Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 007

Friday, May 2 2003

• Re: Talmud on computers
• Zecher Lmikdash K'Hillel as a hefsek at the seder
• Re: Talmud on computers
• Re: Zecher Lmikdash K'Hillel as a hefsek at the seder
• [none]
• (Fwd) Re: Bava Metzia 082: Chesurei Mechsera
• Talmud and computers
• Re: Chabad.org: Alienation and Faith
• re:Gittin in Iyyar
• RE: Talmud on Computers
• Re: Women answering amen to shehechiyanu in kiddush
• Re: Women answering amen to shehechiyanu in kiddush
• Kiddush bemkom seuda
• Shechechyanu
• spelling
• Miracles (not) in Halachah
• somchin al haness
• RE: somchin al haness
• Re: somchin al haness
• somchin al haness
• RE: somchin al haness
• RE: somchin al haness

On 30 Apr 2003 at 15:30, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> Some Rishonim such as the Rosh maintain that one fullfils this mitzva
> by buying sefarim. Does the purchase of a Bar Illan CD count as a
> kiyum hamitzva ?

I think only if you make it available to the public. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On 28 Apr 2003, R' Jordan Hirsch wrote (on Areivim):
> Like I don't say Zecher Lmikdash K'Hillel until after I finish eating 
> Korech. Go ahead. Ask me why.

On 29 Apr 2003, R' Carl Sherer replied (on Areivim):
>>>There actually is a basis for that. There are poskim who consider
it a hefsek between Motzi Matza and eating the korech. IIRC Rav Asher
Weiss brings that (the Haggada is put away with the Pesach stuff so it's
a bit of a tircha to check).>>>

I have heard this before, but I find it hard to understand. The same
way that, when I say shehechiyanu after kiddush on yom tov, this does
not constitute a hefsek between the "hagafen" and the drinking of the
wine (for me; I am not getting into the issue of whether women should
say amen or not), because this is the nusach of kiddush, so too when I
say "Zecher Lmikdash K'Hillel...." before Korech, this should not be a
hefsek, because this is the way chazal instituted Korech. (Of course,
if you can show that saying "Zecher Lmikdash K'Hillel...." was a later
addition to the seder then I may concede.)

On the topic of hefsek at the seder, I remember hearing a few years ago
that a certain rav was telling people that they should be careful that
"Magid" does not last too long (I forget the exact time he gave, whether
it was 42, 60, 72, etc. minutes), because, otherwise, one will run into
the problem of kiddush b'makom seudah (i.e, the kiddush that was recited
at the beginning of the seder is too far removed from "Shulchan Aruch").

Personally, I find this hard to understand as well, since the way that
chazal instituted the seder, with all of the steps between Kadesh and
Nirtzah, shows that, so long as one is involved in one of these steps,
there is no hefsek between kiddush and the meal, even if magid takes
four hours (especially when considering that one is sitting at the very
table at which the meal will be eaten).

KT,
Aryeh

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il] 
> I think only if you make it available to the public. 

The criterion that you mention relates to the issue of whether you fulfill
(the *minhag* of) ma'aser kesafim by buying seforim.  RSB, however, was
addressing the issue of k'sivas sefer torah, which, according to some may be
fulfilled by purchasing seforim.  The question, I would think, is whether
there any requirement of some sort of ksiva (obviously the halachos of ksivas
sefer torah do not apply to printed seforim, but maybe there is some minimal
requirement of ksiva).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 1 May 2003 at 10:50, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
> I have heard this before, but I find it hard to understand.  The same
> way that, when I say shehechiyanu after kiddush on yom tov, this does
> not constitute a hefsek between the "hagafen" and the drinking of the
> wine (for me; I am not getting into the issue of whether women should
> say amen or not), because this is the nusach of kiddush, so too when I
> say "Zecher Lmikdash K'Hillel...." before Korech, this should not be a
> hefsek, because this is the way chazal instituted Korech.  (Of course,
> if you can show that saying "Zecher Lmikdash K'Hillel...." was a later
> addition to the seder then I may concede.)

I think that's exactly the point, but again, I don't have the sefer 
in front of me. 

> On the topic of hefsek at the seder, I remember hearing a few years
> ago that a certain rav was telling people that they should be careful
> that "Magid" does not last too long ..., because, otherwise, one will
> run into the problem of kiddush b'makom seudah  ...

> Personally, I find this hard to understand as well, since the way that
> chazal instituted the seder, with all of the steps between Kadesh and
> Nirtzah, shows that, so long as one is involved in one of these steps,
> there is no hefsek between kiddush and the meal, even if magid takes
> four hours (especially when considering that one is sitting at the
> very table at which the meal will be eaten).  

Not only that, but if you drink a reviis at the first kos, that is 
already considered a seuda (Adina's family is choshesh for gebrocks 
and until we started making our own Pesach, I learned from my 
brothers-in-law to drink a reviis at Kiddush on Pesach to avoid the 
Kiddush b'Makom Seuda problem. We often don't get around to making 
Matza Meal cakes until Chol HaMoed, and as a result, on the first Yom 
Tov we also sometimes drink a reviis for the daytime Kiddush to avoid 
the problem). 

-- Carl

Zeliglaw@aol.com asked on Areivim:
> That raises the following query. There is a Mitzva Ksivas Sefer
> Torah. Some Rishonim such as the Rosh maintain that one fullfils this
> mitzva by buying sefarim. Does the purchase of a Bar Illan CD count as
> a kiyum hamitzva ?

I've been meaning to ask this for a while.

IIRC correctly the Rosh seems to say that you can fulfill Mitzva 613 by
writing seforim you learn from instead of a Sefer Torah.

Going along with the Rosh - who died a century before Gutenberg built the 
first printing press - I was wondering which of the following is correct:

1.The Rosh assumes the same laws for Seforim as for a ST:
-- Handwritten, preferably by end user
-- Error free
-- Not inherited

2. We take his interpretaion literally - that this mitzva is
time-dependant. In this case does the mitzva becomes:
- Buy the best edited seforim available
- With the latest technology
- Clearest print (/ latest screen technology?)

3. We simply hide behind the Rosh to buy the most popular versions:
- With the odd letter missing / malformed
- With typos

I have not seen any seforim discuss the shitas haRosh in any detail.

As an aside - it appears to me that the majority of posking have
trouble with the Rosh's approach - and either disagree (how can the
Rosh change/abolish a mitzva) or say he meant "besides a ST we also need
seforim nowdays to fulfil the mitzva".

The approach I like best is by those that claim that by being Marbe
Sedra in a ST (as is brought dowm as a lechatchila) you fulfill mitzva
613 even according to the Rosh.

Any ideas about the Rosh?

- Danny

Please daven for a Refua Sheleima for Chaya bas Naomi Zehava (recovering
from ITP) amongst other cholie Yisroel.

Thought this might be of interest to the chevra. 

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Thu, 01 May 2003 03:37:36 +0200
From:           	Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.co.il>
Subject:        	Re: Bava Metzia 082: Chesurei Mechsera
To:             	Dovid Lewis <dovidandnachi@hotmail.com>
Copies to:      	DIscuss list <daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.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]
________________________________________________________________

Re: Chesurei Mechsera

Dovid Lewis <dovidandnachi@hotmail.com> asked:

The Kollel wrote: "Other suggestions for why the Mishnah is missing
words are that during the period before the Mishnah was recorded
in writing, some words were forgotten. Rather than filling them in,
Rebbi just recorded the Mishnah as it was repeated, expecting those who
learned it to fill it in on their own. (So writes the BEIS YOSEF in his
"Kelalei d'Gemara," Halichos Olam 2:14). The TIFERES YISRAEL (Erchin
2) writes that before the Mishnayos were written, they were "sung"
to a certain tune. When words did not fit into the tune, they were
omitted. Personally, I have always favored Rabeinu Bachye's approach,
and found it to be consistently applicable."

First of al a Yasher Kochacha for your explanations on Chisurei
Mechasra. Could u please tell me who the Tiferes Yisrael was though.
What was his name and when did he live?

Yasher Koach
Dovid Lewis (England)
------------
The Kollel replies:

The Tiferes Yisrael (a popular commentary on the Mishnayos) was written
by Harav Yisrael Lifshitz of Danzig, a contemporary of Hagaon Rebbi
Akiva Eiger (c. 1850).

Here is something else we wrote (in Insights to Bava Kama 39b) which
touches upon the subject of Chesurei Mechsera. I hope you find this
helpful.

Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld

===========

1) "REBBI YAKOV PAYS CHATZI NEZEK"
QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that if the Shor of a
Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan gores someone else's Shor, "Rebbi Yakov pays
Chatzi Nezek." The Gemara asks what is Rebbi Yakov paying for; it was
not his ox that gored! The Gemara answers that the Beraisa should read
instead, "Rebbi Yakov *says* [that one] pays Chatzi Nezek."

If the Tana of the Beraisa made such an obvious mistake, why does the
Gemara quote the original version of the Beraisa? The Gemara should have
emended the Beraisa before recording it in the Gemara! (HAGAHOS YA'AVETZ)

ANSWERS: (a) The YA'AVETZ answers that even when the Gemara emends the
text of a Beraisa by saying "Ela Eima..." ("rather, say..."), it does
not mean that the original version was a mistake. Rather, it means that
the intention of the Beraisa is as such, and even without emending it,
the Beraisa can be read in a way that conveys this meaning.

The Ya'avetz explains that Rebbi Yakov was an Av Beis Din, and in that
capacity he was considered responsible for Yesomim (see beginning of
37a). Therefore, he acted as the Apotropos for the Yesomim who came to
his court, and when their Shor gored, he paid out of his own funds to
cover their Chiyuv of Chatzi Nezek (as the Gemara earlier requires the
Apotropos to pay; according to Rebbi Yochanan, he paid out of the estate
of the Yesomim).

Tosfos in a number of places (see Yevamos 25b, DH b'Omer) makes a
similar point regarding the word "b'Omer" in the Gemara's explanation
of a statement of a Tana or Amora. The Gemara does not mean to say that
the person actually said it, but that this is what he meant by what he
did say. Tosfos (Kesuvos 4b DH u'Mi, Bava Metzia 45b DH Mai) and the Ran
(Nedarim 46a, DH Teni Nadar) write that the same sometimes applies when
the Gemara says "Teni;" it does not mean to correct the wording of the
Beraisa, but merely to explain the meaning of the Beraisa. We find the
same explanation regarding the word "Eima" (the term used in our Sugya)
in Tosfos in Bava Basra (80b, DH Taritz v'Eima); it does not mean that we
should correct the wording of the Beraisa, but that we should understand
the intention of the words of the Beraisa as such.

RAV YOSEF ENGEL in BEIS HA'OTZER (1:179) explains at length how the Gemara
uses the word "Eima" with such a meaning in dozens of places; the Gemara
either is saying that the Beraisa really means this without having to
emend the words of the Beraisa, or it is saying that the Beraisa is also
true without the emendation, but it is teaching something else (through
Kabalah). The VILNA GA'ON (end of Divrei Eliyahu, section entitled
"Kelalim") takes this further and says that when the Gemara uses the
term, "Chesurei Mechsera v'Hachi Ketani," it does not mean to reject
the original reading of the Beraisa, but rather the original reading is
also true, and it either can be read to mean what the Gemara says that
it means, or it is teaching a different point. In this understanding of
Chesurei Mechsera, the Ga'on was preceded by Rabeinu Bachye (a Talmid
of the Rashba, Shemos 34:27).

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: Zeliglaw@aol.com
> That raises the following query. There is a Mitzva Ksivas Sefer
> Torah. Some Rishonim such as the Rosh maintain that one fullfils this
> mitzva by buying sefarim. Does the purchase of a Bar Illan CD count as
> a kiyum hamitzva ?

And that raises a further question. In attempting to respond to a post on
Areivim, I went searching for a maamar Chazal on ein somchin al haness.
I tried to fire up my DBS Taklitor Torani Talmud Umeforashav, but it
causes a GPF on Win-XP. Two questions:

  1) Does the mitzva go away if you buy an incompatible OS?
  2) Does anyone have an XP-compatible version of the software?

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

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:11:42PM -0400, Gershon wrote:
: I just saw an article on Chabad.org that I wanted to recommend to you.
: An interesting compare/contrast by Rabbi Dr. Sacks between RYBS and RMMS.
: You can read this article at
: <http://www.chabad.org/Parshah/Article.asp?AID=42631>.

I think RJS's comparison fails because he oversimplifies the dialectic
in Lonely Man of Faith.

Majestic Man vs Covenental Man is not man-as-object vs man-as-subject.
The first dialectic RYBS considers unresolvable, but the 2nd he holds
Torah does help of resolve.

The tension of the unresolvable dialectics are the parameters of bekhirah;
our multiple worldviews from which we much choose. The unresolved
dialectic is itself a call to action. The object vs subject dichotomy
is the choice between whether one thinks himself capable of navigating
these internal conflict, or whether one feels victimized by them.

The Torah community is a community of destiny. It's the natural community
that is one of fate.

In fact, RYBS connects the notion of man-as-object with tum'ah. The
bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) is caused
by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem Yisra'el,
lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two levels of
objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song lyrics skip
a bit that is important to this vort.)

R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti
aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where
man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second
(Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself,
not being purified by another.

This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in
another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer,
and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet
from my post in v6n161:

...

The notion of subject vs object and its relationship to cheit's power to
be metamei is also discussed by RYBS in a 1974 teshuvah derashah. See our
chaveir's R' Dr Arnold Lustiger's, "Before Hashem You Shall be Purified",
Ohr Publishing, 1998.

RYBS starts with R"H 29a, where R' Nachman says that a chatzi eved chatzi
ben chorin can not be yotzei hearing teki'as shofar from his own blowing.
Unlike other mitzvos, where he can be motzi himself -- e.g. he can daven
for himself, and need not rely on a fully Jewish sha"tz.

RYBS explains that blowing shofar is different because the mitzvah is not
in the blowing, but in the hearing. The berachah reads "...who commanded
us to hear the sound of the shofar." Inherent in the mitzvah is two
kinds of individuals, the tokei'ah (the blower) and the shomei'ah (the
listener), the nosei (mover) and the nisa (moved). An active subject and a
passive object. It's not halachah that splits the individual in this way,
it's sin. Sin splits the personality into tamei and tahor components. The
call of the shofar is the nosei awakening the nisa, calling across that
chasm created by sin to restore unity, to bring us closer to the image
of the Singular Nosei in Whose "Image" we were created.

The message of the shofar is that all is not lost. That no matter how
much ruach one is mitamei, the core remains. Teshuvah is always possible.

...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 14th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                G-d?

>What's the din WRT writing Iyyar in a get: does one use one yud, two
>yud's, or wait until Sivan?

Rm"a, 126:6: "Iyar bishnei yudin, v'im kasav b'chad yud pasul (im lo
bish'as hadchak); v'yeish nimna'im litein get b'Iyar, ach bimkom hadchak
nosnim, v'kosvin bishnei yudin."

The reason for the psul of a single yud is not clear, since an error
of this sort which does not allow for misinterpretation of intent is
generally not a psul. One reason given is that unlike other errors whose
intent is clear, but are obviously errors, a single-yud Iyar might lead
people to think that it is the correct form, and for that reason is was
declared pasul if not a sh'as hadchak.

L'ma'aseh, gittin are given l'chatchilah in Iyar, and written with
two yuds.

From: Danny Schoemann [mailto:dannyschoemann@hotmail.com]
> Going along with the Rosh - who died a century before Gutenberg built the 
> first printing press - I was wondering which of the following is correct:
> 
> 1.The Rosh assumes the same laws for Seforim as for a ST:
> -- Handwritten, preferably by end user
> -- Error free
> -- Not inherited

 From a historical perspective, your comments are very interesting.
As I recall from my classes with Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, copyists worked
very hard to ensure that a book was copied correctly. One of the issues
that Dr. Soloveitchik made us very sensitive to was the fact that many
of the copies of tshuvos (and even Tosfos on the daf) are tainted by
scribal errors, such as hashmata al yedei ha'domot.

In fact, seforim were so rare (compared to today) that the burning of
24 cartloads of Talmud in Paris during [1248] was a major loss.

So the act of writing over a sefer, or hiring a scribe to do so, was
not that different from writing a sefer torah or hiring a sofer to do so.

The current book publishing scene is very different. Operating a printing
press is very different from the act of ksiva. And books are plentiful.

Wonder whether the Rosh would have paskened his psak today with respect
to books.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In Avodah V10 #140:
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Rabbi Sternbuch in his book "Moadim U'Zmanim" also makes the point
> that answering Amen [to Shehechiyanu in Kiddush] by a woman who has already 
> made a Shehechiyanu [when she lit candles] is
> a Hefsek between the Bracha and tasting the wine and states therefore
> she shouldn't really answer Amen.   But he makes another point, that since
> her Bracha is made before the Yom Tov actually begins, and that since
> it is better to make the Bracha at night when all the Mitzvos are then
> required, it is not considered a Hefsek at all.

The problem with this is that when Yom Tov is not on Shabbos, it is a
common minhag for women to light Yom Tov candles just before the meal
(or before the seder starts), when the men come home from shul, rather
than while it is still light out and the Yom Tov hasn't really started.

Also, on the second night of Yom Tov in chu"l women light when it is
fully dark, not while it is still the afternoon of the first day.

Toby Katz

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
>> Rabbi Sternbuch in his book "Moadim U'Zmanim" also makes the point
>> that answering Amen [to Shehechiyanu in Kiddush] by a woman who has already 
>> made a Shehechiyanu [when she lit candles] is
>> a Hefsek between the Bracha and tasting the wine and states therefore
>> she shouldn't really answer Amen.   But he makes another point, that since
>> her Bracha is made before the Yom Tov actually begins, and that since
>> it is better to make the Bracha at night when all the Mitzvos are then
>> required, it is not considered a Hefsek at all.

> The problem with this is that when Yom Tov is not on Shabbos, it is a common 
> minhag for women to light Yom Tov candles just before the meal (or before the 
> seder starts),  when the men come home from shul, rather than while it is 
> still light out and the Yom Tov hasn't really started.

> Also, on the second night of Yom Tov in chu"l women light when it is fully 
> dark, not while it is still the afternoon of the first day.

Rabbi Sternbuch's point was but one of many possibile explanations as to
why there should be no Hefsek caused by the Amen after the Shecheyanu
of Kiddush by those who already made Birchas Z'man. But, frankly I had
the same reservations you did about his particular answer. However under
the conditions he describes of a pre-Tzeis Hadlakos Neros and Bracha on
the first day, it is indeed one valid approach as to why it should not
be considered a Hefsek.

HM

> Not only that, but if you drink a reviis at the first kos, that is already
> considered a seuda (Adina's family is choshesh for gebrocks and until we
> started making our own Pesach, I learned from my brothers-in-law to drink
> a reviis at Kiddush on Pesach to avoid the Kiddush b'Makom Seuda problem.

I recall that the Mishna Berurah in Hil. Shabbos al asar brings from
the Levush that one needs to drink an additional revii, besides the one
drunk for kiddush itself. M. Levin

> Rabbi Sternbuch in his book "Moadim U'Zmanim" also makes the point
> that answering Amen [to Shehechiyanu in Kiddush] by a woman who has already
> made a Shehechiyanu [when she lit candles] is
> a Hefsek between the Bracha and tasting the wine and states therefore
> she shouldn't really answer Amen.   But he makes another point, that since
> her Bracha is made before the Yom Tov actually begins, and that since
> it is better to make the Bracha at night when all the Mitzvos are then
> required, it is not considered a Hefsek at all.

He says that she should not answer, lachalocha in his Haggoda, Hagodas
HaGro.

M. Levin

Iyar's proper spelling is with 2 yod's. Because of the doubt one should
try to avoid giving a get from the 2nd day of Rosh Chodesh till Sivan--SA
EhE 126.

Shlomo Goldstein

Someone who takes a shevu'ah that particular fruits are forbidden to him
if he did not see a camel flying through the air has taken a shevu'as shav
(Shevu'os 29a). Why? Maybe he or someone else used the shem ha-meforash
or something similar to cause the camel to fly.

Someone who takes a shevu'ah that he will not sleep for three days in
a row receives malkos immediately and may go to sleep because it is
impossible to stay awake for three days straight (Shevu'os 25a). But how
do we know that he will not do it miraculously (e.g. Moshe on Mt. Sinai)?

Why is the possibility of miracles excluded from halachah to the point
that they are deemed impossible? Mareh mekomos?

Gil Student

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>   [W]hile we may ask about tzadiq vera lo, asking it on a national
> level makes the 2nd paragraph of Shema very problematic.

And yet, the rain-mitzva connection doesn't work bizman hazeh. If such
Divine connections worked visibly, what about the brachot such as "lo
yihyeh bh'cha `aqar o `aqarah"? I couldn't say that honestly in v'yiten
lecha, unless I understood it as something which would only operate in
the ideal Torah-cratic state in Moshiach's tzeiten, because it clearly
doesn't operate now.

So I don't see any source in chazal for this "spiritual hishtadlus",
and there are any number of sources from antiquity through the middle
ages for everyone going out to fight in defense of Jewish lives.

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

> So I don't see any source in chazal for this "spiritual hishtadlus", and

Yaakov-Esav is a source for 3 types of hishtadlus -- spiritual being
one of them.

Akiva

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 07:54:46AM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
:> So I don't see any source in chazal for this "spiritual hishtadlus", and

: Yaakov-Esav is a source for 3 types of hishtadlus -- spiritual being one of
: them.

You have said this in the past, and I still do not believe it's true.

In fact, Vayishlach is one of REED's ra'ayos that one needs both bitachon
and hishtadlus. Yaaqov's tefillah is literally one of the textbook
examples of bitachon!

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                harmony?

From: Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il>
>> So I don't see any source in chazal for this "spiritual hishtadlus", and

> Yaakov-Esav is a source for 3 types of hishtadlus -- spiritual being one of
> them.

Where?  Everything I see in Yaakov-Esav is physical hishtadlus.  The bit
with the beans, the bit with fooling Yitzchak, the bit with running away,
the bit with making nice when being reunited.  Sure, he prayed to Hashem
before being reunited, but that went along with the physical hishtadlus.
It wasn't in isolation.

> Where?  Everything I see in Yaakov-Esav is physical hishtadlus...
>                                                Sure, he prayed to Hashem
> before being reunited, but that went along with the physical hishtadlus.
> It wasn't in isolation.

The Baal HaTurim says Yaakov did three things to prepare for his meeting
-- Prayer, gifts, and arming for battle. He doesn't make any distinction
between them.

I never claimed only prayer was enough -- I just said that prayer was
a form of hishtadlus.

(On that note -- what exactly did Yaakov pray *for*? That HaShem would
save him? That he would merit being saved? For wisdom to know how to
deal with his brother? Maybe the prayer helped strengthen his courage --
and gave him the ability to continue and face his brother.)

Akiva

> You have said this in the past, and I still do not believe it's true.

It depends, for a large part, on how one chooses to define "hishtadlus".

> In fact, Vayishlach is one of REED's ra'ayos that one needs both
> bitachon and hishtadlus. Yaaqov's tefillah is literally one of
> the textbook examples of bitachon!

The Baal HaTurim says Yaakov did three things to prepare for his meeting
-- Prayer, gifts, and arming for battle.

He doesn't make any distinction between them.

How does REED justify making a distinction between them?

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]