Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 036

Sunday, June 29 2003

• Re: Work
• The Significance of Tikun HaMiddos
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• [none]
• triage
• Re: Rabbi Shimon Schwab zt"l and Persian chronology
• Re: existential angst
• Re: double tvir
• Re: double tvir
• Re: double tvir
• Flood
• Re: Flood
• Re: triage
• terrorists
• objective halacha
• Re: objective halacha
• Tzora'as Miryam; ketores
• Re: Work
• RE: existential angst
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Salting the HaMotzi
• Re: Work
• Re: Giving your wife Challah first
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Harry Maryles said:
> > There is a Yireim (IIRC)that claims that the 39
> > Melachos were basically made up by Moshe Rabbenu himself... that God put
> > in MR's hands the task of defining what Melacha is and that it was
> > indeed "man" that chose to link Meleches Shabbos to the Melachos of the
> > Mishkan.

> And wouldn't Mosheh Rabbeinu's definition reflect the point of shevisah
> far better than a straightforward translation of the word would?

All MR's definition does is give us a concrete set of rules that we can
work with which is better in terms of Mitzvah observance than a simple
and amourophus translation does. But as to whether it reflects Shvisah
better... I don't know. Sometimes a single poetic term is more refelctive
of an essence than a scientific breakdown.

HM

L'zecher nishmas Rav Yochanon Motel ben Rav Ephraim and Moras Esther
Leah bas Rav Yehudah Yoseph B"H

THE SALANT FOUNDATION
Mussar - The Wisdom of Personal Growth

Regarding tzitzith, the verse (Bamidbar 16:19) says: And you should
see them and remember all of the Mitzvoth...and you should not follow
after your heart and eyes. There are 613 Mitzvoth; each one is unique
and comprised of many particulars. How is it possible to remember all
of the 613 Mitzvoth and their details in the span of the few seconds
that it takes to glance at the tzitzith?

Another question: the essence and foundation of the Torah is to perform
Tikun HaMiddos - to rectify and purify the heart from all deficiencies,
and to possess all of the praiseworthy virtues of character. Yet, we don't
find any injunction that deals with character rectification. Why is there
no specific Mitzvah in the Torah that instructs us to make Tikun HaMiddos?

The Talmud (Sota 14b) extrapolates the verse: "And you shall walk in
His ways' - Just as He is merciful, you should be merciful." Meaning,
that the central axiom of the Torah is for us to emulate the virtuous
attributes of Hashem - you shall walk in His ways. Hence, the entire
Torah rests on the general axiom of conducting ourselves with compassion,
kindness, and love - in feeling, deed and thought.

In light of this, the Mitzvah - and you should see them and remember
all of the Mitzvoth - refers not to the enumeration of the 613 Mitzvoth,
but rather to the foundation of all the Mitzvoth. You should reflect on
the primary pillar of the Torah upon which all the Mitzvoth are based -
virtue of character and conduct.

The tzitzith symbolize all the Mitzvoth. Although, remembering all
613 Mitzvoth in a second's time is impractical, however, it is most
appropriate and beneficial to remember the general principle of the Torah.

Hence, the purpose of the injunction to look at the tzitzith is to remind
us to remember the central purpose of the Torah - and you shall walk in
His ways. Hence, when a person looks at tzitzith he should remember to
perform Tikun HaMiddos through the study of Mussar.

It is irrelevant to delegate one Mitzvah to instruct us to do Tikun
HaMiddos because every Mitzvah in the Torah is based on character
rectification. The fulfillment of the Torah and the proper observance of
Mitzvoth depend on Tikun HaMiddos. May Hashem help us rectify our hearts
so that we become a fitting vessel to study Torah and perform Mitzvoth.

[Based on Ohr RaShaz of the Alter M'Kelm in the name of Rav Chaim Vital]

Reb Sender Baruch wrote:
> IIRC, the nafka mina is that babies don't need to have arms/legs
> covered therefore those areas when not covered in practice will be
> mekomot hamegulim

So it is the din of covering that brings about the danger associated
with ingesting sweat? In that case, we should only consider the sweat
of somebody who covers up to be dangerous, not the sweat of somebody
who doesn't follow hilkhot tzniut strictly.

You'll forgive me for being sceptical.

BTW, is there any discussion in the posqim whether the dangerous nature
of sweat is corroborated by science, and whether the tumah status of
hands that touched depends on the dangerous nature of the sweat or that
both are coincidental?

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

Ignoring the politics an issue with revadim recently came up in our shiur.

Learning Rosh Hashana 12a the gemara asks some technica; questions on
the gemara about its language of maasarot. The gemara then asks about the
order and answers that the Rabbinic law is first because it is beloved.

I asked the maggid shiur that in other places the torah law is given
first.

He answered that this is a "stam" gemara which is "known" to ask technical
questions and indeed the purpose of the questions was to stress the
importance of rabbinic laws. His objection to Rav Heymann was his
tendency to give "grades" to stam versus "amoraic" texts. However, he
insisted that many of these diffrences are real and are important in
understanding a sugya.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a shiur of R. Zilberstein on Halacha and medicine this week he made
the statement that given two critical patients one of whom is a atte,pted
murder victim and the other not, that given limited resources one should
save the attempted murder victim first so as to also save the "murderer"
from his crime.

Somehow it rubs me the wrong way. Looking for opinions.

shabbat shalom,
Eli Turkel

> Now you quote RSS's son guessing his father's intentions, and I have
> an 'eid neeman who quotes RSS himself.

We have recycled this too many of times. The original issue was simply
your assertion that Rabbi Schwab was less than honest in his public
retraction of his hypothesis that Chazal deliberately concealed 168 years
of Jewish history. Your sole basis was your report of the Basel Dayan
that he had been told that the retraction was entirely due to public
pressure was not sincere.

I questioned the accuracy of the report of the Basel Dayan because

1) Rabbi Schwab's public retraction states that the hypothesis was not
acceptable but that the problem of the disparity still remained. If he
really wanted to remove the pressure he would have simply said that he
had been mistaken and that the Jewish chronology is correct and therefore
there is no problem to be solved.
2). His son totally rejects your assertion:
>It is an absolute insult to my father's memory to say that the thoughts
> expressed in his "epilogue," or any of his writings, were promulgated
> as a result of any "pressure." His investigation of this entire matter
> was motivated simply by his deep-seated Emunas Chachomim coupled with a
> quest for "Emes." His final word on the matter was to leave the question
> open, not because of any "pressure" - he never bowed to pressure in his
> writings or opinions, to him this would have been patently dishonest and
> anethma. Rather, like any honest scholar seeking the truth, he recognized
> the validity of certain questions which were raised about his theory -
> and it is only a theory- and opted therefore to leave the question open ,
> analogous to the Tzarich Iyun Gadol of a Rabbi Akiva Eiger, or others,
> who accepted a fact of Torah - notwithstanding unaswered questions
> about it.
3). His daughter Rebtzen Rosenberg  rejects your version
4) Rabbi Gershonfeld - who is married to R' Schwab's granddaughter and
had many discussions with Rabbi Schwab - never heard him say that he
had retracted because of pressure. He also understood him to have
retracted soley because the hypothesis was faulty but that the problem
remained
5) Rabbi Schwab himself has written that one should not falsify the
facts - unless there is a Divine command to do so.

In sum: Rabbi Schwab - whose life was guided by the principle of honesty
- is being accused by a single second hand report of being blatantly
dishonest. Of publicly proclaiming in writing something he didn't belief
merely to stop criticism. I think based on the quality of evidence any
beis din would conclude that the second hand assertion said in the name
of the Basel Dayan does not carry much weight- against the chazaka of his
life time reputation as well as the consistent testimony of his immediate
family. This is especially true since you acknowledge that the Basel
Dayan was unaware that Rabbi Schwab still maintained the chronological
disparity remained a valid problem and thus did not even have a correct
context to understand Rabbi Schwab's words.

> Never did I intend to insult either RSS or 'Hazal or AKhG. I simply
> think that just like there are a nuber of other aggadetaot where we
> interpret them poetically/on a deeper level or what have you, so too
> may this aggadeta be a candidate for such treatment, since the simple
> meaning is very difficult.

I agree that you did not intend to insult anyone - but the consequence
of your understanding does result in disparaging accusations. I don't
see any other way of understanding it - nor did his son.

> Still, I find the difference between your interpretation of RSS and mine
> to be so small as to be almost negligible.

The issue of honesty is not a neglible issue especially since it was one
of Rabbi Schwab's exemplary middos and guiding principles. I think it
is far more likely that the Basel Dayan misunderstood what Rabbi Schwab
told him.

                                                                        Daniel
Eidensohn

A couple of people have told me that I was insensitive in the following
exchange:

> : <<< "He who has no son, has no share in the
> world to come" (Zohar Pinhas 215) -- How am I supposed to deal with a
> line like that?  Even aside from the personal pain, >>>

> Me <<< The personal pain is irrelevant. That, for the Zohar,
> is how the world works and you might as well get used to it. >>>

I apologize if I phrased my response insensitively.

I did, however, have a serious point, and I will now try to make it in
two longer but possibly less insensitive ways.

1. R Chaim Vital, in the beginning of the fourth part of Shaarei
Kedushah, quotes R. Yitzhaq dmin Akko about the qualifications needed for
studying Kabbalah. One of those qualifications is "midath hahistavuth",
and he cites a long story about it, which I will not repeat here.
The bottom line of the story, however, is that midath hahistavuth means
not caring what other people say, whether they praise or blame you.

Someone who is offended by a passage in the Zohar simply should not be
studying Zohar, he is, ipso facto, unqualified.

2. I have studied Torah with many sensitive rebbeim, and, occasionally,
looked at their copies of Massecheth Gittin, and never yet found a
tear stain. I have seen one or two of these same rebbeim very upset
at the news of a divorce. Study of Torah, however, requires tzlilutha
(anyone recall the gemara?), i.e., clarity of thought. While studying
(and this point applies to any discipline, even, l'havdil, non-Torah
related disciplines) one must ignore any emotional responses in order
to understand properly what's going on.

I recall, for example, enduring a bit of oral surgery and having
the hygenicist say, in a shocked voice, "Oh my God" at one point.
My immediate thought was "she's got the wrong job."

The expressed desire of the person to whom I responded was to understand
a passage in the Zohar. Even aside from my point #1, if he wanted to
understand a doctrine, he must first set aside his personal reaction
to it.

David Riceman

From: simchag@att.net
>> 1. In Bamidbar 14:41 there is a double tvir - does that happen
>> elsewhere? I have an explanation al pi drush.

> in my Humish i only see 1 under the word 'zeh'.

Sorry! 14:40. (v'alinu el ha'makom).

YGB

> Sorry! 14:40. (v'alinu el ha'makom).
> YGB

Yes...i should of seen that one, it's only one posuk off...

i also found the other one that i mentioned this one is also in Parshas
Eikav..the posuk right after the parsha of Kriyas Shmah...'lavoisehcho
lavrohom'

we now have 4 examples that we know of..

BTW what is your explanation al pi drush that you mentioned in your
posting on Avodah?

Simcha G

From: simchag@att.net
> BTW what is your explanation al pi drush that you mentioned in your
posting on Avodah?

Tvir is broken in Amaraic - the "aliyah" here was really not a tikkun,
but a shevira., Sometimes the quest for Or is actually a form of Choshech.

Would have to look at the otherts to see if it fits!

GS,
YGB

Ok, I know this problem has been discussed before on the list, but I
wasn't able to get a coherent answer to my question from perusing the
previous posts.

My main (and only) question about the flood is the problem of cultural
continuity that archaeological evidence suggests, versus the discontinuity
that the flood story implies. Archaeological evidence from cultures such
as ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Native Americans, seems to assert that
there was no break or discontinuity in these cultures during the time
period the flood was supposed to have occured. For instance, it could be
that cultural elements such as burial practices or deities worshipped,
remained the same both before the flood era and after. Obviously it would
be unreasonable to assume that after a culture was destroyed by the flood
(since every human on Earth was killed), a new culture emerged in exactly
the same place which just happened to resume the old culture's practices.

What I am looking for is possible answers to this dilemma, be they
apologetic or otherwise. So far, I'm aware of four answers, none of
which I like :

1. The flood was local [presumably to Middle East] and not global.
This would explain the continuities, but it is very difficult to read
the flood story in the Torah according to this interpretation. One would
need to twist the text's plain meaning quite extensively.

2. Since the flood itself was a nes, HaShem made another nes and caused
cultures to resume at their appropriate locations. This is a variation of:
HaShem placed the various cultures' artifacts underground, even though
those cultures never existed. Both of these answers suggest that this
was done in order to test our emunah. However, I don't like to resort
to this answer because it seems less probable than other answers and
also that it would be difficult to arrive at it by reason alone.

3. The scientific evidence is wrong and incorrectly dates the found
artifacts. This isn't really a practical answer, since carbon dating
is often not the only way employed to measure age and also since we're
dealing with a relatively recent event (4 to 6 thousand years ago,
as opposed to dating something to millions of years ago, which could
be imprecise).

4. The flood story is included in 'Maase Breishis', and we are to
interpret it as an allegory rather than literally. The problem with
that is: 1. Who in the Mishna/Gemora holds such view? and 2. If so,
when do we stop? Do we say exodus from Egypt was also an allegory,
C"V? Surely not!

          Eliezer

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 03:15:04AM -0400, Leonid Portnoy wrote:
: Ok, I know this problem has been discussed before on the list, but I
: 2. Since the flood itself was a nes, HaShem made another nes and caused
: cultures to resume at their appropriate locations. This is a variation of:
: HaShem placed the various cultures' artifacts underground, even though
: those cultures never existed. Both of these answers suggest that this
: was done in order to test our emunah....

Not at all. I could think of other reaons for hiding historical nissim.

Explain why there are no nissim bizman hazeh. Whatever answer(s) you
accept for that one is likely to also include why there can't be
evidence of historical nissim.

Gut Voch!
-mi

PS: You have a 2 for 2 on asking questions we've debated here at length.
Again, I suggest checking the archive.

In a message dated 06/28/2003 11:45:57 PM EDT, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
<< In a shiur of R. Zilberstein on Halacha and medicine this week he made
the statement that given two critical patients one of whom is a attempted
murder victim and the other not, that given limited resources one should
save the attempted murder victim first so as to also save the "murderer"
from his crime.>>

I assume that the case was all other things being equal (see gemora end of
horiyot re:prioroties) If there was absolutely no other davar hamachriya,
then why not this vs. a coin toss?

KT
Joel Rich

I just bought a sefer "hot off the press" about hilchot hatzalot nefashot
by a son-in-law of R. Zilberstein. Among other things he quotes several
teshuvot of his father-in-law (who quotes his father-in-law R. Elyashiv)
concerning what should be done when there is a terrorist in the vicinity
and there are choices to be made, eg save a victim or else try and stop
the terrorist who might kill maybe more. In general several teshuvot on
differences between yachid and rabim and also on safek pikuach nefesh.

--
 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/29/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

the is a book on "elu v'elu" that discusses the various shitot and
brings down several groups of opinions as to whether an objective halacha
exists. Bottom line it is an old machloket

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/29/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 12:08:04PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: the is a book on "elu v'elu" that discusses the various shitot and
: brings down several groups of opinions as to whether an objective halacha
: exists. Bottom line it is an old machloket

But are both sides of that machloqes valid, or only one? And if the latter,
does that mean there is no room in eilu va'eilu to include RMF's shitah of
only one shitah being correct?

Just pointing out the inherent paradoxes involved...

-mi

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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
<<The Ramban writes ... ....It is also often cited that Beha'alosekha
is a remez to Chanukah>>

All very nice, but not what I asked. I asked what the explanation
is al pi machashava for the ketores and neiros always going together,
including a hekesh in a recent daf yomi.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Harry Maryles said:
> There is a Yireim (IIRC)that claims that the 39
> Melachos were basically made up by Moshe Rabbenu himself... that God put
> in MR's hands the task of defining what Melacha is and that it was
> indeed "man" that chose to link Meleches Shabbos to the Melachos of the
> Mishkan.

Would greatly appreciate knowing where the Yireim says this. I couldn't find
anything with a search of Bar Ilan CD.

                                    Daniel Eidensohn

> 1. R Chaim Vital, in the beginning of the fourth part of 
> Shaarei Kedushah, quotes R. Yitzhaq dmin Akko about the 
> qualifications needed for studying Kabbalah. One of those 
> qualifications is "midath hahistavuth", and he cites a 
> long story about it, which I will not repeat here. The 
> bottom line of the story, however, is that midath 
> hahistavuth means not caring what other people say, 
> whether they praise or blame you.

> Someone who is offended by a passage in the Zohar simply 
> should not be studying Zohar, he is, ipso facto, unqualified.

I think that the original poster wasn't offended about what someone said
about him, but upset that he might not merit something [olam haba] that
he wants very much. I understand your point and I agree that not caring
what a ben adam says is an important trait b'bchinat learning and avodas
Hashem, but the statement that was being discussed was in the form of a
din from shamayim and not just "something that someone said about him".

I don't know that the poster was studying Zohar, either. Today there are
so many times when we hear or read that the "Zohar says thus and such"
without the background explanation to fully understand the passage and I
think that the original poster of this thread was asking for
explanations, not really trying to argue with the mechaber of the Zohar.

---Rena

I am indebted to Rav Arie Folger for his story about Rav SZ Auerbach,
and his other comments.

I am especially indebted to R' Carl Sherer for his incredibly patient
analysis of the relevant Mishna Brurahs et al (without which I'd never
have seen his point of view), and for his comment that <<< even from your
story, it's clear that RSZA (who was certainly no slouch on bein adam
l'chaveiro) held that l'chatchila one should eat the first slice himself.

I was pondering these ideas, and on Erev Shabbos I considered perhaps
switching, that on Shabbos I would take the first slice myself, and
then slice for the rest of the table. I began to mentally rehearse the
various steps, when I stopped and asked myself, "When do I do the salt?"

I will continue these thoughts in a new thread, to be titled "Salting
the HaMotzi".

Thank you, everyone.
Akiva Miller

Note: this thread is a tangent spun off from the thread titled "giving
chalah to your wife before eating your own piece".

In that thread, I wrote how my practice is to say HaMotzi, slice enough
for the whole table, salt the slices, take one for myself and pass out
the others. But as a result of other views presented there, this past
Erev Shabbos I considered perhaps switching. Perhaps on Shabbos I would
take the first slice myself, and *then* slice for the rest of the table.

I began to mentally rehearse the various steps, when I stopped and asked
myself, "When do I do the salt?"

Practically speaking, several alternatives presented themselves to me,
but the halachic side was more problematic: Isn't it true that nowadays
we really don't need to salt the challah at all? And if so, then wouldn't
it constitute the sort of avoidable pause which we want to avoid between
Hamotzi and the eating?

IOW, if slicing for the table (which is at least l'tzorech haseudah,
although I don't need it personally) is a hefsek, then salting the challah
(which no one needs) is *certainly* a hefsek!

I went back to the Mishna Brurah to check my memory. Indeed, Mechaber
167:5 says that nowadays there's no need to wait (between washing
and hamotzi) for salt to be brought to the table; the Rama there says
that it's a mitzva to have the salt already on the table; and the MB 29
confirms that if one wants to, he can wait for such tzorchei seudah to be
brought to the table provided that this is all prior to saying HaMotzi. I
was not able to find much there about salting one's bread after Hamotzi.

The MB 167:33 does says that the Mekubalim say to dip the slice of
hamotzi into the salt 3 times. I'm still confused. Everyone I know does
salt the bread between the bracha and the eating, but no one does it
three times. What are we basing ourselves on?

I tried to look in the Shemiras Shabbos K'Hlichasa. He was a whole
section entitled "Seder HaBetziah" (Procedure of Slicing, 55:18-28) in
which I was not able to find the word "salt" even once. I looked in a
few other recent seforim, in search of the practical procedure which we
are to follow nowadays (namely: Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos by Dayan Posen,
Piskei Hilchos Shabbos by Ephraim Padawer, and Yaynah Shel Torah al
Shabbos Kodesh by Binyamin Adler) and found that they all talk about
slicing the bread, but not about salting it.

Could it be that salting the bread is something which has been removed
from the Textual Tradition, yet remains solidly entrenched in the Mimetic
Tradition from a time previous to the Mechaber 167:5, when bread was not
as tasty as it is today? And that despite this absence from the text,
it is still considered important enough that we pause between HaMotzi
and eating in order to salt it?

Or maybe I'm missing something?

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> Harry Maryles said:
>> There is a Yireim (IIRC)that claims that the 39
>> Melachos were basically made up by Moshe Rabbenu himself... that God put
>> in MR's hands the task of defining what Melacha is and that it was
>> indeed "man" that chose to link Meleches Shabbos to the Melachos of the
>> Mishkan.

> Would greatly appreciate knowing where the Yireim says this. I couldn't
> find anything with a search of Bar Ilan CD.

As I said, I didn't see it. RYGB had mentioned it to us during one of
his DY Shiurim, probably during Meseches Shabbos. Perhaps RYGB can point
you to the source.

HM

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:47:38PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: But you're ignoring the quote I brought from the Hakdama.
...
: How do you understand his citing "she'ar achronim" (as opposed to naming
: them) if he's not trying to bring a maskana?

He doesn't call it "rov" or "maskanas". Nor does he actually think it
warranted mension in the main text.

To deduce there is only one shitah from that is a bit much.

But in any case, the AhS is good enough for me.

-mi

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

The percentage of women with bladder problems may be far greater than
for men, but still it's a mi'uta. And if you want to only ban women who
never delivered from wearing tefillin, you have comparible percentages
(not equal, but close) as to men.

Now from that mi'ut, some percentage have true guf naki issues.

And therefore our rabbanim made a general issur?

-mi

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

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


[ 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         ]