our hashkafa (he decries the fact that much of the DL world qualifies
> itself as "not Charedi" and says that all Jews should be chareid
> l'dvar Hashem - which is the derivation of the term). How does
> someone on this list qualify to be a "fruhmmie?"

The Alter from Kelm has an essay in which he decries "frumkeit".
He seems to think it's synonomous with superstition. OTOH he was very
much in favor of well-thought-out chumros. Perhaps the word has changed
its meaning.

David Riceman

"Carl M. Sherer" wrote:
> In general, you cannot be motzi someone in Birchos Ha'Neheneen.

No. There's a general rule that when a group is eating together one
person may make the brachah for all of them. The details of what defines
a group are rather complicated (I believe the gemara has a story about
Rav's funeral emphasising just this point).

> There's a special heter for Kiddush (agav the requirement for Kdushas
> HaYom)

It's actually a more genral heter: the bracha for the wine is tafeil to
kdushas hayom, which is a birchas hamitzva. IIRC the Mishna Berurah
allows you to make kiddush for someone in the morning also (when you
don't intend to drink), based on parallelism with Friday night kiddush,
but I believe that's a machlokes acharonim.

> and Motzi (at a Shabbos meal where lechem mishna is required
> at least l'chatchila).

No, see above. But the Aruch HaShulhan says something a bit like you:
he says there's no more hefsek after the botzea eats even before anyone
else eats on Shabbos because on Shabbos HaMotzi is a birchas hamitzva.

> But the Gemara says horrible things about a
> man whose wife makes brachos for him whether or not they are Birchos
> ha'Neheneen (cf. Bentching, Bikurim).

But that shouldn't apply in a group setting, where the motivation is
b'rov am hadras melech. That should apply only in a situation where
normally each person does it himself. You may also have in mind "baal
habayis botzea", but that's because he knows how much food he wishes to
allot to each guest. His wife probably knows just as well as he does.

David Riceman

>This is the minhag of most Yerushalmim (except that they use oil and
>this year a lot of people are being mehader to use edible oil which
>is apparently based on a Chazon Ish).

I wonder whether edible oil excludes only motor oil, or also olive oil with 
an acidity in excess of 3 percent.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\
IRA L. JACOBSON
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
mailto:laser@ieee.org

From: Jonathan Baker
> So maybe you can clear up something. If Ibn Tibbon is "literal" while
> R' Qafih is truer to the sense of the Rambam, what word did the Rambam
> use (and what concept did it represent) in describing the 13 Yesodot
> in Hheleq in terms of "emunah": "leha-amin mesiuth haborei", "...she-
> ne'emin shezeh hu hacol echad...", etc. - each yesod is leha'amin bezeh
> o bazeh. Whereas, R' Qafih does not use the language of emunah, but just
> says each idea out as an idea: that God exists, that He is unitary, etc.
> The Maimonideans on SCJM hold that Rambam had no truck with this "emunah"
> business, that it was an import from Xian Europe (the Ibn Tibbons being
> in southern France), and that there was no mitzva to believe anything,
> but rather to have some kind of intuitive grasp of these ideas.

> What did Rambam really believe regarding belief?

Now you've mentioned one of the most difficult areas in translating: what
to do with a word that has no exact translation in the other language.

Both R. Hayyim Heller and R. Yosef Qafih pointed out that Hebrew
"l'ha'amin" is nowhere close to the Arabic 'i'tiqaad. The Rambam
himself translated the first couple of "principles of faith" (qawaa'id,
the plural of qaa'ida, meaning "fundament, foundation, principle" the
same word as the murderous binLaden chose for his organization) in the
very beginning of hilkhot De'ot.

There he translates his Arabic 'i'tiqaad as "leda'" and qaa'ida as
"y'sod," so it is clear that he does not think that l'ha'amin is a better
rendition. But even R. Qafih, who explains at length in his edition
of the Mishneh Torah that 'i'tiqaad does not mean 'emunah, uses that
word to translate it in the Perush HaMishnayos after the 13 principles
when he says (Qafih's translation) "ka'asher yihyu qayyamim l'adam kol
hay'sodot hallalu ve' emunato bahem amittit" (for .sahh 'i'tiqaaduhu
liha) [this is an example of what I said that in R. Qafih's effort to
give a readable translation, he ignores some of the Rambam's diyyuqim --
even when he himself is aware of them].

But R. Qafih in his edition of the Mishneh Torah does point the reader
to the place where the Rambam explicates what he means by 'i'tiqaad:
Moreh N'vukhim, I:50. There he explains that 'i'tiqaad does not mean
professing belief in something, as he says the Christians do in the
Unity of God, when they contradict that by believing in the trinity.
Rather, 'i'tiqaad means understanding, realizing, being convinced.
Professing belief is just what he _doesn't_ mean.

I cannot comment on what Maimonideans on SCJM hold. But I have said and
will say again that the Rambam would view with horror people piously
reciting his 13 principles every day after davening. And he would
never have composed a brief pithy summary of his principles such as "ani
ma'amin" or "yigdal" (besides the fact that both of those get some of the
principles wrong). I do not say that these do not serve any function
for anybody, but I do say that the Rambam would condemn it just as he
condemn the christian catechism.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:21:55 -0500 "Seth Mandel" <sm@aishdas.org> wrote:
>I have read the Rambam in the Arabic, as have many others. I don't know
>which Hebrew translations you are talking about, but I can comment
>briefly on a) R. Ibn Tibon, b) R. Qafih, and c) R. Shelat yl'ht.
>One criticism of all, although it only slightly applies to R. Qafih,
>is that the Rambam used a clear, lucid style in Arabic, in the Moreh,
>in Perush haMishnayos, and in his t'shuvos. None of the translations
>match this in any way, although R. Qafih at least tries. ...[R. Ibn 
> Tibon's]care... caused multiple errors with people who had no knowledge 
>of Arabic, and misinterpreted (and "corrected") Ibn Tibon's Arabic in 
>Hebrew words. ...                            R. Qafih's translation into 
>modern Hebrew avoids that, but in his attempt to use correct Hebrew, he 
>sometimes is not as careful as he might be:in particular, there are many 
>diyyuqim that are fairly evident in the original, when the Rambam uses one 
>word as distinguished from another that he uses in a different sense, and 
>you cannot make these diyyuqim from R. Qafih's translation.
                        ...
>Halvai that any of us could write in English like the Rambam does in 
> Hebrew or Arabic; he is really a pleasure to read.
                         ...
>These considerations also bear on the arguments brought by R. Qafih
>concerning the t'shuvos of the Rambam to Hakhmei Lunel and a couple of
>his other t'shuvos... The best way is to learn elementary Arabic, and sit 
>down with a dictionary.

I find the R. Ibn Tibon translation too difficult for me to read and
understand. I have yet to do the right thing and learn some classical
Arabic.

Years ago I happened upon another Hebrew translation of the Moreh Nevuchim
other than those I before then knew about of R. Ibn Tibon and Rav Yosef
Kapah, a translation by R. Yehudah al-Harizi.

R. Yehudah al-Harizi was a contemporary of R. Ibn Tibon and I understand
the most popular Hebrew poet in Spain during the late 12th and early
13th centuries (he wrote the poem Tachkemoni).

According to the introduction to Friedlander's English translation of the
Moreh Nevuchim, R. Avraham ben ha-Rambam did not consider the transalation
by R. al-Harizi to be as accurate a translation as that of R. Ibn
Tibon. I am neither a Hebrew expert (or philospher) but R. al-Harizi's
translation seems to me to be very readable (It appears that R. Ibn
Tibon's translation by far surpassed its rival in popularity and the
al-Harizi translation is rarely republished and is not that well-known.)

If R. Seth Mandel has also seen that translation his opinion as to that
translation's usefulness would be appreciated.

KT
Eliyahu

At 09:32 AM 12/6/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>sigh The Hebrew language is not so simple. Much of the Moreh Nevuchim
(deleted)

RMS contends more Hebrew words do not say what they do, and that "Mamtzi"
has some novel meaning.

Unless someone (including he himself) can bring evidence to his new
pshatim in rishon, ein ketz, tamid, mamtzi (vos noch?), there is no
basis for this conversation.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org 
ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org
online Yerushalmi shiurim at: www.yerushalmionline.org

RYGB wrote:
> What he actually said was that since blue is *recessive*, if you have
> two blue eyed parents they will not have a brown-eyed child. Hence the
> mamzerus issue.

1) Now we have confirmed the author of this maamer. RYZ, take note.
2) I disagree with the rav RYGB quoted, because:
* Yisrael qedoshim hen, hence are not assumed to be adulterous, which
leads to the theroy that
* the child is a rape victim with the rapist being a goy, or (less violent)
* the child was conceived with donor ivf, with the donor being a goy
(or even a Jew, since bedi'avad we could possibly rely on those who hold
there is no mamzerut without biah (RMF), or even better, there is no
paternity without biah (IIRC, rav Mosheh Sternbuch),
* the eye colour changed as the result of a spontaneous mutation. This
does exits! You can ask any geneticist who is good at math to figure
out the statistical chances of that happening (although the exact number
of genes involved in setting eye colour may not be known at present. Gai
vais).

Arie Folger

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:58:28AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: The Alter from Kelm has an essay in which he decries "frumkeit".
: He seems to think it's synonomous with superstition. OTOH he was very
: much in favor of well-thought-out chumros. Perhaps the word has changed
: its meaning.

According to R' Wolbe, Alei Shur vol II cheleq "Limud Mussar" pereq 2,
"frumkeit" is a culture, a thoughtless instinct. In pereq 13 he writes,
"'Frumkeit' is the illusion of closeness to H' yisbarakh. Its inverse,
and the true closeness is: deep concentration.

To further explain (by example), here's my translation of the first of
his ve'adim on "Hislamdus":
    We will start our avodah with something easy: we will teach ourselves
    how to say in the morning "Adon Olam". Lest we err in this: our
    intent in this is not to increase kavanah (because it is hard to
    avoid the pitfall of frumkeit which draws every avodah toward the
    appearance to be more frum). The intent is to teach oneself how
    we say "Adon Olam". Each one will quickly conclude that he almost
    never contemplates what is written there. And from now on he will
    teach himself to pay more attention to what he is saying. Literally
    there will be revealed before him a new "Adon Olam". This hislamdus
    should continue a number of weeks, until they receive the "ta'am"
    of this kind of hislamdus.

-- 
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

May one Place bids on Ebay for auctions that end on Shabbos?

All replies and shakala vetaria appreciated. If anyone has a psak on
this please let me know

On 9 Dec 2002 at 21:56, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> >This is the minhag of most Yerushalmim (except that they use oil and
> >this year a lot of people are being mehader to use edible oil which
> >is apparently based on a Chazon Ish).
> 
> I wonder whether edible oil excludes only motor oil, or also olive oil
> with an acidity in excess of 3 percent.

I don't know if 3% is the number but definitely the latter. There 
were two grades of olive oil sold here and the difference between 
them (aside from the price :-) was whether they met the CI standard. 

-- Carl

WIth regard to the thread of women and kiddush, some remarks

RCS
> Tosfos in the beginning of Shlosha She'Achlu specifically sanctions 
> women's mezuman (may even make it obligatory - it's been a while 
> since I saw it inside). But not in front of men.... 

That last part (not in front of men) has become  accepted in some circles,
but I don't know the source (it isn't tosfot). IIRC, in halichot bayta,
RSZA's nephew brings down in the name of RSZA that he permitted
(encouraged?) women's mezuman in front of men (assuming there is no men's
mezuman - the issue of a separate women's mezuman when there is a men's
mezuman is another issue).

RCS
>  Women by definition cannot be motzi men with brachos generally and with
>  birchos ha'neheneen in particular. In fact, no one can be motzi anyone
>  with birchos ha'neheneen except for Kiddush and Motzi....

With regard to the discussion of the rashi and tosafot on sukkot: The
discussion started out as a specific issue on women saying kiddush. On
this issue, there is a substantial literature, which would seem to go
against the position of some.

Note that there are three different issues which have been confused:
1)Can a woman be motzi a man for kiddush?  

2)Even if a man is yotze the mitzva of kiddush, does the principle of
tavo me'ara apply to such a man?

3) Even if the principle of tavo me'ara does not apply, are there other
reasons why one should avoid a woman saying kiddush for a man?

With regard to issue 1 - it would seem clear that almost everyone agrees

shulchan aruch oh 271:2 nashim hayavot bekiddush.... umotziot et
ha'anashim hoil vehayavot min hatora.

The mishna brura ad locum (sk 4) brings down that the magen avraham, gra,
and shaagat aryeh all agree that a woman can be motzi a man. (I think
that the dagul merevava disagrees, but that position is rejected by all
the above poskim, including, as well (IIRC) the Aruch Hashulchan.

The mishna brura, after bringing this, then brings umikol makom, yesh
lehachmir lecatchila shelo tozi anashim sheeynam mibne beta dezila milta
(in the name of the elia rabba and divre hahayim) Now, while the mishna
brura brings down the issue of tavo me'ara on ner hanuka, he never brings
down the issue of tavo me'ara for the issue of kiddush, and indeed,
concludes that the only problem is for anashim sheeynam mibne beta -
no problem is seen for being motzi her bne bayit.

(The issue of zila milta is itself problematic, as the source seems to
be the tosafot sukka 38a - but (and, IIRC, the Aruch Hashulchan learns
this way), even if one views this tosafot as a general issur on women
being motzi the rabbim (and not all rishonim and poskim agree - the
issue is whether and why we pasken according to the tosefta about women
and megilla against the bavli), the issue of a kiddush in one's house,
even if it involves outsiders, is not necessarily the type of rabbim
tosafot is talking about)

One could try to extend the issue of tavo me'ara - but before ~1950,
I have not seen any main stream posek who has applied it as widely as
some here would wish to apply it, even while discussing the very issue
of a woman saying brachot for a man.

Meir Shinnar

I have some questions especially according to the shitta that a man
shaking a woman's hand is "yehoreg ve-al ya-over" but also according to
the other machmir shittot

1. How can a male doctor examine a femaile patient when it is not pikuach
nefesh? What are the limits of what is permitted? i.e. taking temperature,
breast exam, and many other routine examinations.

2. My wife is attending a workshop on treatment of trauma patients. A
charedi psyschologist there claimed that physical contact between
the psychologist and patient is frequently useful (of course limited
contact). He said that he personally would not hug a woman as a part
of therapy but does tap a woman on the head which he finds helps.
According to CI is this also yehorq ve-al yaover?

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 10/12/2002

Leon Manel wrote:
>May one Place bids on Ebay for auctions that end on Shabbos? 

Why not?  

People place bids on auctions that take place on Shabbat/Yom Tov all
the time. In shul, no less.

When an Ebay auction completes, various scripts run to close the
transaction and notify the participants. But we don't hold by
shvitat keilim, so there's no violation of Shabbat going on. It's then
indeterminate as to when the other participant responds. That is, grama.
The other participant has no requirement to act immediately.

Most of the things I buy on Ebay are sefarim, usually from dealers in
Israel, or in Monsey, so I expect they're keeping Shabbat themselves.
They don't usually have things that end on Shabbat, but they sometimes
forget the time difference, or the second day of Yom Tov in Galut, so
by accident things will end at times when people in the US can't watch
the end of the auction.

OTOH, I generally don't bid on things that end on Shabbat for practical
reasons - oftentimes, the real bidding all takes place in the last
few minutes of the auction. So placing a bid a day before may not be
successful. One wants to watch the end of the auction to see if one
needs to submit a higher bid.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

The firs note in R. Chaim Heller's Sefer Hamitvos, Ase 1 adresses the
meaning of L'Haamin in Arabic. IT is a long note and I suggest that
everyone look it up. In brief, he quotes the discussions in the Rishonim
of the propriety of believing rather than knowing, the places where the
Rambam (4th halacha in MT) uses yadias and where lhaamin and the meaning
of the Arabic term as more akin to knowledge than belief.

In Sefer Hamiddos, R. N.H. Vizel points out that Emes and Amen have two
letters in common, suggesting that emunah in Hebrew signifies belief
in that which is very probable but can be denied and gives a moshol to
illustrate taht. So it is not the leap-of-faith of Christinaity. What
about the Emunah Pshutah, don't ask or question, of Breslav? It seems to
me in his writing (see for example Likkutei Moharan, I think # 64)it is
tied more into the Kabbalistic concepts of Reshimo as the space where
there G-d, albeit present, cannot be discovered. This space prodices
unanswerable questions that must be avoided. It is still different form
the "beleif" of Christianity.

M. Levin

There was a discussion whether the Yersuhalmi end of Kiddusin in only
talking about blessings of Shecheheanu and the like as the meforshim
on the spot learn or if it is more general. I just want to call your
attention to the Mesilas Yesharim Ch. 13 (perishus) where he does learn
it as latter.

M. Levin

Something else we have discussed from time to time.... 

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:12:39 +0200
From:           	Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.co.il>
Subject:        	Finding the right one
To:             	Discuss list <daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il>
Send reply to:  	kornfeld@NETVISION.NET.IL

(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________

                 THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
             Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                      ask@dafyomi.co.il
 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________

Finding the right one
<Smauner@aol.com> asked:
If Yakov did not go to Charan, would he have met Rochel anyway? Would she 
have gone to Israel? 

1) The Bereshis Rabba's point on the beginning of Vayetze is not
conclusive. The same Posuk is used at the beginning of Sota to prove the
exact opposite! Therefore, there is no definitive proof from this Posuk.

Please give appropriate sources for all information.
I understand that as a practical matter, this is a moot
point. Nevertheless, it is the principle which I am interested in.

Thank you.
New York, United States

----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:

1. Although a person's spouse is pre-ordained, since it is a Mitzvah,
marriage is subject to Bechirah, free choice, just like any other Mitzvah.
If a person chooses not to marry, he will not be made to marry his
pre-ordained spouse against his will. If he does choose to marry,
but decides to forego the proper match which was designated to him and
to choose an improper woman instead, so be it. The Gemara that says
"Bas Peloni l'Peloni" simply means that Hashem *makes it easier* for
a person who *is* interested in finding a proper match, to find that
match (see TASHBETZ 2:1 and MAHARAL to Sotah 2a (end of first piece);
see also TESHUVOS HA'RAMBAM #345, cited by the Tashbetz there).

Therefore, if a person concludes that he is supposed to travel at length
in order to find his proper match (either because his parents direct
him to do so, or through some other Halachic process), and he chooses
to ignore the Halachic reasoning obligating him to travel and remains
at home instead, he will not necessarily meet his pre-ordained at home.

2. Sometimes it is Hashem's will that certain people meet and marry each
other. At such times, He sees to it that they meet, whether or not they
are looking for each other (see Bereishis Raba 65:2).

3. I am not sure to which Pasuk you are referring when you write that
the Midrash in Vayetzei (68:4) explains it differently from the way that
is explained by the Gemara in Stoah 2a. The two sources learn the exact
same lesson from the verse "Moshiv Yechidim" (i.e. that it is very hard
to make matches).

M. Kornfeld 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
majordomo@shemayisrael.com with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:49:00PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
>: The question, of course, is what makes this stencil inking process
>: equivalent to writing? Normal writing is done one letter at a time,
>: and it is important to preserve the order of letter formation in writing
>: STAM...

>I can see the latter problem. I have a question your first question made
>me think of. Hilchos Shabbos: would using such a stencil be tzovei'ah
>or (also?) koseiv?

There is a problem of chok tochos. Which means if there is a blot of ink
and I erase the extra ink to form a letter this is pasul. I am not sure
if it would apply in this case; but, if the ink goes over the stencil
and then when the stencil removed there is a letter it might fall into
this category. It might not since only a letter was printed on the sheet
that was intended for the Torah.

Kol Tov,
Ezriel

On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:32:35PM -0800, Ezriel Krumbein wrote:
: There is a problem of chok tochos. Which means if there is a blot of ink
: and I erase the extra ink to form a letter this is pasul. I am not sure
: if it would apply in this case; but, if the ink goes over the stencil
: and then when the stencil removed there is a letter it might fall into
: this category...

The way I understood choq tochos when we learned Mes' Menachos (R' Willig,
Camp Morashah "Kollel" sometime in the early '80s), the problem was that
of ta'aseh velo min ha'asui. Which would /not/ apply in the case of a
stensil.

-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          

The intro to Sha'arei Yosher made me thing of the following while saying
18...

What is "gomel chassadim tovim"?

A side question is why the verb is gomel, why we speak of gemillas chessed.
I think this is related to gamal, which survives for a long time on a single
tovah. Gemillas chessed is, perhaps, the notion that one isn't just helping
in the short term but providing sustenance over a longer run. Teaching the
poor man to fish is the greater *gemillas* chessed than giving him one.

That shakier bit of reasoning aside, the second question is why "tovim"?
RSS's definition of "tov", vehalachta bidrachav, is centered on chessed.
Can chessed be ra?

Well, that question is rhetorical. Parashas Emor bans ervas achoso "ki
chessed hu".

So, chessed can be ra, but how is that chessed?

Leshitaso, chessed is erasing the barrier between self and other. The
ultimate ba'al chessed is one who defines "me and mine" broadly enough
to include all of humanity. There are times, though, when such barriers
are necessary. Not respecting limits and violating another's space,
as in arayos, is chassadim ra'im.

-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         ]