Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 069

Sunday, September 14 2003

• relying on LOR
• Re: relying on LOR
• Re: relying on LOR
• "El ishech teshukasech"
• safek mamzer
• Re: ze sefer toldot adam
• RE: ze sefer toldot adam
• Re: par and shor
• Re Shor
• bull
• RE: safek mamzer
• Responsibility
• Re: Faxing on Shabbos
• Re: Women and kaddish
• Re: ze sefer toldot adam
• pythagoras
• Re: Women and kaddish
• Re: Women and kaddish
• Gender of Shabbos
• Re: ze sefer toldot adam
• Re: Minhag Ashkenaz

"Dayan Ehrentrau (Chief Dayan of the LBD) issued a letter that instructed
people to follow their own Rav on whether or not to rely on the eiruv,
an approach that is very mentchlech IMHO "

On the other hand maybe the LOR should not pasken such questions because
it will put pressure on other communities why is their rav machmir when
rav X is mekil.

Eli Turkel

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:56:25PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: On the other hand maybe the LOR should not pasken such questions because
: it will put pressure on other communities why is their rav machmir when
: rav X is mekil.

Yes. If the fight over the eiruv is threatening to reach that geder where
others will either follow or reject the kehillah.

While eiruv fights to get bad enough for some people to resort to
fisticuffs (as the newspapers attest), there is rarely the kind of call
for rabbinic will to make halachic way as there is benidon didan.

However, I believe there are many situations in which the LOR should not
be nichnas into machloqes, and rather follow a poseiq both parties respect,
even if not follow.

Following something the machmirim can see as gadol X's qulah doesn't
cause the same lack of achdus.

:-)BBii
-mi

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

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:56:25PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: On the other hand maybe the LOR should not pasken such questions because
: it will put pressure on other communities why is their rav machmir when
: rav X is mekil.

Yes. If the fight over the eiruv is threatening to reach that geder where
others will either follow or reject the kehillah.

While eiruv fights to get bad enough for some people to resort to
fisticuffs (as the newspapers attest), there is rarely the kind of call
for rabbinic will to make halachic way as there is benidon didan.

However, I believe there are many situations in which the LOR should not
be nichnas into machloqes, and rather follow a poseiq both parties respect,
even if not follow.

Following something the machmirim can see as gadol X's qulah doesn't
cause the same lack of achdus.

:-)BBii
-mi

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

Some time ago Rebbitzin Katz asked about the parallel between:
<<In Bereshis 3:16, Hashem says to Chava, "El ishech teshukasech vehu
yimshol boch."
In Ber 4:7, Hashem says to Kayin, "Lapesach chatos rovetz, ve'elecha
teshukaso ve'atah timshol bo." >>

After analyzing the meaning of "mshl" in these psukim she continued
<< So far so good. But the thing that worries me about these parallel
pesukim is the hint that the woman is a yetzer hara for the man, and
that it is good for a man to resist it/her. Obviously that IS true if
you're talking about a man and a woman in a forbidden relationship,
but here we are talking about a husband and a wife, the very unit about
which Hashem had previously said, "Lo tov heyos ha'adam levado...al
ken...vedavak be'ishto." >>

I was musing about this between sneezes last night. A few preliminary
observations, followed by a possible explanation:

1. One of my rebbeim once quoted the Kotzker Rebbe as having said
(he always apologized for quoting TKR in Hebrew when he quoted him,
but most of us didn't understand Yiddish) about Hava's curse: "V'im
l'hefech l'hefech."

2. As support for this pshat notice the parallelism in the three pairs
of punishments for eating the fruit:

Snake: a eat dirt
       b fight with people

Woman: a give birth painfully
       b cited above

Man: a work hard to produce grain/flour/bread
     b die and decompose

Notice that curse a applies to the accursed one, and curse b (at least
for the man and the snake) apply to all 3. Parallelism demands that the
woman's b curse applies to all 3, and, while I can't speak for snakes'
family life, TKR applied it to at least 2 of the three.

3. This leads me to suggest an alternative to RTK's pshat (does the fact
that your acronym is an anagram of TKR's mean anything?): the point of the
parallel is the subject, not the object. that is, the Torah is telling
you something about the nature of addiction: continually succumbing to
temptation leads to addiction, and addiction leads to loss of control.

In terms of RTK's particular point:
<< but here we are talking about a husband and a wife, the very unit
about which Hashem had previously said, "Lo tov heyos ha'adam levado...al
ken...vedavak be'ishto." >>

we are being given a pre-matan-Torah lesson on the advantage of hilchos
nidda, i.e., of a relationship not centered solely on physical pleasure.
That is, "v'davak b'ishto" refers not to conjugal relations, but to
social relations (compare Rashi on "v'hayu l'vasar echad").

David Riceman

I disagree with the contention that a machloket poskim leads to a safek
mamzer. What happened to the gemara that bet Hillel intermarried with
Bet Shammai but each side kept records of possible problems.

Similarly today if a family relied on some problematic procedure that
would have to tell prosepctive spouses that they relied on RMF etc. and
otherwise there would be no problem. Each prospective spouse would then
decide whether to rely on that posek or not.

Eli Turkel

At 10:07 AM 9/12/2003 -0400, you [R Meir Shinnar] wrote:
>but there are rishonim on the sifra, where the identical discussion occurs
>(on the pasuk ve'ahavta lere'acha camocha), and the rishonim on the sifra
>(raavad for one) do not learn it that way, but learn it the regular way.
>While technically not on the yerushalmi, they are rishonim too. I also
>add (as I ahve mentioned), that breshit rabba has a far more extensive
>discussion of ben azzai and rabbi akiva (on ze sefer toldot adam) -
>where this pshat seems completely untenable.

Courtesy of my DBS CD I checked Bereishis Rabba 24:7, Yalkut Shimoni 
Bereishis 5:40 and Vayikra 19:613, and Sifra Kedoshim 4. The language is 
verbatim (maybe slight variation, but nothing significant) that of the 
Yerushalmi. There is no indication in any of these locations of any other 
approach being "the regular way."

I do not have a Raavad on Sifra - I haven't even unpacked my Malbim to look 
at the Sifra there, but there is no textual basis to assume your putative 
"pshat" is any more "correct" than the one offered by myself and Rabbi 
Kornfeld.

KT,
YGB

RYGB
> Courtesy of my DBS CD I checked Bereishis Rabba 24:7, Yalkut Shimoni 
> Bereishis 5:40 and Vayikra 19:613, and Sifra Kedoshim 4. The language is 
> verbatim (maybe slight variation, but nothing significant) that of the 
> Yerushalmi. There is no indication in any of these locations of any other 
> approach being "the regular way."

WRT to Midrash Rabba (parsha 24)

ben azzai omer ze sefer toldot adam ze clal gadol batorah rabbi akiba omer
veahavta lereacha camocha (until now essentially identical t yerushalmi
(except for order - and here the midrash is on ben azzai's pasuk -
but then it adds)
shelo tomar ho'il venitbaziti yitbazeh haveri imi hoil venitkalalti
yitkalel haveri imi, amar rabbi tanhuman im asita ken da lemi ata mevaze,
bidmut elokim asa oto

This second part seems directly linked to the machloket of ben azzai
and rabbi akiba - which is also the way that the classical mefarshim of
midrash rabba also understand it - (and hard to understand in other ways)
- the midrash questions rabbi akiba, which seems to limit our obligation
to kamocha - but not to treat him higher - therefore, if you are being
shamed, it is ok to include your friend to be equally shamed - and
ben azzai, by means of ze sefer toldot adam - says that our obligation
is higher, as we have to remember the zelem elokim in the other. ben
azzai's position is viewed as a statement on our obligations to others,
because ze sefer toldot adam means that they (rather than merely I)
are descended from adam created in zelem elohim, rather than merely our
obligations to ourselves.

> I do not have a Raavad on Sifra - I haven't even unpacked my Malbim to look 
> at the Sifra there, but there is no textual basis to assume your putative 
> "pshat" is any more "correct" than the one offered by myself and Rabbi 
> Kornfeld.

The malbim offers my pshat, as referring to our obligations to others.
the ra'avad does too - can't cite it off the top of my head)(IIRC,
he is cited in the torah shlema to breshit if you have access to that)

Again, while one can darshen the pasuk in many ways, including yours and
rav Kornfeld's, this is not the most natural pasuk to give that message,
while it naturally gives the message as understood by the ra'avad,
malbim, and me, so your pshat is problematic in ben azzai.

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 9/12/03  Eli  Turkel <turkel@nianet.org> writes [in]
Avodah V11 #68:
> I had written that a par is a male cow while a shor is a different animal.

> Enclosed is a response I recived from R. Mordecai Kornfeld of the kollel
> iyun hadaf in Har Nof.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, I disagree, see Shoftim 6:25, Tehilim 69:32; they are the same
> animal. However ... Shor is a castrated animal, which was castrated in
> order to use it for plowing or pulling carts etc. ... Par is simply a bull, 
> kept for slaughter.

I have already written that par is a bull while shor is an ox, and that
an ox is a castrated bull. I also asked a question at that time, which no
one answered, so I will ask it again: how could there be any such thing
as a shor? How can the Torah and Gemara keep talking about castrated
animals, as if they were commonplace and known in Jewish society, when
we are not allowed to do that in the first place?

Which makes me think that maybe shor is not a castrated animal, but a
synonym for a par. And the distinction would be that a par is the male
of one specific species, Daisy the Cow's husband, while a shor would be
the male of ANY related species, not only Mr. Cow but also Mr Buffalo,
vechulei.

The English word "ox" has the same two possible meanings as the Hebrew
word "shor" seems to have: 1. a castrated male cow 2. the bull of any
and all related species--not necessarily castrated.

Please ask R' Kornfeld how we can have such a thing as a shor, according
to his definition of the word?

Toby Katz 

REK quoted R' M.Kornfeld of Kollel [Iyun haDaf, in] Har Nof <<Shor is a
castrated animal, which was castrated in order to use it for plowing or
pulling carts etc. It is the animal that would be more damaging, and the
one that would be more likely to find in a field. Par is simply a bull,
kept for slaughter.>>

Doesn't the chumash say "Shor o khesev o ez ki yivaled"? 
Born that way?

and then, "ish...asher yishchat shor o khesev".  Was the shochet 
reliable?

And who approved doing the castration?  Especial the pre-natal one?

Sorry, I don't get it. Please enlighten.

David

RET:
>I had wriiten that a par is a male cow while a shor is a different
>animal.

RMK:
> I disagree, see Shoftim 6:25, Tehilim 69:32; they are the same
> animal. However, your distinction is still correct according to what I
> wrote in my letter. Shor is a castrated animal, which was castrated in
> order to use it for plowing or pulling carts etc. It is the animal that
> would be more damaging, and the one that would be more likely to find
> in a field. Par is simply a bull, kept for slaughter.

> See also the Midrash in vayikra raba 27:6 etc., that makes of point of
> showing that the Torah did *not* ask us to bring wild beasts for a Korban.
> And the verse there calls it a Shor despite the fact that it is discussing
> a matter of Kodshim.

Can I disagree (less so with RMK) with both? See Rashi on Tehillim there
69:32 that Chazal learn shor is the species name while par refers to a
certain age. This also clarifies the above (and others) midrash referring
to shor. A castrated animal is unacceptable for a sacrifice.

See also Ibn Ezra Breishis 32 that agrees with Rashi that shor is the
species name.

Shlomo Goldstein

> I disagree with the contention that a machloket poskim leads to a safek
> mamzer. What happened to the gemara that bet Hillel intermarried with
> Bet Shammai but each side kept records of possible problems.

That's ONE way you could get a safek mamzer.

The second way is when the circumstances are unverifiable.

[Email #2. -mi]

> Was I wrong when I wrote that someone in your friend's situation could
> marry a giyores?

You are correct.

> Assuming he could find one willing to deal with marrying
> off her children who will also only be able to date geirim.

which would be a major obstacle, given the small number of geirim.

Akiva

===============
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long
to return."
                     --Leonardo da Vinci

As is evident from some of my earlier posts, I live in Teaneck and
am a members of a shul that has both continued certain practices that
Modern Orthodoxy had followed until recent years (e.g., not having tree
mechitzot during dancing at our annual dinner, having a mechitzah in our
shul that allows the women sitting behind it to feel that they are part
of the congregation, sponsoring co-ed youth groups, etc.), as well as
being in the forefront of what some consider to be innovative practices
(e.g., women reciting kaddish and birchat ha'gomel during davening, women
being shul officers and members of the board, young women giving divrei
torah from the rabbi's pulpit after adon olam on their bat mitzvahs or
our annual graduation Shabbat, etc.) I, of course, feel very comfortable
in this type of shul, although there are certain areas in which I have
been unsuccessful in getting my shul to be more on the cutting edge.
But I would never blame other shuls, whose practices I feel are, for
lack of a better word, more to the right, for the fact that my shul has
not adopted practices that I would like. Nor would I expect those other
shuls to take into consideration my feelings or the minhagim of my shul
in deciding what their minhagim are.

And it is that feeling that makes me so uneasy with RMB's analysis
about Teaneck, Riverdale etc. We're all grown ups, and our rabbis are,
for the most part, talmedei chachamim. Let's take responsibility for our
own actions. If my shul doesn't let women dance with a sefer torah on
simchat Torah as I would like it to, I don't blame Boro Park or Queens
for that; it's the responsibility of my shul and its leadership, and
it's to them that I direct any arguments that I may have. =20

I think it would be a good idea if we all acted like adults, took
responsibility for our own decisions, and stopped blaming or trying to
control the lives of others who are acting in accordance with halacha as
they and their poskim see it. The rabbanim in Boro Park and Queens should
have as much self confidence in making decisions for their communities
as the rabbi of my shul has for making decisions about ours.
 And if they have that self confidence and provide true leadership to
their communities, they shouldn't worry about what we do in our little
corner in Teaneck or Riverdale.

Joseph Kaplan

Re: Postings on "nolad".

Are posters not mixing nolad and molid?

AIUI:

Nolad is a kind of muktzeh because the item involved didn't exist 
before Shabbos.

Molid is the creative act of making that item, a kind of Tikkun kli 
d'rabbanan.

Aren't they are two different categories of issur, even though one is 
the result of the other,  sort of like a cause and effect?

k"t,
David

I haven't been posting much lately, but tonight is my night for odd
comments, so here's another.

As a comment on another thread, I should point out also that the following
was sent to Avodah on motzaei Shabbat - i.e. while it was still Shabbat
in the USA

I've posted this on Avodah before, but here it is again:

R' Avraham ben Chiya Hanasi mi'Barcelona wrote: Anyone who thinks that his
sons saying kaddish can benefit him after his death has false thoughts
considered worthless by all the chakhamim and the knowledgeable (anshei
mada' - not in the modern sense).

k"t,
David

Ein chadash tachash ha-shemesh.

I found that R' Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov in his Derashos on parshas Devarim,
quoted in Yedei Moshe in the Vilna Midrash Rabbah, explains the machlokes
R' Akiva and Ben Azzai similar to the way RYGB and I explained.
His variant also explains the further comment about Tzelem Elokim,
although some understand that as modifying R' Akiva's statement and not
Ben Azzai's.

For a third peshat, see the Da'as Zekeinim on Bereishis 5:1.

Gil Student

RET wrote that the Rash in Kilayim 5:5 disagrees with the Pythagorean
Theorem.

RMK noted  He is agreeing to pythagorus regarding a square,
but not with a rectangular shape.

Please note that the Tosafos Yom tov there and Chazon Ish Kilayim 12:1-3
reject the Rash, proving him wrong.

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 09/14/2003 7:28:59 AM EDT, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> R' Avraham ben Chiya Hanasi mi'Barcelona wrote: Anyone who thinks that his
> sons saying kaddish can benefit him after his death has false thoughts
> considered worthless by all the chakhamim and the knowledgeable (anshei
> mada' - not in the modern sense).

How does he deal with the R' Akiva story?

KVCT
Joel Rich

D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> R' Avraham ben Chiya Hanasi mi'Barcelona wrote: Anyone who thinks that his
> sons saying kaddish can benefit him after his death has false thoughts
> considered worthless by all the chakhamim 

This clearly contradicts the Rama who states that by saying Kaddish,
one redeems one's parents from Gehinom. This is re-iterated time and
again by Poskim throughout the generations. E.G. The Maharam Shick (OC
26). The Elef LaMateh, a commentary on the Mateh Efraim states in the
name of the Ari Zal that the recital of Kaddish adds to the merit of
the departed parents and raises them level by level to Gan Eden.

When one says Kaddish, however, the intent should be the sanctification
of God's name. In this merit the departed's sould will be saved from
the punishment of Gihinnom.

HM

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

I corrected someone on Areivim for using lashon zachar (LZ) for
"shabbos". I asserted that the femininity of the malkah is very
relevent to what Shabbos means. For example, it touches on the nature
of the zivug the 7th day recieved in us rather than having a day to
pair with.

Ira L. Jacobson wrote there in reply:
> The first counter-example seems to be "Shomer Shabbat mehal'lo."  (I
> purposely ignore "`al ken berakh . . . vayeqad'sehu," for obvious
> reasons.)

> If you find an error here, than I'll have no choice but to look for
> another  counter-example.

Here's RSM's posts to Avodah on the subject. From v6n95, where he
corrects me:
>> This doesn't require a fancy CD search, just look at
>> tephillah: "Shabbasos limnuchah".
>> OTOH, "Shabbos kodesh". The word itself is zachar, it just takes a
>> "-os" in lashon rabbim.

> Qodesh is a noun, and shabbas (with a pasah) is in s'mikhus to it, so
> it proves nothing about the gender of the word. You would have to have
> a form like Shabbos qadosh to prove that.

> The proof from the davening would be when we say "shabbas qodshokh,
> v'yonuhu vah Yisrael." The antecedent of vah is shabbas, showing it
> is feminine. However, after the Avudarham introduced saying shabbas
> qodshokh... vo " at Shaharis, which is now standard Ashkenaz and
> Sefarad (but not Teimon), there is no raaya, because that would imply
> shabbos is both/either masc. or fem. (For this reason, R. Hayyim
> Brisker used to say "yom shabbas... " in shaharis. At any rate, the
> proofs that shabbos is feminine come from a few places in leshon
> Hazal, from one place in the TnaKh (IIRC, references later), and from
> linguistics/diqduq, where the form shabbas and shabbatt -- (shabbas
> b'shabbatto) prove conclusively that there was a -- t ending added on
> the root, and the -- t ending is always feminine (v'hameivin yovin
> the proof; if not, ask and I will post it later b'n.)

> A guten shabbos (and don't tell me that should be "a gute shabbos;"
> shabbos is masculine in Yiddish),
> Seth Mandel

And v6n96:
> Just goes to show what happens when I post without the QQ in front of
> me.
> There is not one, but several exx. of Shabbos in humash being
> feminine (all transliteration in Sefaradi, not Ashkenaz): shabbat hi
> laShem (Lev. 23:3), v'shamru.. es haShabbat..ot hi (Ex. 31:16),
> vhayta shabbat haaretz (Lev. 25:6), sheva' shabbatot (Lev. 23:15),
> and a couple of others. There are two clear exx. of shabbat being
> used as masculine, both from the haftoro we read on Friday: kol
> shomer Shabbat mehall'lo (Is. 56), but the normal usage is feminine.

> In musaf it clearly is used as feminine: tikkanta shabbat, ratzita
> qorb'noTEHA and on and on. In shaharis, the paragraph "v'lo
> n'tatto... l'goyei ha'aratzot," which immediately follows "vshamru,"
> picks up on the last phrase: uvayyom hash'vi'i shavat..v'lo n'tatto,
> just like later: uvash'vi'i ratzita BO. In those cases, the
> antecedent is yom, which is masculine.

> But the conclusion is not changed: except for those exx. in Yesha'ya,
> Shabbos in the TeNaKh is feminine, and as far as I can see always in
> the siddur.

Given the quotes from Yeshaiah, why do I still say that Tanakh is
consistant? LAD, in Yehshaiah the person is guarding Shabbos, lest he
render himself chol. There is a basic question of what chilul Shabbos
means. It is possible to make the etzem of yom haShabbos chol?

But, if you disagree with this chiddush, two uses in the same pereq make
for an exception, not a rule to be followed.

The source for the greeting "Shabbat Shalom" is the Shela"h haQadosh.
I used Sepharadi transliteration to be ambiguous for a moment. I would
think that the Shel"ah would stick to the Avudraham's gendering, given
the strong qabbalistic meaning to dividing the day that way. However,
that would mean changing gender in the greating as Shabbos progresses.
Unless the construction is supposed to parallel "Shabbas qodesh", and
the first word is with a patach.

The Avudraham's change may very well be based on relative statements.
IOW, Shabbos as a whole is feminine, but of Shabbos, the morning is the
zachar-most. Thereby explaining the inclusion of "os hi" and "veyanuchu
vo" in the same Amidah (a/k/a "shemoneh esrei", tefillas sheva).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905      It is two who look in the same direction.

Shinnar, R Meir wrote:
> The sifra, yerushalmi, and breshit rabba have commentaries - some
> rishonim, some early acharonim, some later acharonim - what is the
> earliest time this pshat occurs?? I am not denying RYGB's right to
> interpretation -eyn bet midrash bli hiddush - but there is for this
> statement a tradition of pshat, and this interpretation is quite
> radical.

I'm amazed by this last statement. It's being made by someone who
insisted at great length that the mabul and migdal Bavel were allegory
despite a solid tradition of peshat.

This OTOH is an aggaditah from shas, for which there is a long tradition
in general not to take at face value, and therefore peshat is not
necessarily the default position. Not to mention the relative centrality
of chumash vs some inyan in gemara. And here you DO insist on sticking
to the tradition?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905      It is two who look in the same direction.

RRW:
> If the minhag is a later minhag - certainly a post Rema minhag- then
> it CAN be overulled by the Bavli because the Bavli is authoritative
> on a go-forward basis

> If the minhag is an EARLY minhag - say like making kiddush in shul
> Friday night even without guests - then the minhag is not a ta'us. I
> guess that it might still be deemed obsolete in our time, but it
> cannot be rejected as a ta'us.

Finally, a version I can see agreeing to!

...
> So the chumra-niks would say - "hey we can add chumras to the basic
> bavli!" but let's face it, if the Bavli is the final arbiter of
> Halachah then the minhag is simply not binding, only the Halachah as
> based in the Bavli is authoritative...

Yes, which is why these things are called chumros. They are part of
the qiyum of lifnim mishuras hadin. Until one considers a chumrah to
be baseline din, your reasoning doesn't hold. Lehefech, an imprerative
exists to go lifnim mishuras hadin.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905      It is two who look in the same direction.

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


[ 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         ]