Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 119

Tuesday, March 4 2003

• Re: Mishloah Manot question
• RE: who is a posek
• Re: Re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• Mah Tovu
• Ma Tovu
• Re: Mah Tovu
• Toras Purim 5763, part 2: Megilla and Eydus
• Counting (was: Shoshanas Yakov)
• Fw: dibbur
• Re: Maamar vs. Dibur
• First Cause (was: Ikkarim)
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: fanaticism
• Re: Birkat haminim
• Re: Who Is a Posek?
• Re: Maamar vs. Dibur
• Re: Krias Hatorah as personal obligation
• Re: Counting (was: Shoshanas Yakov)
• chovat kriat hatorah

> Namely: There is a real halacha that the two foods must be *different*
> foods, and the rules of "what counts as different" can get pretty
> complicated. But if the two foods have different brachos, then they
> are guaranteed to be sufficiently different that they do not count as
> "the same food", and they may be used for this mitzvah.

> Akiva Miller

Then one bag of Kelloggs' Corn Flakes and one bag of ShopRite Corn Flakes 
would be a good Shalach Manos?  Interesting...

Raffy

At 04:15 PM 3/3/03 -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
>>  At 09:36 AM 3/3/03 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> > I would not be surprised if the head of the "RCA" bet din (bet din of
>> > America?) meets the criteria of RYGB. How people on the list can give
>> > his name?
>
>>  Almost everyone - I think it is Rabbi Willig.
>
>Pretty funny....
>
>You're wrong.  It's Rav Gedaliah Schwartz.  Rav Willig is the sgan av beis
>din.  See <http://www.bethdin.org/mission.htm>.

Good point. I think it is probably important to assess whether heading a 
Beis Din is congruent with being an all-around Posek. It may be that an Av 
Beis Din, at least in the Diaspora, is more of an expert in Gittin, Giyur 
and elements of Choshen Mishpat (i.e., the first of my three categories).

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

> David Riceman wrote:
>> Especially since the Rambam says there "assur leihanos b'divrei
>> Torah baolam hazeh".

> I always thought that the rambam only codifies halachos mentioned
> explicitly in the gemara. If there is no mekor for such an issur, he
> would not mention it.

He did mention it.  Or are you suggesting that it's an interpolation by a
mschievous printer?

>My training was to read the words of the rambam
> in every specific halacha independently rather than take the rambam out
> of context.

Reading each halacha independently is taking the halacha out of context.
That's precisely what the phrase "out of context" means. Even read
independently however, it is a stretch to say that the word "hen"
in "shehen hatovah hagedolah shehishpia hkb"h l'yishuv haolam hazeh"
refers only to study of halachoth rather than halachoth themselves.
The Rambam says study them first because they enable yishuv haolam.
It's clear how kiyumam enables yishuv haolam, but how does studying them?

> The Rambam is informing you that enjoying what
>> is muttar and avoiding what is assur will instill a moderate temperament,
>> which will in turn enable you to study effectively, whereas excessive
>> chumroth or kulloth will lead to a distorted temperament which will
>> prevent effective study.

> You somehow came to the conclusion from hilchos deos that mitzvos can
> not be a source of olam haba. I failed to see your train of thought.

Yes you did. What I concluded from H. Deoth was that kiyum mitzvoth can
indirectly enable olam haba (see your citation of me directly above).
That it can not do so directly is from H. Yesodei haTorah. Here's my
translation of selections from H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:8-9:

The soul of any creature is the form which God gave it. The form
of a person of fully developed intellect is the additional knowledge
found in the soul of man.... This is often called nefesh or ruach....
This form/soul is not composed of the elements ... nor is it a function
of breath ... instead it comes from God. THEREFORE (my emphasis)
when the body decays and the breath breath ceases ... this form is not
destroyed ... instead it knows disembodied intellects and the Creator,
and it survives forever.

In summary what this says is that the human soul is precisely his
knowledge, and what survives death is knowledge of forms not bound
to substance. The logical conclusion is that study directly leads to
knowledge of God, and therefore contributes to survival of the soul [=
olam haba]. What you call "schar mitzva", however, seems to have no
obvious relation with the human soul as defined by the Rambam.

David Riceman

Is the recitation of Mah Tovu restricted to Shacharith? It would
seem to be appropriate to recite it whenever entering a shule to pray.
Many German shules have the custom to sing Mah Tovu on Yomtov evenings as
an introduction to Ma'ariv when Kabalat Shabbath is not said. (Minhag
Frankfurt, which recites Kabbalat Shabbath even when Yomtov coincides
with Shabbath does not, IIRC, sing Mah Tovu in that circumstance.)

DJH

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> Rich Wolpoe asked the following question:
> Mah Tovu is what we say when we enter a shul.  Should we say this if
> we are davening outside of a shul?  The Artscroll Mourning Siddur
> has it even though it is meant for a shiva house.

Seeing Rich shortly after you did, he posed the question to me as well.
After a bit of thought, I postulated that, given the presence of a regular
minyan at set times, and an aron with sefer torah, the shiva minyan may
have the din of a shul.

Looking around on the Web, I found a translation of RMF's IM 5:12,
on the lack of necessity for a mechitza at a shiva minyan. The way he
asks his question seems to support my answer:

"In Igrot Moshe (Volume 1, Orakh Hayim 39, at the end) I brought proof
from Kidushin 52b that there is no requirement to have a mehitza to
separate only a few women. But it is necessary to clarify just how many
women do not require a mehitza. For example, in a house of mourning,
or in a bet midrash where they pray daily and the Shabbat Minha,
and there is no mehitza, is it permissible to allow a few women to
enter and sit in the back of the room? And behold, in all generations
we had a custom that from time to time a poor woman would enter the
bet midrash to receive tzedaka, or a [female] mourner to say kaddish,
and the practical halakha in such cases must be examined and depends
on many factors." [tr. Yisroel Markov - RMF goes on to say that in a
BM where women don't generally go, one or two may daven w/o a mechitza;
if women do go regularly, they need a mechitza]

That he asks the question in terms of "in a house of mourning, or in a
bet midrash..." indicates some kind of equation between the two as a 
place in which regular davening takes place, while women may only attend
sporadically.  This would seem to support my thought.

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

In Avodah V10 #118, GStudent quoted RWolpoe:
> Mah Tovu is what we say when we enter a shul. Should we say this if
> we are davening outside of a shul? The Artscroll Mourning Siddur has
> it even though it is meant for a shiva house.

I don't think that a bais avail qualifies as a mini-Bais Hamiqdosh.
If the Q was rephrased as "_Could_ we say this...?" I would guess that
there's nothing wrong with merely saying some p'sukim even when not
entering a bais hak'nesses or bais hamidrosh...which brings a different
question to mind: can one say "Mah Tovu" (or, to consider another example,
"boruch ata b'vo-echa..." when passing by the entrance/exit of one's
home or someone else's home) before saying the b'rachos of "la'asok"
through "asher bochar bonu"? This question only has some relevance in
"modern" times (as opposed to when the Morning Prayers section known as
"b'rachos" was said at home biychidus), and even then perhaps only in
certain communities (e.g. those where the b'rachos before "hanosain"
are also said aloud by someone who may or may not eventually become the
SHaTZ for that minyan).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

The entire Megilla is replete with eydus - documents on Vashti, on the
Jews and on the enemies of the Jews - all signed and sealed.

The cryptic statement at the end of the Megilla: "'ma'amar Esther kiyem
divrei ha'Purim ha'eileh v'nichtav ba'sefer."

There are many ways to approach this, but let us start with the following
havchono:

Mattan Torah in the Midbar was bechinas yiras ha'onesh, wile Purm is
bechinas yiras ho'romemus.

This seems counter-intuitive, because the greatest gillui of Kevod
Hashem was at Har Sinai. V'aderaba, at the time of Mordechai it seems
that it was simple fear of death that motivated the great teshuva of
"Lech kenos es kol ha'yehudim."

But he ha'nosenes - at Mattan otrah "koffoh aleihem har k'gigis" -
as the Ba'alei Machashovo explain, the Torah was compelled upon Bnei
Yisroel because they were confronted with the truth - and all the
terrible ramifications - "sham tehei keuraschem" - if they did not
accept it. There is no remez of simcha (except, in a negative sense,
according to Rashi, at the end of Mishpatim) in the Midbar - aderaba,
the approach of the Maharal and Maran Reb Yisroel Salanter is that there
is no mention of Shavuos as Mattan Torah in the Torah because that would
"shterr" the simcha!

But the "hadar kibluha" - that was with orah v'simcha v'sasson v'yekar!
Yemei mishteh v'simchah.

But where is the romemus?

The answer is clearly:

"B'makom gedulaso sham attah motzeh anvesanuso." This is not a paradox
that is true, but rather a statement that Hashem's gadlus, kaveyochol,
is his anava.

That is the sod of the Beriyah, the chiddush of "Dira ba'Tachtonim,"
that Hashem is metzamtzem his infinity for humans to perceive.

"v'ra'u kol afsei aretz es yeshu'as Elokeynu" (Tehillim 98), Chazal say,
refers to Purim - the re'iyah of how Hashem is not just "rom" over the
Beriyah, but within the Beriyah - that is the bechina of romemus of Purim.

And that brings simcha - because Hashem is not just over us, but with us.
And even in galus: "l'bal yidach mimenu nidach."

"Bi're'osam yachad techeles Mordechai" - "techeles domeh l'yam, yam domeh
l'raki'ah, v'raki'ah domeh l'kisei ha'kavod." Why not jump directly to
raki'ah? Because the chiddush is to see how yam - even that which is
covered "ka'mayim la'yam mechasim" - is connected to kisei ha'kavod -
not to see how raki'ah is connected, that's pashut!

(Which is why the greatest gilui - kisei ha'kavod - is specifically
depicted in a term that denotes kisui - kisei. The gilui in the kisui
is the goal of the Beri'ah, not the gilui in the gilui.)

"Ein Esther maggedes es ama v'es moladeta, ki Moredechi tziva aleha
asher lo saggid."

Esther could not say an Haggado on the Am because it did not yet exist!
Kaveyachol, bechinas kedusha rishona lo kidsha l'asid lavo. The first
formation of the Am was through milchama and kibbush, and that milchma
and kibbush was battel. And that was the bechina of the first gezeira
" v'nechtam b'taba'as ha'melech" - Melech stam, zeh meleach malechei
ha'melachim - the old bechina of Am was takkeh ne'evad.

Even a new term - Yehudi - was introduced. The "old" Am was takkeh mefuzar
u'mefurad bein ha'amim. It required Haman to be "tzorer ha'yehudim" -
bechinas "tzeror ha'kesef" - to bundle and unite the Jews! Mordechia
was a Yehudi, a kofer in Avodah Zarah - i.e., one who was cognizant of
"ein od melvado" - but not "Am Mordechai" - who trusted in Achaverosh,
in "od melvado." It was Haman who created the realization that we must
all be Yehudim.

OK, enough for now.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:11:16AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: LAD, the reference to a shoshana ..Yahad is because there are two ways
: a people can be constituted.

: 1. Separate individuals who together possess an added quality expressing
: nationhood. Ex. A forest made up of trees...

: 2. Individuals who are incomplete in and of themselves and whose essence
: is that of belonging and interlacing in a group. Ex. Petals of a rose

: The piyut expresses the second understanding of our nationhood, also
: described by Yakov and not by Yisroel.

This touches on a point I made in a speech recently (at the Kadima
dinner, FWIW).

I contrasted two shorashim for counting.

/SPR/, which sefer haYetzirah (as recounted in haKuzari 5) gives three
meanings: to tell (sefer), to cut (sapar, misparayim), and to count
(mispar). Lesapeir sipur isn't to give a one sentence summary: "There
was a car accident." It's to divide that one thesis into its parts,
telling detail. "So and so got a call on his cell phone. He ...."
Thus the connection to cutting. Lispor is to count out the components
of a whole.

/PQD/ also has three meanings: to remember ("veH' paqad Sarah, ka'asher
amar", "paqod paqadti"), to appoint ("veyafqeid peqidim"), and to
count ("ve'eileh pequdei"). When doing a peqidah of people, though,
the verb used is "nasa es rosh". "Ki sisa es rosh BY lifqudeihem".
"Nasa es rosh kol adas..." This is not counting as parts, but counting
individuals and giving each importance.

(I also spoke of /qra/, to call in the sense of "Vayiqra H' el Mosheh",
to call as in to give a more meaningful name -- "viqra E-lokim la'or yom",
and to read. The concordance gives 888 occurances of /qra/ but only two
are used for "reading", and in both cases the reading ended up being
a calling. Nechemiah reads from a sefer, and the audience is moved to
abandon their non-Jewish wives. Achashveirosh has the sefer read to him
and he immediately has to make sure the party is thanked.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

RMB:
>The CC (BMC, Rechilus 1:14) permits misleading by partial quoting
>based on H's repetition of some of Sarah's words. But silence rather
>than pro-active sheqer. I do not know what he does with the other two
>cases in the gemara, though.

>The Aruch laNeir speaks about the difference between "leshanos" and
>"leshaqeir". This is the basis of the most often (in my experience)
>cited explanation: that the word "sheqer" need not include this sort
>of lying.

>I'm not sure how to understand this AlN's take on this gemara in a manner
>that isn't circular....

The CC learns it is PREFERRABLE to minimize lying even for shalom where
one may lie. The AlN similarly learns that even for shalom one may only
"change" the story by deleting etc. but not outright lie. For non-shalom
purposes it is forbidden even to "change the story". See there the end
of d"h Shaul.

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Goldstein

The Rokeach writes as proof that "bMamoroi" Bara Shchkim the Possuk of
"Bidvar" Hashem Shomayin Nasu.

In the footnotes he writes... Shibolei Haleket who writes in the name of
his brother R' Binyomin that this is based on Loshon Hamikra that says
Bidvar Hashem Shomayim Nasu, and do not wonder on the Loshon bMamoroi
as they said bAsara Mamoros Nivra Ho'olom, and see Machzor Vitri page 183.

And see MaHarShA on Sanhedrin 42a which is understood that the Mamar
refers to the distinction Amira Racha vs. Dibur Kosho (as already
suggested).


Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:01:05PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: According to Aristotle, time is property of motion. First Cause can only
: be understood if you remove the time element in causation. Viewed this
: way, the First Cause is very intimately causing all effects; without the
: time element which is only an artifact of motion, It causes all things,
: so to speak, at once. As I recall MN, beginning of Part II expresses
: this quite clearly.

: As you point out, this contradicts the principle of free will, which the
: Rambam also called an ikkar gadol (Ch. 5 of Teshuva). Bechira presupposes
: distance of G-d so as to enable exercize of choice and its consequences
: and it contradicts the first 4...

This goes to the core of Rabbi Akiva's words. "Hakol tzafui" because
to Him there is no hoveh vs asid. Which eliminates the problem of His
knowing now what will be. It is wrong to speak of H's Yedi'ah having a
"now". I think this is how the Or Samei'ach (section titled "Hakol Tzafui
vehaReshus Nesunah" in his peirush on Hil' Teshuvah) is to be understood.

And yet, I don't see your problem, that it eliminates that "distance".
What it means is that Hashem is giving the ko'ach and mamashus to the
chotei to do his cheit. In a manner, He is participating ("up close") in
allowing the sin to happen. "Bederekh she'adam rotzeh leileich..." This
is discussed at length at the begining of Tomer Devorah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: There are those who argue that the 4th ikkar implied creation even
: before Rambam changed the wording later in his life to make creation
: explicit...

What about the first ikkar? Perhaps RSM, who can follow it in the
original, can clarify, but assuming the Hebrew word is accurate
enough to make the diyuq...

The first ikkar is not simply to believe in a single G-d, but to
believe in "haBorei yisbarakh shemo", and that this perfection and
unity are features of the Borei.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:48:13AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> One can be a kana'i on rooting out beliefs that imply shtufus or imply
:> some pegam in the borei.

:> The latter would be a kana'i on inyanei machshavah, on issues everyone
:> but RSWolbe would use the term "hashkafah" to denote. No?

: Wasn't that kind of kna'i once called an "inquisitor" and his modus 
: operandi the "Inquisition?"

Can we retrace this conversation as I understood it? (Since we know
there were terminology issues, we may have different views of what was
said before they were cleared up.)

You asserted that there is no room for "fanaticalness" in Yahadus.
I agree, but only because we're defining a "fanatic" as someone who
accepts a point to the extent where he is incapable of thinking about
it critically. This may not be true of qana'us, tehirus, or enthusiasm
that has a window for self-assessment and self-checking.

The other terminology issue was that of "hashkafah". RSW gives an
idiosyncratic and negative meaning to the term that isn't the definition
most of us think of when using it. I therefore suggested "machshavah"
or "chovos halvavos".

And one can be a qana'i on inyanei machshvah. There is no paradox,
it's inherently possible. (Questions of appropriateness aside.)

Fanaticalness has no place. Because yes, the fanatic isn't thinking
critically and can fall into inquisition-like violation of one part of
the ideal in pursuit of the other.

However, enthusiasm need not carry that risk. Lehefech -- it motivates
the critical thought, allowing someone greater precision in the proper
pursuit of the ideal.

And a /critical/ enthusiast, the qana'i, could be Pinechas pursuing the
purity of the chovas ha'eivarim of arayos or someone pursuing the purity
of a chovas haleiv. The critical enthusiast is capable of working within
halakhah, and therefore would not descend to the role of Inquisitor.

Again, I think we will agree -- once we get eachother to understand what
we're trying to say.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:17:30AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: Two articles (published in his lifetime, and republished in kitve
: hagria henkin
: First, is vol 2 p 220 - hahagana al hadat beyisrael (appeared in 5718)
: 
: It is devoted to an analysis of birkat haminim based on brachot 28b.
: He says that the bracha was written before the destruction of bayit sheni,
: that rabban gamliel is rabbi gamliel hazaken, and that it deals with 4
: sects who were against hazal:
: 
: 1)	Essenes, who were nazirites...
: 2)	 Nonreligious nationalists...
: 3)	Kuhites and apostates/traitors...
: 4)	Fervent nationalists who rejected the torah

RSM beat me to explaining the historical difficulty, that the original
text(s) are clear that the first group villified are meshumadim, not
(necessarily) malshinim.

Second, where are the largest and most powerful group of koferim of the
late bayis sheini -- the tzeduqim? Why would the tiny group of Issiim get
mention, but not the people with whom we fought to control the kehunah,
the Sanhedrin, and the country?

So, I would suggest the following LAD, IMHO, and this is only a guess for
who am I to be choleiq with R' Henkin? The first group, the meshumadim,
were the tzeduqim. It was only after the fall of bayis sheini, and
therefore the tzeduqim lost their focus, that other nusachos arose to
separate ourselves from the new four greatest threats. If the berakhah
was viewed in that way, it would explain why mention of the Notzerim
crept into some versions.

In identifying which adjective goes with which group, perhaps it pays to
compare to Hil' Teshuvah 2:7-13, where he gives precise categorizations
to different ways of being outside the fold. The Rambam was well aware
of the nusach of the berakhah (minimally, of his own nusach) when he
penned those words. So even if he's defining his own terms, they'd be
consistant with his understanding of the berakhah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:10:22AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: [I] would differentiate between a moreh horo'oh - or rav, as I would use the 
: terms interchangeably - and a posek...

In inyanei halakhah, I'd agree that they're interchangable. However, a
rav could be a moreh derekh or a moreh hora'ah, or both. People who have
mashgi'ach-like hashpa'ah on their talmidim deserve the title "rav". (I
assume RYGB agrees, and was only equating them because of context.)

In any case, there is an issue I raised on Areivim... There is also the
scope of the impact of the pesaq. The rav of a kehillah, even a large
multinational one, may be asked to pasqen on an issue that crosses
kehillah boundries. Therefore, the a priori weight given his opinions
need to be assessed beyond simply the people who came with the question.

This is what differentiates an issue like eiruvin from one like gittin.
Someone who is meikil for his community on an eiruv, where the issue is
local to a single asra, where no one but the carrier is effected by the
carrying, need only be known by his kehillah as being a moreh lehora'ah.

However, if the issue is hilchos ishus, with the possibility of creating
mamzeirim, one needs to find a poseiq whose opinion would render the
person a non-mamzeir according to as many people as possible.

BTW, does the agrument that it's the ascertainment, not some objective
metzi'us, that makes a mamzer mean that eilu va'eilu renders such a
person a mamzer and a ben yichus simultaneously -- just WRT different
people? Likely, but odd to contemplate.

I think, though, that this issue really can't be resolved without
figuring out the technical change in pesaq between having a Sanhedrin
and nimnu vegamru and its fall. Since we never resolved that issue,
as well as that of the source of the authority of the mishnah, gemara,
SA, et al., I don't see how we're ready to tackle this one.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:01:13AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> A ma'amar is a definitive statement. A dibbur is subject to
:> interpretation based on how it is heard: "Achas dibber Elokim, shnayim
:> zu shamati ki oz le'Elokim" (Tehillim 62:12).

: I would have thought the opposite because in the Torah dibbur is 
: lashon kashe and amira is lashon raka....

Perhaps "dibbur" implies something that is both more harsh (kasheh)
in content and less precise in presentation.

This may be significant WRT the difference between nevu'os promising
oneshim -- which do often allow for reinterpretation -- and those
promising revakh, hatzalah, vehatzlachah (which should be mequyamim bb"a).

It may also be a statement about how to give tochachah vs how to give
shevach.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Posted: In OC 4:40 R' Moshe writes that the chiyuv of hearing kriat hatorah is on
each individual. This seems consistent with the Soloveitchik family
practice(R' YDS having kriat hatorah at mincha if he was travelling in the
am, R Chaim reported to try to get a minyan for kriah when he was travelling
in the am) but from what I can find most poskim hold it's a chovat
hatzibbur(based on reconciling  brachot 8a and sotah39a)

Does anyone know the basis for holding that it's a chovat hayachid?  Is there
any interplay with chazarat hashatz?

I recall hearing that R. Ele Pruzhaner showed R. Chaim the milchamos in Megila (p. gimel in the Rif) that says quite clearly that unlike the megila, other matters in our mishna, including Krias Hatorah, are chovas tsibur. R. Chaim then re-interpreted the milchamos but I don't know how.

The MAgen Avrom in Siman 282, 6 says based on Meseches Sofrim that women have a chiuv of krias hatorah derived from Hakhel. This would imply personal chiuv. See also the Arukh Hashulchan there.

M. Levin

In a message dated 3/4/03 10:38:00 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> /SPR/, which sefer haYetzirah (as recounted in haKuzari 5) gives three
> meanings: to tell (sefer), to cut (sapar, misparayim), and to count
> (mispar). 

It also has the meaning of "shining" Even Sapir. Also interalted are
Sefer Sofer Sipur.

> /PQD/ also has three meanings: to remember ("veH' paqad Sarah, ka'asher
> amar", "paqod paqadti"), to appoint ("veyafqeid peqidim"), and to
> count ("ve'eileh pequdei").

It also has the opposite meaning of "missing" vNifkadita Ki Yipokeid
Mosavecha.

>                            When doing a peqidah of people, though,
> the verb used is "nasa es rosh". "Ki sisa es rosh BY lifqudeihem".
> "Nasa es rosh kol adas..." This is not counting as parts, but counting
> individuals and giving each importance.

Note the Medrosh Bameh Torum Karnom Shel Yisroel, as it means also
uplifting Bifrat after the Eigel, that also explains why WRT Shevet Levi
(who did not sin at the Eigel) the Tzivui is (Bamidbar 3:15) Pkod (not
Si'u 1:2) and again 3:40, however later 4:1 the Dogush is Mitoch Bnei Levi
once again there is a Nsias Rosh, likewise 4:21 WRT Bnei Gershon they
had a higher level of Kdusha in their Masa it uses again Noso vs. 4:29
Bnei Mrori just Tifkod. Likewise note in Pinchus 26:2 Si'u Es Rosh,
vs. 26:57 vEileh Fkudei Halevi.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Inyana d'yoma of mes. Megilla. The Ba'al HaMaor writes that the machlokes
on daf 5 as to whether mikra megilla needs 10 people is m'din pirsumei
nissa, but the din of keriya can be fufilled b'yachid acc to all, the
ra'aya being that it is not listed in the mishna on 23b among those
obligations which require a tzibbur. Ramban argues and writes that the
mishna on 23 lists only chovos hatzibbur. Keriyas haTorah is listed in
that mishna. Why R' Chaim did not hold of this ramban is a mystery to me.

Were keriyas hatorah a chovas hayachid you would have to have kavanah
latzais on the keriya, and explain how m'ikkar hadin a woman/katan
can be oleh l'minyan (if not for kavod tzibbur) and be motzi men.
Not insurmountable problems, but something to consider.

Good Chodesh,
-CB

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


[ 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         ]