Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 106

Monday, February 17 2003

• Re: Torah difficulty
• Re: Sefardi sefer torah
• dimensions of mizbeach nechoshet
• tehillim hachida
• Re: Three Berachos
• Re: Torah difficulty
• Re: fanaticism
• Re: Cohanim marrying non-besulos.
• Judging G-d's morality
• Re: Judging G-d's morality
• Re: Torah difficulty
• RE: Middos
• Re: What requires Psak
• Re: fanaticism
• nursing
• Re:Ksuba
• Re: Cohanim marrying non-besulos
• Re: tehillim hachida
• RE: Sefardi sefer torah
• Re: tehillim hachida
• Re: What is Psak
• Self Evident Apikorsus
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus

Someone wrote offline to Rabbi Bechhofer about our wars with other
nations, and he published the question and his reply in Avodah 10:103.
Part of his response was:

<<< The innocents amongst these eight nations who are willing to accept
the seven laws are not to be killed. This surmise is based on a comment
by Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk I recently saw. The Rambam rules
that even women and children who were not part of the group judged guilty
in an "Ir ha'Nidachas" (the city that was idolatrous) are put to death
Reb Chaim says that it is impossible to accept that utterly innocent
individuals are executed. Rather, this refers to individuals who were
idolatrous, but were not properly forewarned. This means that if the
majority of the city's males were properly forewarned and testimony
against them met all parameters, then other guilty parties against whom
not all the parameters of testimony may exist are included in the penalty
- but not innocents. >>>

This argument seems to define "innocents" as "those who are willing to
accept the seven laws".

This definition seems to totally ignore (what I view to be) the main
question of the original asker, which was: What about the infants and
children? The halacha seems to place the children (who are unable to
choose between accepting and rejecting the seven mitzvos) into the guilty
category. How can we understand this as humane?

Like the original asker, I too am unable to understand this, and would
like to hear additional explanations.

Akiva Miller

R' Micha Berger asked <<< And Vellish has a ches that is a vav+zayin.
Etc... But since my kid would correctly identify the letter, is it a
pesul? >>>

As I was taught, the test of "child identification" is used only in
specific cases of when the halacha is unclear about a letter's kashrus.
If there are clear halachos which the letter violates, the fact that a
child would correctly identify it won't help.

If you want, I could look for sources on this, but the logic is just too
compelling, IMHO. If any letter which a child correctly identifies is
valid, then we could just totally dump all the halachos of Tzuras Ha'Os,
and use a familiar font found in siddurim.

Akiva Miller

In Avodah V10 #101, MBerger wrote:
> According to R' Yosi, the mizbei'ach in the mishkan was 3 amos high.
> But according to R' Yehudah, it was 10 amos.

This Shabbat (Tetzaveh), I speculated, at the conclusion of a brief
shiur on the haftorah, about a proof that R. Yosi was likely right.

Ye'hezqel 43 has dimensions of the mizbea'h for 3rd beit hamiqdash,
and although we don't expect his nevuah to match exactly the dimensions
of either mishkan or either Beit Miqdash (see Mena'hot 44&45 about
how it seems at first sight that Y's prophecy contradicts the Torah,
and the end of the sugya on 45a, that biqshu lignoz sefer Ye'hezqel),
we nonetheless expect some similarity.

The bayit 3 is in generall bigger and especially taller than anything
that preceded it, and yet, its altar is wider than tall. Acc. to R.
Yehudah, the mishqan's altar is taller than wide, and it thus would
turn out that the 3rd BM's altar would be barely taller than that of
the mishqan, rather unlikely.

Not very solid evidence, but enough to raise eyebrows.

Arie Folger
--
PS: watch my deveation from my usual transliteration scheme for the
subject line. I have come to the conclusion that, for the sake of allowing
us to efficiently search the Avodah archives, we should use commonly
used Artscroll style transliteration, even though I find it horrible
(and probably some other purists). Somehow, the benefit of easy indexing
trumps the precision, at least for the subject line (but I'll stick to
precision in the body).

[When searching the archive, you can always use heb:Ye'hezqel, which
will match most transliterations of Yechezqeil. -mi]

See YD 179:8, Hil. AZ 11:12.

David Riceman

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:19:13AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: My son asked me what is the significance of the three berachos in SE
: that begin with Atah: (Attah Gibbor, Attah Kadosh, Attah Chonen) and
: all in a row. Comments?

Given also Atah Qidashta, Atah Echad and Atah Yatzarta the concept was
clearly considered important. And yet, not critical (Yismach Mosheh,
Tiqanta Shabbos, etc...)

And yet the third of the triad is different in kind than the two taken
from the opening berakhos...

-mi

On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:57:00AM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: This definition seems to totally ignore (what I view to be) the main
: question of the original asker, which was: What about the infants and
: children? The halacha seems to place the children (who are unable to
: choose between accepting and rejecting the seven mitzvos) into the guilty
: category. How can we understand this as humane?

Who said war is humane? War is wholesale killing, involving the survival
of peoples and cultures, not individuals.

We should also realize that the same One who wrote these dinim allowed
Nechudnetzar to make them moot.

Perhaps because the attitude toward war has bichlal changed (in most
parts of the world) since. I'm suggesting that these were dinim HQBH
only wanted implemented when Klal Yisra'el had a much lower base WRT war
from which to elevate itself. And that it was necessary for our early
development to learn the noxiousness of certain cultural features to
the point that this was more important than the ethics of war.

-mi

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

> What should make us leery of any phenomenon is the association with it
> of excesssively enthusiastic and often intensely uncritical devotees.

The above concept of fanaticism seems to be viewed favorably by chazal in
Berachos 20a.[soncinco translation]
    "Said R. Papa to Abaye: How is it that for the former generations
    miracles were performed and for us miracles are not performed? It
    cannot be because of their [superiority in] study, because in
    the years of Rab Judah the whole of their studies was confined to
    Nezikin, and we study all six Orders, and when Rab Judah came in
    [the tractate] ‘Ukzin [to the law], ‘If a woman presses vegetables in
    a pot’ (or, according to others, ‘olives pressed with their leaves
    are clean’), he used to say, I see all the difficulties of Rab and
    Samuel here. and we have thirteen versions of Ukzin. And yet when
    Rab Judah drew off one shoe, rain used to come, whereas we torment
    ourselves and cry loudly, and no notice is taken of us! He replied:
    The former generations used to be ready to sacrifice their lives
    for the sanctity of [God's] name; we do not sacrifice our lives for
    the sanctity of [God's] name. There was the case of R. Adda b. Ahaba
    who saw a heathen woman wearing a red head-dress in the street, and
    thinking that she was an Israelite woman, he rose and tore it from
    her. It turned out that she was a heathen woman, and they fined him
    four hundred zuz. He said to her: What is your name. She replied:
    Mathun. Mathun, he said to her: that makes four hundred zuz."

                                                        Daniel Eidensohn

> The question asked, was, that unfortunately these days - outside of the
> religious community - there are very few marriages where the kallah is
> a besulah. (In many/most cases the choson and kallah have been living
> together for quite a while.)

There are a number of relevant teshuvos in Igros Moshe

Kesuba for couple who had been living together EH I 101 page 248; EH IV
#118 page 209

Marriage of baalas teshuva to Cohen EH IV 40-42

                                        Daniel Eidensohn

Rabbeinu Bachye(Devarim 20:10) [R' Munk translation]

"IF YOUR HEART IS REVOLTED BY THE INSTRUCTION TO KILL "INNOCENT"
CHILDRN WHO HAVE NOT DONE ANY HARM TO ANYONE, REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A
HEAVENLY DECREE. G-D DOES NOT NEED TO TAKE US INTO HIS CONFIDENCE OF
WHY HE LEGISLATED THIS.... When we kill them we kill in effect people
who are already as good as dead though they may still go through the
motions of 'being alive'. Sanhedrin 96 describes the process of killing
them as 'grinding ground flour'. As a result no injustice has been done
to these children seeing that G-d has already decreed that they should
die forthwith. Even if we do not avail ourselves of this argument, the
fact is that minors are considered as shoots off the main trunk. In
this instance they are part of a trunk which has gone rotten and we
may assume that if allowed to live these shoots will take after their
original trunk. The Torah even spelled this out when it wrote in verse
18 'so that they will not teach you to commit all their abominations'
In other words torah psychology foresees the sinister historical effect
of allowing the spiritually depraved children of such parents to live. If
you were to argue that if raised in a Jewish society these children when
they grow may embrace Judaism and keep G-d's commandments you only need to
reflect who it is who instructed to spill their blood. It is none other
than G-d Himself. Surely He knows if any moral/ethical adults will grow
out of these children. He decreed their death because He knows that they
will not become penitents. Consider the following verse in Isaiah 14:21
'prepare a slaughtering block for his sons because of the guilt of their
father so that they will not arise and possess the earth and fill the
face of the earth with cities". In view of the foregoing, the Canaanites
whom the Jews allowed to survive became a source of terrible physical and
spiritual damage to the Jewish people. It is no more than logical that
people prefer to do things which result in potentially smaller damage than
that they take a chance by exposing themselves to a greater damage.....

At any rate the permission to kill women and children is applicable only
when these people did not initiate or respond to your offer of peace (as
the case may be). If they did, subject to the conditions we outlined,
they may live even if there were members of the 7 Canaanite nations as
we know from Joshua 11:19-20).

It is clear from here that just as the Chivites who had made peace with
the Jews were allowed to live (Including the men even though they had
tricked the Jews) so would the other tribes have been allowed to live
under similar circumstances. G-d had allowed these pagans to be obstinate
enough not to use the escape route offered by Torah law which would have
enabled them to survive....Jerusalem Talmud Sheviis 6:1 'Joshua sent 3
letters before entering the Holy Land. In the first he suggested that
they come forward and submit to Jewish sovereignty and the conditions
we discussed earlier..."

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

Rabbi Eidensohn quotes Rabbeinu Bachye (Devarim 20:10) [R' Munk
translation] as including the following:

<<< the fact is that minors are considered as shoots off the main trunk.
In this instance they are part of a trunk which has gone rotten and we
may assume that if allowed to live these shoots will take after their
original trunk. >>>

At first, I took the words "we may assume" to mean that we have a mere
chazaka, a presumption, that these children will go rotten. But Rabbeinu
Bachye's actual words there are "b'vadai yihyu ochazin darchei haavos"
- they will *surely* follow the ways of the parents.

Further: <<< If you were to argue that if raised in a Jewish society these
children when they grow may embrace Judaism and keep G-d's commandments
you only need to reflect who it is who instructed to spill their blood. It
is none other than G-d Himself. Surely He knows if any moral/ethical
adults will grow out of these children. He decreed their death because
He knows that they will not become penitents. >>>

Could it be that Rabbeinu Bachye does not hold that such people are
accepted as gerei tzedek? I don't remember whether that halacha was
debated or not. It seems to me that the two thoughts are mutually
exclusive: If the Torah is telling us that such people will "vadai"
follow their parents, then it is also telling us that their Kabalas
Hamitzvos is insincere. And if it is not truly a "vadai", then why are
the infants executed without waiting to see how they will grow up?

In an entrely different direction, I would be interested in a comparison
of why these children are executed because of their future beliefs and
actions, whereas Yishmael was judged "baasher hu sham" and allowed to
live during the meanwhile.

Akiva Miller

kennethgmiller@juno.com writes on Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:57:00 -0500: 
> This argument seems to define "innocents" as "those who are willing to 
> accept the seven laws". 

> This definition seems to totally ignore (what I view to be) the main 
> question of the original asker, which was: What about the infants and 
> children? The halacha seems to place the children (who are unable to 
> choose between accepting and rejecting the seven mitzvos) into the guilty 
> category. How can we understand this as humane? 

But that was why I made the tzu shtel to Reb Chaim's he'arah (with an
aleph) on Ir ha'Nidachas - only those implicated in avlah are killed. This
is a very big chiddush - but Reb Chaim's a-chiddush, not mine!

YGB 

> Personality traits are like medicine, you have to use them in the
> proper middos.

> Note the lashon! Sifrei mussar don't speak of personality traits, they
> speak of their sizes

Actually, I think that the concept here is that middos are measures,
parameters of a person's soul. I, even though having written a book on
Novardok mussar did not realize this until seeing it so explained in
the name of R. Y. Perr in Alan Morinis, Jacob's Ladder, Broadway Books,
2002 on p. 58

M. Levin

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote that <<< RSZA did not tell me that to [...] was
an eitzah tovah. He said it was a Psak. >>>

Could you please clarify the difference between an eitzah tovah and
a psak?

Akiva Miller

"gofman" <mgofman@zahav.net.il> writes on Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:09:34 +0200: 
> The ultimate crime in today's world is being a fanatic. However, why do 
> you assume that Judaism agrees with that assumption. Moral relativism 
> automatically tars fanaticism as being politically incorrect. However, 
> if there is an absolute truth, does fanaticism have no place? ...

> The Rambam's derech hamemutza is refering specifically to middos and 
> not to hashkafos. The Rambam did not propose that all hashkafos, whether 
> right or wrong, should be incorporated. 

Reb Micha already responded as I would have, that the issue is more
the intense uncritical coponent than the excessive enthusiasm in the
definition of:

"marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion"

However, two points:

1. As anyone who has heard of the Izhbitzer knows, his main nekudah
is mesinus - and he is none too pleased, ka'yaduah, even with Pinchas,
so excessive enthusias is not so pashut either.

2. As we know from RSW, Hashkafa is not a good thing. Kana'us for Hashkafa
is kol she'kein a bad thing. It leads to all sorts of negative phenomena,
from the extreme right hashkofos to the extreme left hashkofos, vekm"l.

I do agree, however, that misplaced kana'us is not an indication of error.

[Email #2. -mi]

"Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il> writes on Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:32:48 
+0200: 
>> What should make us leery of any phenomenon is the association with it 
>> of excesssively enthusiastic and often intensely uncritical devotees. 

> The above concept of fanaticism seems to be viewed favorably by chazal in 
> Berachos 20a.[soncinco translation] 
>     "Said R. Papa to Abaye: How is it that for the former generations 
>     miracles were performed and for us miracles are not performed? It 
>     cannot be because of their [superiority in] study...    He replied:
>     The former generations used to be ready to sacrifice their lives 
>     for the sanctity of [God's] name; we do not sacrifice our lives for 
>     the sanctity of [God's] name. There was the case of R. Adda b. Ahaba 
>     who saw a heathen woman wearing a red head-dress in the street, and 
>     thinking that she was an Israelite woman, he rose and tore it from 
>     her. It turned out that she was a heathen woman, and they fined him...

Not sure how this is relevant. Bu, in any event, see Rashi on masun,
masun. Also, the Mei HaShiloach, vol. 1, Mishpatim d.h. Reishis
Bikkurei Asmaseshca. Also vol. 2 on Berachos 20a, fascinating pieces
(all Iszhbitzers are!) in which he says the hanhogo which allowed
for mehirus atzumah no longer exists and now everything must be done
b'yishuv ha'da'as.

YGB 

> RDE came across an issue which tests the limits of the halachic
> process. What is the hetair to nurse a baby on Shabbos?

> 1) Kesubos 60a indicates that there is a doreissa prohibition of mefarek.

The Gemara is NOT discussing nursing a baby on Shabbos.

> 2) Shulchan Orech 328:34-35 in Biur Halacha also indicates there is an
> issur doreissa in the nursing process

Do you mean where the Biur Halacha is rejecting this implication from the
To"Sh?

> 4) Shemiras Shabbos 36:17 in footnote raises the question of nursing
> close to the end of Shabbos.

You mean 36:21

> If the baby can wait there is no longer a
> hetair of pikuach nefesh. He notes that R' Shlomo Zalman permitted it
> because of various doubts even though there are others that say to wait.

RSZA is quoted there as saying this is permitted without any doubt.

> 5) Shemiras Shabbos also cites a teshuva of R' Pesach Frank that states
> that there is not a blanket hetair because of sakkana. He was responding
> to a psak that it would be permitted to put milk in a cup for use later
> on Shabbos since it is sakana (Yevamos 114a) for the baby not to have
> milk. He noted that the sakkana is limited to the time the baby actually
> needs the milk and is not a general hetair.

> Question - since the hetair seems to be pikuach nefesh it would follow

See your OS and HZ that both reject this line of reasoning.

> I have gotten three types of responses to this question and members of
> each category strongly rejects the other views.

> 1) "It is really dumb question since a baby was obviously created to
> be nourished by the mother."

This might be the view of the OS.

> 2) "It is an interesting intellectual question (pilpul) but obviously has
> no practical meaning since the baby is sinning not the mother". Problem
> being why Shemiras Shabbos, Ohr Someach and R' Frank take it seriously.

R' Frank gives this answer.

> 3) It is a valid question and there are practical consequences of how
> the issue is understood and obviously everything is governed by halachic
> analysis rather than gut feelings (or as one Breslover Chasid distainfully
> put it "Chassidishe vortlach").

Perhaps not every question should be published with nafka-minas based
on the question.

Shlomo Goldstein

> 1) Should the ksubah contain the word 'besulah'?
> It would seem to be an open and clear lie and also a
> 'chiyuche utlili' for anyone understanding the document and knowing
> that they have been in a de facto relationship for months/years.

I heard that R. Pinchas Hirshprung would write two kesubos, one with
bsulta that he read under the chuppah and another that he left eith the
couple. He would hhold on to the first one and make sure to destroy it
after the chuppah. Can someone confirm that this was his practice?

M. Levin

R' SBA wrote <<< Should the ksubah contain the word 'besulah'? It would
seem to be an open and clear lie ... >>> R' Carl Sherer asked <<< What's
the issur involved? >>>

My first reaction is to suggest that the issur involved is MiD'var Sheker
Tirchak. But my second thought is Mutar L'Shanos Mipnei haShalom.

Akiva Miller

> (which  I quoted all these here before - note the "velomed" - that's from 
> the Sansan l'Yair (which I saw inside) that says also "yilmad." 
> Eh?? 

Nisht "zohgen," nohr "lehrnen." 

> I am not sure what the heter is to print Tehillim al pi Alef Beis. 
> Does this need a hetter? The Chido says he saw such tehillims in his day. 

The Chida did not print them! 

The issur to write a Sefer Torah like this is in Berachos 12b
(paraphrasing): "Kol parashah d'lo paskei Moshe anan lo paskinan
lei." There is a discussion ongoing on Avodah about pesukim, but it also
applies to Parashiyos.

The Gemara in Shabbos 116a explains that the nunim haphuchim are because
Vayehi beneso'ah is out of place - here too the inappropriate order
would require some siman.

Granted, that is Torah and this is Kesuvim, but I assume the principle
is the same, and such a sefer is b'geder sefer she'eino mugheh and Al
tashken b'oholecha avlah.

YGB 

> As I was taught, the test of "child identification" is used only in
> specific cases of when the halacha is unclear about a letter's kashrus.
> If there are clear halachos which the letter violates, the fact that a
> child would correctly identify it won't help.

A classic example would be a letter with a crack -- visually obvious,
but posul.

A "tinok test" is *not* a simple thing to do -- quite a large percentage
of them are (in the opinion of a major posek here) invalid.

Akiva

===============
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long
to return."
                     --Leonardo da Vinci

In a message dated 2/17/03 12:40:59 PM EST,
sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu writes:
> The Gemara in Shabbos 116a explains that the nunim haphuchim are because
> Vayehi beneso'ah is out of place - here too the inappropriate order
> would require some siman.

> Granted, that is Torah and this is Kesuvim, but I assume the principle
> is the same, and such a sefer is b'geder sefer she'eino mugheh and Al
> tashken b'oholecha avlah.

Oy vey, such a misnaged! It hurts to read!

Maybe I should discard my siddur because "Mah Tovu" appears before
Parshas Hatamid?

Raphael  ;-)
(A freilichen Shushan Purim Koton)

kennethgmiller@juno.com writes on Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:32:46 -0500: 
> Rabbi Bechhofer wrote that <<< RSZA did not tell me that to [...] was 
> an eitzah tovah. He said it was a Psak. >>> 

> Could you please clarify the difference between an eitzah tovah and 
> a psak? 

Were RSZA to have told me "this is an eitzah tovah," I would have been
free to follow the dictates of my heart and accept or reject his advice,
and freely seek further advice as well

In telling me it was a psak, he was invoking all the parameters that apply
to a situation where one has aksed a Rav a she'eilah and received a psak.

YGB 

i am always impressed by demonstrations of the finely tuned apikorsus
antennae possessed by members of the list and thought i'd try an
experiment. Consider the following baker's dozen quotations/paraphrases
and maybe RCarl, or others, could let us know just when that apikorsus
gauge goes past critical. RCarl might want to slip into some old clothes
before reading further. (make that BD+1, i added one more just before
sending this)

1. i'm not really sure if these letters/words were actually part of
the original torah text, so lets just mark them for later removal or
confirmation.

2. of course the bible critics are quite correct. the torah does contain
many contradictory versions from different perspectives that are not
harmonizable as the traditionalist approach has it.

3. to say our torah is like moshe's torah should not be understood
literally, rather it should be understood in the general sense, i.e. it
is for all intents and purposes the same as moshe's.

4. The Priestly code is a rather late development.

5. Ezra changed words of the torah

6. Ezra did change words of the torah, but only to restore/recover the
original version which got corrupted during bayis rishon.

7. the sof'rim changed the torah

8. there really is no religious objection to investigations of Lower
Bible Criticism (i.e. those that deal with purely textual-girsoh issues).

9. of course there are verses in the torah that are post-moshe (and not
just the joshua 8 or 12)

10. anshei k'neses hagg'doloh wrote some parts of chumosh

11. dovid hammelech did some chumosh editing. took out hallel haggodol
from b'midbor and stuck it into t'hilim.

12. what we mean by saying moshe wrote down torah was the main narrative,
but here and there additions that didn't add up to a real section is OK.

13. when writing down words nobody much paid attention to matters like
precise spellings or little conjunctives let alone moleh v'choseir.
this was an individual thing by the scribe. what they faithfully preserved
was the meaning.

14. you know, that version of the torah which the Rambam himself had
was not identical to our own.

Iy"h will follow up with a separate posting after gathering a source
or two.

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
> Consider the following baker's dozen quotations/paraphrases and maybe
> RCarl, or others, could let us know just when that apikorsus gauge goes past
> critical.
...

Excellent quiz. I can hardly wait for the answers as I have no idea who
you are quoting here, but it cedrtainly wouldn't be the Rambam who in
his 'Ani Maamin's says "Kol hatorah hametzuyoh ato beyodeinu hu hanesuno
leMoshe Rabenu OH..." and "..shezos hatorah lo sehei muchlefes..."

> Iy"h will follow up with a separate posting after gathering a source or
> two.

Please do.

SBA

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


[ 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         ]