Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 039

Thursday, July 10 2003

• Conversion
• Korban Pesach for Gerim/BTs
• RE: Korban Pesach for Gerim/BTs
• Korban Pesach for Gerim/BTs
• Shir HaShirim
• re: double t'vir
• Re: Persian Era/Kiddush HaChodesh
• Re: Persian Era/Kiddush HaChodesh
• Returning the Sefer Torah to the Aron
• Re: Shir HaShirim
• Re: Conversion
• Re: Korban Pesach for Gerim/BTs
• Re: Shir HaShirim
• Halacha Mosheh misinai
• Re: Ki Yesh Sachar
• Re: Mishebeirachs: mentioning name of person needing Refuah
• Re: Nigunim in Shul
• lowering flames on yom tov

Sources or thoughts on the following question:

A non-Jew comes to you and says "I accept the God of Abraham...Moses as
the true God. I understand that Judiasm does not seek converts but does
not forbid them. Does God prefer me to be a good non-Jew who keeps the 7
mitzvot or would he prefer me to convert to keep 613 or is he ambivalent?"

How would we respond?

KT
Joel Rich

[Three posts, bounced (partially) from Areivim. -mi]

From: Akiva Atwood
>> Hazal tell us that BT do things that are not in accordance with halokho for
>> the sincerest of motives, because they don't know and think
>> they should be machmir...

> Do you have a SOURCE for this "chazal"?

The source is qorbon pesah, where Hazal assered shechting it for a
chabura/chavura that is all gerim (for the reason that they are recently
shomrei mitzvos, which applies to BT).

Seth Mandel

> The source is qorbon pesah, where Hazal assered shechting it for a
> chabura/chavura that is all gerim (for the reason that they are recently
> shomrei mitzvos, which applies to BT).

But would that apply 20-30 years after their geirus?

Akiva

R' Seth Mandel wrote <<< The source is qorbon pesah, where Hazal assered
shechting it for a chabura/chavura that is all gerim (for the reason
that they are recently shomrei mitzvos, which applies to BT).>>>

I'm not clear on the logic here. Are you saying that because of their
lack of knowledge, thus the probability of doing something wrong, there
has to be at least one knowledgable person in the chabura?

Do we see anywhere else that a ger is presumed to have less knowledge
than anyone else? On the contrary, isn't one of the ideas behind a "beis
din of 3 hedyotos" the presumption that at least one of them will know
what to do? Is a "beis din of 3 hedyotos" pasul if all three are gerim?

Akiva Miller

One of the common criticisms of Artscroll is their non-literal translation
of Shir HaShirim. In running a search for something else I found that
the Rav Pe'alim YD 1:56 rules explicitly that ShS must not be translated
literally, ayain sham.

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

>but how do you explain D'varim 6:10?

A bit tough, but I would say that the double tvir is there because the
shevuah to Avraham, specifically, was related to the pur'onus of Ger
yihyeh zaracha.

However, additional study of the difference between a darga-tvir
configuration (which is to be found in conjunction with the double tvir
in Devarim 6:10) and the other configurations (such as the revi'i-tvir
in Bemidbar 14:40) is required

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

In a message dated 6/16/2003 8:35:20 AM EST, dr@insight.att.com writes:
>> Why are you positing the absence of a base 10 representation of
>> numbers?

> It's true that Ibn Ezra introduced base 10 representations to the Hebrew
> speaking world; I don't know how widely disseminated the idea was during
> the middle ages.  I don't have the impression that any of the Baalei
> haTosafoth, for example, knew how to do long division (which is,
> functionally, what you need to do modular arithmetic 
> easily).

This is old and I have forgotten the context, but I meant to comment:
whether the Baalei haTosfos knew how to do long division is a separate
question from whether Jews used base ten before Ibn Ezra. The very
language of the Torah assumes base ten. Asarah, esrim, shloshim etc.
I don't even know what you're saying when you say Ibn Ezra "introduced
it," unless you mean that he introduced Arabic numerals? [Did he?]

Toby Katz

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> This is old and I have forgotten the context, but I meant to comment:
> whether the Baalei haTosfos knew how to do long division is a separate
> question from whether Jews used base ten before Ibn Ezra. The very
> language of the Torah assumes base ten. Asarah, esrim, shloshim etc.
> I don't even know what you're saying when you say Ibn Ezra "introduced
> it," unless you mean that he introduced Arabic numerals? [Did he?]

I did try to write precisely. "Base 10 representation" means writing a
representation of a number using a one's place, a tens place, a hundred's
place, and, in the k+1 th position, a 10 to the k th place. It is that
which enables easy arithmetic, and it is that which was invented in the
middle ages and introduced to the Hebrew speaking world by Ibn Ezra.

In fact Ibn Ezra used Hebrew letters, not Arabic numerals, in his system.

David Riceman

I'm not familiar with siddurim of the Eidot Hamizrach, but it seems to
me that the same procedure appears in virtually all Ashkenaz siddurim
for returning the Sefer Torah to the Aron Kodesh.

It begins with the Chazan saying "Y'hal'lu...", and then the tzibur
responds with "Hodu..." and recites a perek of Tehillim (either #29
on Shabbos morning or #24 at any other time) while the Sefer is being
carried back to the Aron.

Then, according to the instructions in every siddur I can ever recall
looking at, when the Sefer is being placed into the Aron, they say
"Uvnucho Yomar".

But in recent years, I have noticed many people who say "Uvnucho Yomar"
immediately after completing the previous mizmor, with total disregard to
how close the Sefer is to the Aron. Often the chazan has not even reached
the steps leading up to the bimah, and people are already beginning --
or even finishing -- Uvnucho Yomar.

Some might say that I'm being too much of a stickler for the "stage
directions" as printed in the siddur. But they seem so very appropriate!
"Uvnucho Yomar" -- "And when it rested, they said..." Granted that in
the pasuk's original context, it refers to the *Aron* resting, but it
seems quite reasonable that the authors of the siddur deliberately took
it out of context, to refer to the *Sefer Torah* resting (in the Aron).

So my question is this, when people say Uvnucho Yomar early, is it simple
absent-mindedness, or is there some logic there which I'm unaware of?

Akiva Miller

> One of the common criticisms of Artscroll is their non-literal translation
> of Shir HaShirim. In running a search for something else I found that
> the Rav Pe'alim YD 1:56 rules explicitly that ShS must not be translated
> literally, ayain sham.

Did the Rav Pe'alim rule there or anywhere else that any other sefer or
portion of Tanach must not be translated literally or did he confine his
bar against translation to Shir ha-Shirim?

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> A non-Jew comes to you and says "I accept the God of Abraham...Moses as
> the true God. I understand that Judiasm does not seek converts but does
> not forbid them. Does God prefer me to be a good non-Jew who keeps the 7
> mitzvot or would he prefer me to convert to keep 613 or is he ambivalent?"

Off the cuff:

I would say that observance of The Noahide 7 is a luadible goal which
God wants of all of his human creations. I would also emphasize the
great amount of knowledge and effort needed to observe the Mitzvos as a
Jew. I would add that Mitzvah observance beyond the Noahide 7 which has
value only if one is Halachicly Jewish is of greater value to God. God
mandated this higher level of observance for His chosen people because
He wants them to be elevated to be a kingdom of priests... a people
of holiness. To accomplish this he has provided his people with the
means to acheive holiness through the observance of His Mitzvos. Such
observance will acheive greater reward in practice in the world to come
and great punishment in the breach. So I would caution that a potential
convert be aware of the pitfalls but also aware of the desirabilty by
the Holy One Blessed Be He of His people, born to Judaism or converted,
to follow His holy word.

HM

> I'm not clear on the logic here. Are you saying that because of their
> lack of knowledge, thus the probability of doing something wrong, there
> has to be at least one knowledgable person in the chabura?

> Do we see anywhere else that a ger is presumed to have less knowledge
> than anyone else? On the contrary, isn't one of the ideas behind a "beis
> din of 3 hedyotos" the presumption that at least one of them will know
> what to do? Is a "beis din of 3 hedyotos" pasul if all three are gerim?

The logic is that of Hazal. What they were worried about is that the
gerim/BT would be more machmir than FFB, and so leave over the Pesah
and make it nosar, which has to be destroyed, and it is forbidden to
destroy qorbonos needlessly.

Why not in other cases? Indeed, it would apply to other cases, but this
is a mitzva that every Jew is obligated to do, including gerim, under
penalty of kores, and there is no time to go ask shayles (especially
according to R. Elozor ben Azaryo that it must be eaten before hatzos).
In most other cases, the gerim will either not have to get involved
unless they feel they are well-enough prepared or will be able to ask.

A bes din of hedyotos is not a kashye. We only allow such a bes din for
minor issues; for a regular bes din, they must be expert in the law.
And the issue is _not_ that there is a presumption that FFB know the
halokho, whereas gerim/BT do not. The difference is mimetics: FFB will
have experience growing up to know where there is a real shayle of the
qorbon, and a ger/BT will just say "I don't know the halokho here,
best be machmir." The problem is solved if even one member of the
chabbura/chavura is FFB, not because he has to be a talmid chochom and
will teach the gerim all the halokhos of qorbon pesah at the beginning
of the evening, but because he will know in normal cases what is done,
and only bother running to the rov with an unusual case.

It is clear, therefore, that this issur would only apply to recent BT or
gerim. After having been around qorbonos enough to get a feeling for what
is done (which might take several years), there would be no difference.

Seth Mandel

At 10:40 AM 7/7/03 -0500, sacksa@cch.com wrote:
>Did the Rav Pe'alim rule there or anywhere else that any other sefer or
>portion of Tanach must not be translated literally or did he confine his
>bar against translation to Shir ha-Shirim?

Only ShS.

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

The gemora(BB 12.) in the inyan of chacham adif mnavi discusses nvuah
by a chacham and proves its existence from the fact that a Talmid Chacham
could be mcaaven with a raeson to a halacha moshe misinai.

My understanding was that the hm"m could not be derived by logic or else
why would hkb"h tell it to MRA"H as a msora(eg see sukkah 28.)

Any ideas?

KT
Joel Rich

On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:34:34PM -0400, Yehudit and Meyer Shields wrote:
: R' CY Goldvicht gave a derasha...
:         in which he distinguished between al m'nas l'kabeil p'ras (bad)
: and k'dei lekabel p'ras (good), with the mishna specifically proscribing
: only the former. According to his interpretation (assuming the focus
: of Creation was to allow the earning of reward), striving for the reward
: via mitzvos is actually important, but making observance conditional on
: reward is not.

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 09:59:57AM -0400, Mordechai S Dixler wrote:
: I remember R' Yakov Weinberg zt"l would say we can do mitzvos for the
: reward and it will still be shelo al menas likabel pras. This is possible
: if you do the mitzvos because you know Kaviyachol wants to give us a
: reward (to avoid nahama dikisufa, or such) as a chesed to us....

Way back in volume 5 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n051.shtml#16>,
RCBrown wrote the following:
> Ruach haChaim on Avos 1:3 writes that the ideal is al menas l'kabel
> schar - to draw Hashem's shefa to the world and reap its benefits, but
> most of us aren't on the madreiga to do avodah that way so we settle
> for shelo al menas l'kabel pras. An interesting twist.

Until further clarified, I am going to assume that RMSD remembers RYW saying
something that was based on this RhC.

Personally, I would want a peshat that also addresses why the mishnah says
"al menas shelo leqabeil peras" rather than "shelo al menas". The mishnah
is saying that one should do mitzavos for the sake of not getting a peras.

Perhaps we can suggest something between RhC's and RCYG's peshatim.

The purpose of doing mitzvos is to get sechar, not peras. As I suggested
back in vol 5, peras is more akin to segulah than sechar mitzvos, a gift,
an expression of chein. Antignos ish Socho is saying that one ought to
do mitzvos not in order to get what one wants, but rather so that the
tov one does get is not peras (al menas shelo leqabeil peras) but
is sechar.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

Nachman Levine said:
> I heard this last week (Shelach): The Ozrover Rebbe once asked the
> Gerrer Rebbe to daven for him and gave him his mother's name; The Gerrer
> Rebbe asked (much as Simchah G did): "Doesn't the gemara learn out from
> Moishe Rabbeinu when he was mispallel for his sister Miryom with the
> words 'keil na refoh na lah' that one doesn't have to mention the name
> of the Choleh when being mispallel?". To which the the Ozrover
> immediately answered: 'keil no refoh no loh' is Gematria: "Miriam Bas
> Yocheved."

Kach heivanti ha'inyan...

Obviously HQBH doesn't need the name to know who you're asking for.
Rather, it's an aid for kavanah. In addition, bothering to get that name
is itself a chessed, whose zechuyos work toward the favor.

RYBS holds that the purpose of a Mi sheBeirach is to change the tza'ar of
an individual into that of the kehillah. This makes it far more likely
that someone who doesn't deserve suffering along with the choleh is
amongst those affected by his continued ill health. Leshitaso, making
that effort to get the name adds to the bond, and therefore would add
to the efficacy of the tefillah.

-mi
-- 
Using <http://www.aishdas.org/webmail>

[I sent RMSD"s post to a mumcheh for comment. here is his response. -mi]

Dear Mr. Dixler, amv"sh

The oldest source is the Sefer Chassidim (R" Yehuda Ha Chasid) 1148-1217
c.e. who forbids using the melody of one part of the tefilla or kriah
for a different tefilla or kriah. We know that the Maharam MiRuttenberg,
about 50 yrs. later started to standardize the musical nusach hatefillo
- for instance, in his day all the Kaddishim for Yom Tov were the
tune of Tal/Geshem. During his lifetime they began to evolve into
separate melodies for Maariv Rosh Hashono, Shacharis, Musaf, Neilah,etc.
The Shulchan Aruch (1488-1575) extensively quotes the Maharil (R' Jacob
Moelin - chief Rabbi of the Rhineland c.1375-1450) as to minhagei tefillo.
The Maharil was the Posek for the largest Jewish communities of the day -
Worms, Speyer, Mayence, Regensberg, etc. and was upset at the "foreign"
elements intruding in the melody of tefillo, and set out to determine
which versions were the true ones ("MiSinai"- or "Scarbova") and was
able to do that because of the Crusades that brought Jews from all over
Europe to seek safety in the Rhineland. He examined the different strains
and determined which were authentic. His P'sak - that "Ain L'Shanos" -
one may not change the musical Nusach of a community, is standardized as
Halacha by the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 619). You can see that in the Mishneh
Brura as well, of course. He was also responsible for standardizing
"Nusach Ashkenaz" in the form our Siddur takes and in many minhagim,
such as the chazzan saying HaMelech from his seat, etc.

After the turn of the 20th Century, The nascent Young Israel movement
sought to bring young people into shul by emulating the Chassidim
(heretofore verboten)by introducing "congregational singing" to their
minyanim. Until then, no one "sang" Kel Odon or L'cho Dodi - there is a
nusach you even hear today that was carefully adhered to. The Young Israel
initiative started the trend in non-chassidic shuls to use nigunim to
supplement the nusach (not replace it). Believe it or not, through the
1950's and even the 1960s it was still frowned upon by mainstream shuls.
Many of the first Y.I. Nigunim were taken from the reform choral pieces
of Germany and Austria, such as The entire Hotsoas Hatorah melody -
"Vayehi Binsoah"/ "Ki Mitzion" - even the universal "Shma Yisroel" were
all reform compositions. But, there was very little else out there,
and that is why they used them. Today, we have to be careful not to use
nigunim where they don't belong, and not to erase the nusach as a result.
Some think it is now "frumer" to not sing nigunim, and that is a bit
of hisnagdut. Nigunim are part of "Zeh Keli V'Anveyhu". We just have
to use seychel. My guidelines are the 4 M's: Mode (nusach), Mood,
Meaning and Min Ha Mikdosh (not from secular sources). Incidently,
many of the favorite KAJ melodies are these aforementioned compositions
of The Reform - Lewandowski, Sulzer, et al. I guess we "kashered"
them over the last century and one-half by using them in Avodas Hakodesh.

Shalom,
Chazzan Sherwood Goffin, Lincoln Sq. Synagogue, N.Y.,
Faculty Belz School of Jewish Music at Y.U.

My question concerns the lowering of flames, or estinguishing of gas
flames, on yom tov. Over the years, I have heard, a number of times,
a pask of RMF which was far more lenient than that which appears in the
Iggros Moshe.

Anyone aware of such a position, or have any insights regarding the
equating of lowering a gas flame with "mistapek min hashemen" and kibuy?

Thanks,
David Brofsky
Alon Shvut

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


[ 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         ]