Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 132

Monday, March 24 2003

• Re: Bigdei Kehunah/Torah Sh'ba'al peh
• Zachor
• Re: Timcheh and Lo Tishkach
• Re: Question on today's haftorah
• Re: Who is a posek?
• shitat brisk
• Re: Eiruvin
• Gilgulim and the Rishonim
• Re: Fish
• Re: RYBS view
• Re: hora'as sh'oah --
• gilgul
• Re: Gilgulim and the Rishonim
• oats
• re: in country
• Re: Zachor
• Re: Zecher and zeicher
• Shmuel vs Amalek

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 01:23:33PM -0600, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
: 1) Rabbeinuy Bachyah says begadim HKBH made Adam was the begdei kehunah.

Back to my linguistic fixation on kesus, beged and levush...

Hashem made Adam and Chavah "kutanos or".

: 2) Rav Goldvicht zt"l on Parsha Vayigash traces the begadim given to
: Mordechai back to Adam HaRishon. Basically he says that the begadim of
: Mordechai came from Binyamin. Binyamin and other shevatim received begadim
: from Yosef. These begadim represent the kesones pasim Yosef had...

Note "kesones"!

: Using 1&2 we can say that Mordechai's begadim had the bechinah of the
: bigdei kehunah

And we have in parashas Tzav, that Moshe gives kusonos to Aharon uvanav
part of the process of making them kohanim.

BUT... can we say it's not also about melukhah? David haMelech's
royal robe was a kusones paspasim. Not only certainly melukhah,
but a clear tie to Yosef qua melekh. Which is also a concept
relied upon when discussing if Yosef was considered a moreid
bemalkhus by his brothers.

-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          

I was recently told that on Shabbos Zachor last week, the rabbi of
a prominent Young Israel synagogue in the metropolitan NY area asked
everyone to stand for the reading of Zachor. The reason that was given
was because Parshat Zachor is a mitzva d'oraisa.

I've asked two respected rabbis about this since I heard about it,
and neither of them could find a source for standing for Parshat Zachor.

The reason that the rabbi of this shul gave for standing seems illogical,
since there are many other mitzvos d'oraisa that are not done standing.

Has anyone else heard about this practice?

Also, relating to this question, I've been told two different reasons
for standing at the aseres hadibros and the shira (which I think everyone
would agree the kahal should stand up for): 1) because we are mimicking
b'nai yisrael, who stood in front of Hashem during these times, and we
are trying to recreate the scene, and 2) because of the chashivus of
these two sections. Number one sits better with me. Has anyone heard
other reasons for standing during these two sections?

Of course, for those who stand during the entire kriah, this entire
subject is moot. I am only talking about people who don't usually stand
for the entire kriah.

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT 

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 04:24:49PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger's comment: <<< One second: has timcheh happened already?
: According to pretty much everyone but RCBrisker, Eliyahu haNavi will
: locate Sancheirev's other victims, the 10 shevatim. Will he identify
: Amaleiq, or is their current anonymity their destruction? >>>

: Whoa!!! Are you suggesting that we might consider Amalek as already
: destroyed, and that (according to R' Carl) "lo tishkach" *already*
: doesn't apply? If so, then is Parshas Zachor a real d'Oraisa, or merely
: a zecher of a d'Oraisa?

No, I was suggesting that since the destruction might have happened
before the sources that tell us Zachor is de'Oraisa were written, RCS
was likely to be wrong.

But my assumption is in contraction to RAYS and haGahos Maimoni as cited
by RYK.

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 05:03:41PM -0500, I Kasdan wrote:
:         See, e.g., Rinas Yitzchok (R' Avraham Yitzchok Sorotzkin), on
: Shmuel Aleph Perek 15, Pasuk 3 and the sources he brings down. For
: example, he relies in part on the shitah of the Smag to the effect that
: the mitzvah in the Torah regarding mechiyas Amalek is not applicable
: (not "nohag") until y'mos hamoshiach.  See also Hagahos Maimoni on
: Rambam., Hilchos M'lachim 5,4, os aleph. 

-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          

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:27:44AM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: -1- the Kaini (or a representative thereof) are 3rd parties who, both
: times, choose "the right side" (and how much do we otherwise read
: about the Kaini in TaNaCH?); and

In Berachos 63b, R' Nechemiah identifies the Keini with Yisro's
descendents. According to Chazal as quoted by the famous Rashi, one
of Yisro's names was Keini. And in Sanhedrin 106a, we learn that when
Bil'am approached "haKeini" it's Yisro. See also Sotah 11a. These are
more than people who chose the right side. These are people who carried
(to some extent) their ancestor's traditions.

There was likely a general split in Midian population. This would explain
why Mosheh found Midian to the south of Mitzrayim when he fled, and yet
we encountered them as a hostile party me'eiver laYardein.

I would suggest that the African Midianim became known as the Keinim
after their spiritual leader (even those who may not have physically
descended from him), and it was these that migrated to the Sinai and
were neighbors of the Pelishtim.

-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          

R' Aharon Lichtenstein has an article on this topic that was reprinted as
chapter 6 of his "Leaves of Faith". He lists the following qualifications
for paskening a she'eilah.

1. Chochmah
 A. Know a good deal of halachah and have the ability to look up what he
    doesn't already know or remember.
 B. Analytical abilities. He must be able to be medameh milsa le-milsa
    appropriately.
 C. Imagination
 D. Ability to weigh conflicting claims and differing opinions, i.e. how
    to apply halachah.
 E. Knowledge of metzius.

2. Honesty, both personal and intellectual

3. Total commitment to Torah AND ITS VALUES (emphasis mine, cf. recent
Edah journal article criticizing mv"r R' Mayer Twersky)

4. Humaneness, sympathy

5. Being firm, even agressive. Aware of his responsibility and resistent
of outside pressures.

6. Humility

"Needless to say, even under the best of circumstances, we can expect
no abundance of men who can significantly satisfy every criterion. It
is not only that, statistically speaking, the fortuitous union of so
many sterling qualities is highly unlikely. Worse than this, some of
the attributes themselves are, to a certain extent, mutually exclusive..."

Gil Student

> In the latest volume of the journal netuim (Herzog College -Gush
> In Hebrew)

1. Haym Soloveitchik - Can halakchic texts talk history 9-50
2. Elyakim  Krumbein- Brisk / RYBS /RAL (not official title)

1.The article by Haym Soloveitchik is a translation of his article on
Yayin Nesech from 25 years ago plus later additions.

2. The article by Krumbeim about 50 pages was very interesting. In short
he claims that RYBS followed by RAL made a major innovation compared to
RCS and RYZS *R. Yitzchak Zeev = R. Velvel S).

Does anyone know anything about the sefer the Brisker - Derech -
Apractical guide by M. Wachtfogel

basically he claims that the original Brisk shitah was to answer
questions in contradictions in Rambam or the Gemara. In order to answer
the questions a chakirah was set up and it pointed to 2 dinim which
was then used to explain the Rambam and usually the Raavad. It was not
meant to give an overall view of a field. In particular RYZS indicates
in several places that if there are no questions and the gemara is
straightforward there is no need for shittat Brisk.

Also both RCS and RYZS insisted that they wer only interested in the
"how" question and not the "why". In modern venacular the answer to a
why question is because. We accept it and that's the end.

RYBS and later RAL used the Brisk approach to study the fundamental
aspects of various issues without the need for any questions. As
RYBS put it Brisk changed YD from pots and pans to a mathematical
formulation. However, in reality it was RYBS approach and not original
Brisk to use these ideas to develop a fundamental approach. In many
places RYBS asks a fundamental question that something is philosophically
unitellegent and then uses Brisk Torah to explain it. He does this even
though there is no stirah in the Rambam just his own personal question.

RAL in his seforim on kodashim and taharot begins with the Brish shittah
to establish basic principles in the areas. He is clearly using the
method to gain a basic question and not just answer questions.

RAL actually clains that original Brisk is misleading in that it is
meant to analyze fundamental issues and not just answer questions.
However, Krumbeim finds that hard to justify based on thr original
writings. Wachtfogel in his book clearly assume that Brisk is meant to
answer specific questions and not fundamental approaches.

As indicated Krumbein goes into great detail with many examples and
side issues. For lack of space I will not quote these unless there is
later interest.

--
 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 23/03/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

RJB wrote:
>  From what I've seen, R' Moshe relied on a new concept of 60 ribu,
> so-many people in the street over the course of a day, within an area
> 12 miles on a side. It's been a while since I looked at this in IM,
> so the specifics may be wrong, but suffice it to say the measurement
> was his own chidush. It was his final sticking point against approving
> an eruv in Brooklyn. The same argument would have worked against the
> eruvs in Park Slope and Boro Park, but they were built nonetheless -
> the Park Slope one approved by R' Herschel Schachter the first time,
> and R' Avrohom Blumenkrantz for the redesign/expansion.

RMF didn't invent this entirely. The Ran, IIRC, holds that a reshut
harabbim is a street that serves a population of 600,000 OR intercity
highways (a little bit of a compromise position between Rashi/Tosfot and
Ramban, again, IIRC). Thus, any major street of a borough like Brooklyn
would qualify. RMF was at once meikil and machmir in the definition of
"serves a population of". For Ran, it seems that we are talking about a
street where all the 600000 use it, but not necessarily all the time. For
RMF, 600000 must be on the street at the same time, a qulla. However,
for Ran, we are only talking about one street, whereas RMF combines all
the sidestreets to arrive at the 600K number. Thus, for RMF, a Brooklyn
may be impossible (may be, because, in a conversation with RHS, he told
me that nowadays Brooklyn *may*be* muqaf me'hitzot from at least 3 sides,
because of the car dealing lots, etc. on the water front, and because of
a legal requirement to erect fences at the water front). However, many
posqim who similarly disapproved of the Brooklyn eiruv do hold that a
B'klyn eiruv is now possible (although it may be hard to make it happen).

BTW, a bridge does not count as a tzurat hapessach, as per RMF contra
Rav Kasher, and a ThP does not termintae a real reshut harabbim (atu
rabbim umevatlei me'hitzah).

Arie Folger

FROM a friend in London - with an impressive knowledge of these matters -
to whom I had forwarded a few recent digests of Areivim and Avodah.

I will BN pass on comments to him..

(I am trying to convince him to subscribe.)

SBA


Original Message:
-----------------
From: shmuel 
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:08 -0000
To: sba@primus.com.au

Dear SBA

Thanks for the transcripts. I looked through them quickly but its
difficult to follow so many threads of conversation all mixed up like
that.

What I see from your discussion is not that they dont accept gilgul
but just dont like the fish idea. Someone also suggested that gilgul in
baale hayyim began with the Ari. Well the references that you supplied -
Medrah Talpios is quite good, because the haredim quoted cites a case
back in Spain before the expulsion - and of course before the Ari. I
would like to dispell a commonly held misconception (by those who do
not have access to source material) ie that the Ari some how invented
kabboloh. A good 90% of anything touched upon by the Ari can be found in
the Remak or earlier. The Remak was considered by the Ari as his rebbe,
although he was very great before he met the Remak. The Remak himself
was more of an encyclopedist, he just collated material, a bit like
the Beis Yosef was doing at the same time in halochoh. he never claimed
to have produced anything original, whereas the Ari certainly did. But
even that may be found alluded to in earlier sources. he simply expanded
and expounded it at immense depth and detail. So if you like, you could
give the refrence of Hakdomoh to Shiur Koimah (under the entry gilgul)
by the Remak, where explicit mention is made of gilgul into any form,
animate or inanimate. There are pages of explanation, so I can't even
begin to translate it all. With regard to your question about gilgul in
a fish specifically, and why a zaddik, I've not found a prime source,
but the zaddik referred to here is someone who is `zaddik bedino',
but who still has things that he must rectify, hence the gilgul. The
reference that you give is quite adequate explanation. I could add that
in the kisve Ari, plenty of people whom we today consider zadikim were
megulgal in lesser beings than fish.

With regard to the subject of the dispute, the Rachmastrivker Rebbe
from New York (brother of the Rebbe in Yerusholoyim) was here last week
(he is a son-in-law of the previous Skverer Rebbe and is extremely
highly regarded). He was asked about this, and said that it was quite
definitely true. He would not have said something like that without
having investigated it first.

With regard to earlier sources, The Ramban hints at it in Bereshis
4:1 and 38:8 (If you have the Mossad Horav Kuk edition, you'll find
many other references in the notes), and the commentaters (Rekanati,
Meiras Enayim, Ziyuni) a generation or two later, explain the hints as
refering to gilgul. But take note that Ramban refers to it repeatedly as
one of the greatest secrets of the Toiroh. Not that it is so difficult
to understand, just that for some reason unknown to us they were not
prepared to talk about it. That is precisely why earlier generations
simply didn't know of its existence. R Hisdai Krescas (Or Hashem)
lived at the same time as the talmide Ramban (d 5109. Rosh d 5086,
Rashba d 5070) and in the same city (Barcelona) and as a disciple of the
philosophical schools would like to dismiss the subject. But he accepts
that those who believe in it HAVE IT AS A TRADITION (he would not have
said that about something only a generation or two old) in other words,
even though theose who accept it do not say where they got it from,
he accepts that it is ancient - and that is before the publication of
the Zohar (its disputed whether Ramban had it or not).

With regard to the actual belief in gilgul, the Meiras Enayim, who
(it is claimed was a talmid of Ramban, but internal evidence disputes
this) was a talmid of the R Shelomoh Petit (baale Hatosefos emigrated
to EY and lived in Acco) Ritvo and Rashbo et al, cites (bereshis 4:1)
a reason given by the Rashbo for gilgul. Anyone these days prepared
to rely on something from R Saadia against the Ramban, Rashba and that
whole school (plus subsequent generations of gedoile Toiroh) is either
extremely brave or extremely foolhardy. If this were simple issur veheter,
there would be no question which way the halochoh were decided. (With
all due respect, even though R Saadia was the godoil hador in his time,
is there one psak of his that we follow today? And as for R Hisdai,
given that he was a Rov in Barcelona, he is not remembered as a poisek,
but as a philosopher - and even he grudgingly agrees to the kabolos
hachachomim). See also Teshuvas Maharlbach chapter 10 who rules that
today this is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Toiroh as part of
the mitzvoh to listen to the chachme hadoiros. Note also that this has
nothing to do with hasidim or misnagdim. The Vilna Gaon and his school
were well aware of this subject and did not dispute it.

You made mention of the so called yeled pele. Was that about 45 years ago?
If so, he was taken to the Belzer Ruv z"l who closeted himself with the
child and the boy subsequently `forgot' everything he knew. He is today a
normal everyday guy. Two points: (i) His father could not have been out
to make money if he permitted this to happen, and (ii) the Belzer Ruv
clearly was able to deal with this, so we get to the subject of zadikim
rectifying souls. This can be found in chazal (Sotah 10b, Hagigah 15b,
Pirke deR Elieze 44, Tana Deve Eliyohu Zuta 17).

Anyone these days who does not accept belief in gilgul - rather than
we having to prove it to them (because we have the gedoile haposkim
behind us) - should be asked why he does not accept it. Where does he
get his ideas from? Does he take them from the Xtian society in which he
is immersed, or from the Muslims? Maybe the idea of lounging around in
Paradise for eternity waited upon by seventy virgins appeals to him. The
rest of the world accepts the concept, and the early Xtians also believed
in it, until the Roman church declared it a heresy (in order to keep
a stronger control on the faithful). Amongst the Muslims, the mystics
(Sufis) also quietly believe in gilgul. For the rest of humanity who
have always believed in it, it is not a question of articles of faith;
it is simply a case of experience and facts. In traditional societies,
traditions are quietly passed on and remembered for centuries. Those
Jews who reject the idea cannot claim to have received a tradition from
anywhere. On the contrary they come from backgrounds often very limited
in their knowledge of Jewish faith and philiosophy and even more so of
kabboloh and the various details of its belief. They learn nothing that
would add to this in yeshivoh (if they actually go) and what knowledge
they have is derived from magazines and newpapers. Their rabbis are
not gedoile Toiroh as was understood in previous generations. They are
creations of ambition, political parties, conventions and newpapers. In
practical application, they are simply reverends and pastors - barely
rebetzins of earlier times.

========
From:  shmuel
To:  <sba@primus.com.au> 
Subject:  last e-mail 
Date:  Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:55:41 -0000 

Correction: R Hisdai that I mentioned is a grandfather of the Or Hashem.

The correct one was a talmid of the RaN and died quite while after 5170 -
seventy five-odd years later. He was solely a philosopher - never held
a rabbinical position. Having studied under the Ramban school, he would
have been very much aware of the kabbalistic concepts. I've not seen the
whole discussion in Or Hashem (I could only get hold of a reprint of a
Basle (first) edition and I reckoned that the subjects were difficult
enough without having to suffer a four-hundred year old typeface as well)
but I tend to get the impression that (i) either he grudgingly accepts the
position of his rebbes or (ii) puts the whole philosophic argument only in
order to demolish it by referring back to a kabboloh (ie tradition) cited
by his rebbes. 
I would like to think that the second one is true. If so it really
demolished the opposition once and for all.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:05:12PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: In the same Divrei Yoel - because it is on a higher level not requiring
: shechita to be kosher.

I thought we hold "asifasan hi materes osan" (Hil Shechitah 1:3). May
not be shechiltah, but still there is a mandated machshir.

I now had a chance to check Ohr Hachaim on the posuk in Breishis Aleph -
"v'yirdu b'dgas hayam" where he says it a little different. He says
that tsadikkim are mgulgol into fish because they do not need to go
through tsaar shechita. Also he seems to say that there is a hierarchy -
first to fish, less worthy to birds, thereafter to b'heima based on the
sequence of that posuk.

M. Levin

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:14:11AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: One of the tools that religion provides is a sense of optimism, of
: overarching meaning and the conviction that purpose and destiny is
: more important that one individual's frustration with unresolvable
: questions. As Rashi says by Bris Ben Habsarim, it lifts one above the
: stars to get an overview of one life within the framework of the total
: Divine purpose. Avrohom could even surmount his childlessness once raised
: to this degree of awareness.

You reminded me of logotheraphy, and Victor Frankl's observations about
man's search for meaning.

Watching his fellow victims in Auschwitz, Frankl noted that those who
managed in the camps were those who had/found a meaning for which to live.

Since I'm off on this tangent, I noticed something about the "three
Austrian schools" of psychology. Freud thought that man's decisions
centered on the gashmi'us, the pleasure principle. Adler, on the human
ego. Frankl, on a higher purpose. Kind of nara"n-esque..

-mi

In a message dated 03/16/2003 6:08:28 PM EST, Ikasdan@erols.com writes:
> <There is a longer term of hora'as sh'oah -such as an es la'asos, etc.>

> The longest (and still ongoing) probably being the allowance to write
> down Torah Shebealpeh.

I think we discussed this once before - AIUI this assumes that in each
generation there is an affirmative decision by the leaders of that
generation that the conditions that caused the original horraah continue
(ie it is not a permanent akirah since a oraat shaah by definition can't
be permanent)

KT
Joel Rich

"The Ari also originally formulated the idea that one is not a gilgul of
just one neshamah, but one's neshamah is a gilgul of a multitude of other
neshamot, akin to a genetic blueprint. The Ari's coneption of gilgul
has its attractive and less attractive points, but let me stress that
according to him, one ought not to find the gilgul of Mr. X, since he is
megulgal into many, many bodies (including fish and fowl), and shares
the space with other soul fragments. Every (human?) being has then its
own unique configuration, a soul which never again enters another human
body (but I am not sure about animal bodies) in the exact same makeup."

What happens in techiyat hametim?

[Email #2. -mi]

"I just like to add that in the Zemiris Divrei Yoel, it says that
tsadikim are especially m'gugolim in salmon(loks). This is why the
minhag of many Hungarians is to eat specifically salmon on Shabbos.
The fish story form New Square was specifically regarding carp."

I got lost - why would one want to eat tzaddikim who are megulgalim
in fish?

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 24/03/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On 23 Mar 2003 at 18:09, sba@iprimus.com.au [forwarded from a friend
who -mi] wrote:
> With regard to earlier sources, The Ramban hints at it in Bereshis
> 4:1 and 38:8 (If you have the Mossad Horav Kuk edition, you'll find
> many other references in the notes), 

I don't have the Ramban in the office (I do have the Mossad HaRav Kook
edition at home), but IIRC the Ramban in Breishis 4:1 is referring to
Moshe Rabbeinu being a gilgul of Hevel and in 38:8 he's talking about the
child of a yavam and yevama being a gilgul of the dead brother. In any
event, he is not referring to gilgulim of people as animals of any sort.

> And as for R Hisdai,
> given that he was a Rov in Barcelona, he is not remembered as a poisek,
> but as a philosopher - and even he grudgingly agrees to the kabolos
> hachachomim). 

This is kind of a tangent, but I believe that R. Hisdai actually authored
some of the Chiddushim on Gittin that were attributed to the Ritva,
so limiting him to being a 'philosopher' is probably misleading.

> See also Teshuvas Maharlbach chapter 10 who rules that
> today this is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Toiroh as part of
> the mitzvoh to listen to the chachme hadoiros. Note also that this has
> nothing to do with hasidim or misnagdim. The Vilna Gaon and his school
> were well aware of this subject and did not dispute it.

> You made mention of the so called yeled pele. Was that about 45 years ago?
> If so, he was taken to the Belzer Ruv z"l who closeted himself with the
> child and the boy subsequently `forgot' everything he knew. He is today a
> normal everyday guy. Two points: (i) His father could not have been out
> to make money if he permitted this to happen, and (ii) the Belzer Ruv
> clearly was able to deal with this, so we get to the subject of zadikim
> rectifying souls. This can be found in chazal (Sotah 10b, Hagigah 15b,
> Pirke deR Elieze 44, Tana Deve Eliyohu Zuta 17).

> Anyone these days who does not accept belief in gilgul ...

Are you assuming that the yeled ha'pele was a gilgul? Why? The way I heard
the story, he was (apparently) not slapped by the malach on the way out
of the womb (see the Gemara in Nida 30 or 31 - AIUI he was born without
the dimple that people typically have in the middle of their upper lip,
which is supposedly the result of the malach's actions) and that the
Belzer Rebbe tapped him on the lip, causing his not-age-appropriate
b'kius to disappear (I think Hanoch Teller recounts the story in his
biography of RSZA - whose yahrtzeit is today by the way). But I never
heard this story explained as a gilgul.

-- Carl

> I know that R. Hershel Schachter doesn't believe that oats is one of
> the chamesh minim based on evidence that oats didn't grow in the Middle
> East during the time of chazal....

R. Eliyashiv is very insistent that oats is one of the 5 minim and says
we rely on our kabbalah for kulah and chumrah and that he doesn't care
what professors have to say

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 24/03/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Joel Rich wrote:
>Is anyone aware of any written discussions vis-a-vis the halachik
>requirements/allowabilities of a student in Israel (or their parents)
>leaving/forcing them to leave due to terrorism/war? In particular
>the issues of safek sakanah(how measured), rules of war and individual
>vs. tzibbur responsibilities?

There is an article on this topic written by Rav Ariel of Ramat Gan
after the "first Gulf war". The article is found in Techumin (put out
by Machon Tzomet) 12. The original Shu"T was to a Yeshiva student whose
parents want him to leave Israel because of the war danger, later in
the article Rav Ariel goes into the issue of residents leaving the city..

Menucha

On 22 Mar 2003 at 23:22, MIKE38CT@aol.com wrote:
> Also, relating to this question, I've been told two different reasons
> for standing at the aseres hadibros and the shira (which I think everyone
> would agree the kahal should stand up for): 

RYBS held not to stand for them unless one normally stands for all of
kriyas haTorah. He held they should not be treated differently than any
other portion of the Torah. In fact, we were taught that if we were in
a shul where the entire shul DID stand for them, we should stand from
the beginning of the aliya to the end of the aliya in order to avoid
standing only for the shira or aseres ha'dibros.

Note that this may be different for Shavuos - I don't recall if RYBS was
m'chalek. (Ashkenazim here read ta'am elyon for Aseres haDibros only on
Shavuos because that is considered to mimic ma'amad Har Sinai. I don't
recall if RYBS was mechalek similarly because most years I daven at the
Kotel on Shavuos and there is no choice but to stand).

-- Carl

In a message dated 3/19/2003 4:22:36 PM EST, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> Re: <<Was the Gra suggesting this change as his own chidush based on his
> understanding of the language, or was he citing variants which existed
> prior to his time?>>
> 
> I think some posters are beginning to forget that R' Hayyim Volozhiner
> also wrote, in his letter printed as an introduction/haskama to Ma'aseh
> Rav, that M"R was wrong because R' Hayyim clearly heard the Gra say
> zeikher. Perhaps he changed his mind in his old age.

Yasher Koach for this erudite post
May I add a footnote

that if you first lain Zeicher and THEN lain Zecher, it would constitute
the following
Reading it correctly FIRST and then correcting it with an incorrect
reading accordign to 99.9% of the shitos on the matter.

Lich'ora, if you are going to lain it "wrong" by using Zecher, then at
least do it FIRST and then Correct it with Zecher.

& FWIW LFAD, even if the Gra had a safeik re: Zecher vs. Zeicher,
I doubt it was more than a lamdusher sh'eila and that the GRA himself
never intended it to be lained twice l'ma'aseh .

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

>>>Rashi al haTorah says (Parshas Zachor) the mitzva is to kill even the
animals of Amalek since this is called zecher Amalek. Yet by Shmuel Rashi
says that the din to kill the animals is because Amaleki are using kishuf
to appear as animals. Why did Rashi change the reason to kill the animals?
Maybe because he agrees with the Smag and Rambam concerning Shmuel not
being d'oraissa. <<<

You might also answer with the yesod of the Oneg Y"T that the din of
killing the animals/property is chal only on those items in Amaleki
possession at the moment of death. If I purchase an animal from an
Amaleki and only afterwards kill him, there is no mitzva to kill the
animal since my ownership preceded the execution. Shaul therefore davka
kept Agag alive, allowing BN"Y to make kinyanim in the property before
that final execution that would create the chalos issur. Acc. to Oneg
Y"T, al pi din Shaul was correct, but Hashem didn't want the mitzva done
with this type of "kuntz". Perhaps Rashi comes l'afukei the whole idea
- m'din destroying the property of Amalek it is correct, but here it
wasn't just a din in property, but it was Amalek gufa through kishuf
and changing ba'alus is not sufficient.

-Chaim

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


[ 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         ]