Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 073

Monday, September 22 2003

• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• driving
• Two questions on nusach hatefila
• Re: ze sefer toldot adam
• Learning Hashkafa (was: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view)
• Is Hashkafa Study Problematic?
• Re: tehillim
• RE: B'rachos that we give our children
• Re: Berachos (Forwarded from Areivim)
• Re: driving
• Takanot R' Gershom
• Women/cemetaries
• First day Slichos
• Re: driving
• Re: driving
• Re: Berachos (Forwarded from Areivim)
• future events
• Learning Hashkafa

> In a message dated 9/19/2003 8:38:09 AM EDT, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
>> I asked R' Mendal Weinbach - head of Yeshiva Ohr Someach - the same
>> question a few years ago. "Given that all the sources indicate that one
>> must be knowledgeable in hashkofa, Why is it that a person is considered
>> a successful bal tshuva when he stops talking about G-d and hashkofa and
>> focuses on the gemora? He replied, "Hoshkofa is problematic since it is
>> very interesting and attracts a person's attention. Today we don't have
>> the mental capacity to be involved in both hashkofa and gemora and it
>> is better to be devoted to gemora."

> Or perhaps as R' Dr. C. Soloveitchik said "Having lost the touch of his
> presence they seek now solace in the pressure of his yoke"

Actually my understanding was the opposite. The Bal tshuva is encouraged to
transform or transfer his awareness of G-d's presence to an awareness of halacha
and gemora. The theological questions get replaced with halachic ones.

                                Daniel Eidensohn

[I ask posters to use one of the usual quoting styles. Thanks. -mi]

The Torah's example of manslaughter is as a result of chopping wood, yet
I recall no halachic attempt to proscribe woodcutting. Similarly people
die every day after being hit by cars, and I can recall no halachic
proscription of driving.

OTOH the Torah prescribes fencing one's roof, and Chazal extend this
quite a bit, e.g. the Beis Din can order a person to remove a dangerous
wall or tree, or even to move an oven.

THE CHAZZAL DIN'T EXTEND IT QUITE A BIT, THEY ARE EXPLAINING THAT THE
TORAH IS ONLY GIVING AN EXAMPLE BUT IT REALLY MEANS ANY TYPE OF HAZARD.

THEY DID NOT FORBID MAKING A ROOF OR DIGGING A PIT, WHAT THEY DID SAY
IS THAT ONE MUST BE CAREFUL WITH WHAT HE HAS DONE THAT IT SHOULD NOT
LEAD TO DANGER.

There's an obvious chiluk: in the latter case the regulation is of an
object rather than an activity

IF ONE DOES NOT HAVE A FENCE ON HIS ROOF AND SOMEONE ELSE FALLS OFF THE
OWNER DOES NOT GO TO GALLUS, SO I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE COMPARING THE 2.
(though of course one could rewrite the former as well, to ban cars
or axes). MAYBE WE SHOULD ALSO TIE UP HANDS BECAUSE THEY COULD DO
DANGEROUS THINGS?!

  Questions:
1. Is it assur to do something that may prove dangerous to others?
NO. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST MAKING A MIKVAH WITH WATER IN IT.
What is the issur?

WHEN YOU LEAVE IT EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR LITTLE KIDS AND YOU DON'T PUT
A DECENT RAIL AROUND IT.

It's not even obvious to me that the person who killed someone while
wielding the Axe has violated an issur,

WHO SAID IT'S OSSUR TO CHOP WOOD?

he may merely be in need of kapparah.

THE GEMARA SAID THAT ALREADY

2. What differentiates a dangerous act that may be regulated/proscribed
(e.g. placing an oven too near a wall) from a dangerous act which is
not regulated/proscribed (e.g. chopping down trees)?

WHO SAID THERE IS A DIFFERENCE?

3. Is there a distinction between endangering one's self (I know psukim
commonly cited to prohibit such behavior, though I don't know if that's
merely derech drush) and endangering others (for which I know of no
issur in the absence of intent)?

THE POSSUK THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 'TO PUT A FENCE AROUND YOUR ROOF'
IS ONE OF THEM, AND THE SECOND ONE WHICH IS THE MAIN ONE IS THE COMMAND
OF COVERING A PIT. (NOT THE POSSUK 'DO NOT PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE
A BLIND PERSON')

MEIR ZIRKIND
KESIVAH VACHASIMA TOVAH

When we say in Shabbos shacharis, "vechasuv bahem shemiras shabbos",
should that not be in the singular, as this lashon implies that shabbos
is written on both luchos?

IN ORDER FOR IT TO IMPLY BOTH LUCHOS IT WOULD HAVE SAID 'BESHENEIHEM'.
'BAHEM' MEANS WITHIN THE TWO.

Also, why is the pasuk brought in "vechen kasuv besorasecha", veshamru,
shouldn't it be "shamor es yom hashabbos lekadesho"?

WE HAD ALREADY SAID THAT IT SAYS 'SHMIRAS SHABBOS' IN THE LUCHOS WHICH IS
'SHOMOR ES YOM HASHABBOS' NOW WE ARE BRINGING WHERE IT SAYS IT ELSEWHERE
IN THE TORAH. SECONDLY WE USE THESE PISSUKIM BECAUSE IT STATES THAT
SHABBOS IS AN UNEQUIVOCAL SIGN BETWEEN HA-SHEM AND THE JEWS ONLY (NOT
THE GOYYIM), WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE LUCHOS, AS AN INTRODUCTION TO
THE NEXT PARAGRAPH 'VLO NISATO' WHICH ELABORATES ON THIS THEME.

MEIR ZIRKIND
KESIVAH VACHASIMA TOVAH

Since I misquoted R' Meir Simcha already, I just scanned in his comments
to Toras Cohanim and in Meshech Chochmah. I also scanned in the Maharid.
You can find it at http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/benazzai.pdf

Gil Student

R' Daniel Eidensohn writes <<< I asked R' Mendal Weinbach - head of
Yeshiva Ohr Someach - the same question a few years ago. "Given that all
the sources indicate that one must be knowledgeable in hashkofa, Why is
it that a person is considered a successful bal tshuva when he stops
talking about G-d and hashkofa and focuses on the gemora? He replied,
"Hoshkofa is problematic since it is very interesting and attracts a
person's attention. Today we don't have the mental capacity to be
involved in both hashkofa and gemora and it is better to be devoted to
gemora." >>>

There's a step missing in the flow of this logic. If we allow this idea
that we can't do both hashkafa and gemara, the next step is to explain
why one would be preferable to the other.

I see no compelling logic to choose gemara over hashkafa. Gemara is a
nice intellectual pursuit, and is certainly a kiyum of Talmud Torah, but
it also has the danger of becoming a dry and unfeeling process. Hashkafa,
on the other hand, is entirely devoted to understanding HaShem better,
and it seems to me would have a much higher success rate towards the goal
of bringing a person closer to HaShem.

(Some might suggest that "hashlafa works only for one who already knows
gemara". I reject that as apologetics. How many people see their goal as
to finish Shas, and how many see their goal as learning enough gemara so
as to switch over to hashkafa?)

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>> In a message dated 9/19/2003 8:38:09 AM EDT, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> >> I asked R' Mendal Weinbach - head of Yeshiva Ohr Someach - the same
> >> question a few years ago. "Given that all the sources indicate that one
> >> must be knowledgeable in hashkofa, Why is it that a person is considered
> >> a successful bal tshuva when he stops talking about G-d and hashkofa and
> >> focuses on the gemora? He replied, "Hoshkofa is problematic since it is
> >> very interesting and attracts a person's attention. Today we don't have
> >> the mental capacity to be involved in both hashkofa and gemora and it
> >> is better to be devoted to gemora."

IMHO it is intellectually dishonest to deny the mind it's capacity
for thought. To say that... "Hoshkofa is problematic since it is very
interesting and attracts a person's attention." and... "Today we don't
have the mental capacity to be involved in both hashkofa and gemora
and it is better to be devoted to gemora"... is to invite apostacy. If
one has serious Hashkafa questions and tries to ignore them he can never
really rid himself of the niggling doubt that such thought sustains. This
could lead to ever greater questions of faith and doubt resulting in a
rejection of Torah Judaism itself.

It is far better to bring these questions out in the open and deal with
them as forthrightly as one can. Before one can have Torah one needs to
have Emunah. To merely practice Judaism perfunctorily through learning
Gemarah and Halacha invites tragedy to an inquisitive mind bearing
these questions.

This of course relates to the question of which is better, Emunah P'Shuta
or Emunah through knowledge. But IMHO Emunah P'shutah alone is for the
simple mind... the mind that does not require explanation... that does
not seek answers to difficult questions. Such individuals are happiest
in their own ignorance and glad to be essentially Orthoprax.

Lest you answer that ignorance is better than entertaining the possibility
of even the tinyest of apsotate thought, I refer you to yesterday's
first Parsha of Netzavim. Pasuk 18 and 19 of Chapter 29 states that:
IF... after hearing the words of Hochacha... a person will bless himself
saying I will remain in peace and go with the apostate thoughts in my
heart... God will not forgive him and His anger will smoke against him
to be utterly punished by the fullest extent of punishments outlined in
the Torah and erase his name from the heavens.

On these Psukim, Rabbi Y.M. Kagan suggests that a thought of Minus occurs
to everyone and this is not what God is talking about.

God is really talking about keeping His Mitzvos and not turning after
his own (i.e. the individual's) heart. As the third Parsha in Kriyas
Shema states "Asher Atem Zonim Achareiham". Rabbi Kagan asks why the
Torah addressed the admonition to all the people? Why didn't he say
"Asher TiZanu", which would indicate the admontion to only those who
have a stray thought and not the entirety of Klal Israel as "Asher Atem
Zonim Achareiham" implies?

Rabbi Kagan answers that a hidden thought of Minus occurs to everyone
and that God realizes that virtually every person in Klal Israel is not
free of such thought, fleeting though it may be. So if a typical Jew
"sins' B'Maaseh or B'Machshava in this way God in His infinite kindness
atones it for him. And this is what the above Pesukim really mean: that
if Apikursus becomes your Shitah... your Hashkafos HaChaim and it becomes
the firmness of your heart this is what the admonition is reffering to.

Even so saintly a person as the Chaftz Chaim of whom there are very few
peers recognized and accepted the idea of intellectual honesty...that
a sincere Hashkafic question cannot be denied.

I believe that today's rabbinic leadership is far too afraid of failure
and therefore refuses to address Hashkafic questions and this is the
real reason for steering away from learning Hashakafa. But by denying
intellectually honset questions, by telling Talmidim not to dwell on
these issues, they are burying the mind and setting the stage for yet
another dangerous movement. Isn't it after all the serious questions on
the minds of the Voloshiner Maskilim that created the first "movement"
away from Torah Judaism? Were these questions been properly addressed?

The truth is I do not know enough about the history of the Maskilim
that came from Yeshivos like Voloshin. Maybe they WERE dealt with
properly. But I suspect that instead the Rabbinic leadership of that time
were unprepared for the phenomenon and were therefore just as determined
to ignore it at its inception as the Yeshiva world is today.

HM 

R' Harry Maryles asked <<< Why use the medium of Tehillim to gain Zechyos,
especially when the vast majority of those saying it do not understand
the meaning of the words? Wouldn't it be better to sit down and learn
Torah? Is SAYING tehillim better than LEARNING Torah, even if that Torah
learning is learning Tehillim itself (instead of justt saying it)? If
we can set aside an hour for SAYING Tehillim why not use that same hour
to learn Torah instead? Wouldn't this be more productive in building up
Zechuyos? >>>

I basically agree with what RHM wrote here. But even if learning is
better in *general*, perhaps there's a time and place where Tehillim is
better. Let's continue...

<<< Tehillim and Tefilla are not synonymous. IMHO if we want to Daven to
HaShem Yisborach for a Choleh or the Matzav then we should Daven EVEN
IN ENGLISH if need be so that the Bakashos can be exact and direct,
and not say an "amorphous" Kapit'l Tehillim whose words may bear some
relavance to the situation. >>>

Oooh.... I'm so glad you used the phrase <<< exact and direct >>>. It
goes straight to the heart of what I wanted to say:

I once heard that the two classical weapons are the bow and the sword.
(They're both mentioned in Bereshis 48:22, so this might be found in a
Medrash or something on that pasuk. Especially see Rashi there.) Each of
these weapons work in very different ways: A bow (and arrow) can attack
from very far away, but it works only if aimed precisely on target. The
sword, in contrast, is a very short-range weapon, and can be used by
any unskilled person to destroy whatever is in its path.

It was explained to me that learning is like the bow -- granted that
anyone can learn on his own level, but still, learning is more effective
when wielded by the more experienced soldier in HaShem's army. OTOH,
Tehillim -- even a random "amorphous" one -- is like the sword: Shake
it this way and that, and you're bound to hit something or other.

Okay, so that's the contrast of Tehilim and Learning. But what about
Tehilim vs. a more direct Tefila? I think a similar logic would apply:
To the extent that you are choosing a more precise tool for your task, the
more important it is that the tool be aimed straight and used correctly.
One could think that it is perfectly obvious what we should be davening
for, but to someone else it is not at all obvious. Sure, we can ask HaShem
for "peace", but that's pretty vague, I think. If you want it less vague,
then you run the risk of getting into the messy business of looking
for causes or assigning blame. And that could just make the whole thing
worse, chalilah.

So let's diversify. Anyone who wants to offer their learning for the
matzav, or specific tefilos for the matzav, or some other mitzvah for the
matzav, go right ahead, and I really don't think anyone will object. And
in fact, many individuals and groups are doing exactly that.

But for the confused masses, Tehilim is good too. "It's good for whatever
ails ya."

R' Harry gave another story. I'm not going to snip much, because it is
an important story which deserves to be repeated:

<<< ... a man who, seeking to do Teshuva, came to the Baal Shem Tov on
Yom Kippur and informed him that he was so uneducated that he couldn't
even read hebrew. He asked him what to do? The BSHT asked what he DID
know and he answered that he knew the Aleph Bais. So the BSHT told him
to recite the Aleph Bais, which he proceeded to do with all his might...
very loud and very disturbing to the rest of the BSHT's Chasidm davneing.
They complained to the BSHT and he is puported to have answered something
to the effect: Rabbosai ...it is through this BT's Teffilos that we
will br granted our Yeshuos! --- I have never liked this story because
it implies that Kavanah is more important than the deed itself. As long
as our intentions are L'Shem Shamayim, it doesn't rally matter what we
know, as long as "we're doin' it for God!". >>>

If we were discussing other mitzvos, this point might be arguable. But
the mitzvos which this story releates to are Tefilah and Teshuva, and
for those, how can one ask whether kavanah is more or less important
than the deed itself? Kavanah *IS* the deed itself!!!

<<< If one is completely ignorant of Torah but everything he does is
done in God's name with the utmost of Kavanah, one is better than one who
performs all of the mitzvos B'diuk as spelled out in the Torah but doesn't
quite measure up to the Kavanos of the aforementioned ignoramous. >>>

You are presuming that the other chasidim in the BSHT's shul *did* have
the required kavana in their davening "as spelled out in the Torah". The
BSHT would seem to have felt otherwise. There was something lacking in
their davening, and there was something lacking in the davening of that
man as well. It seems that the BSHT felt that the positive qualities of
that man were able to compensate for what he lacked, while the positive
qualities of the other chasidim were not strong enough to match that of
the other man.

<<< This is comprable to being a Jew in the heart... the Reform position.
Now I'm not Chas V'Sholom saying that a sincere but ignorant Reform Jew
is better in the eyes of God than a not so sincere Orthodox Jew. But
the similarities are there. >>>

You won't say it, but I would.

This case is a different one than that of the BSHT's shul. If you are
admitting that this hypothetical "Orthodox Jew" is lacking in sincerity,
then what's the question? Isn't this what the Neviim have been telling
us over and over, that our actions are worthless without our hearts?

Akiva Miller

While we are discussing how and why kaddish and tehillim "work" or
"help", how or why do the b'rachos that we give our children (e.g.,
erev Yom Kippur) "work" or "help"?

To start, if I may --

I have some m'koros and "theories" as follows:

The efficacy of bircas av l'bein relates back to the b'rachah of "v'hayay
brachah" that HKBH gave Avraham Aveinu [see Rashi on "v'heyay brachah" in
Lech Lecha -- "habrachos n'sunim b'yadcha" I believe is the quote there].
This ability to be m'varach someone else in a meaningful way was then
either passed down by Avraham to Yitzchak who passed it on to Yaacov
-- or, perhaps according to others, was re-given by HKBH to Yitzchak
directly who then gave it to Yaacov -- whereupon Yaacov then gave the
"formula" of "yesimcha Elokim k'Ephraim u'Menashe," to "empower" future
generations to be able to be m'varech their children when Yaacov said
"becha yevarech Yisrael" (based on the Rashi there).

Alternatively, I recently saw Rav Aharon Kahn's sefer on bircas Kohanim in
which he posits (according to some shitos) that bircas Kohanim really is
(only) a *tefilah*, which if the same construct is applied here means
that the b'rachos we give our children are also (only) bakashos or
t'feilos as opposed to "absolute" blessings to/for them . . .

In general, I would be interested in hearing about m'koros/articles that
comprehensively discuss the minhag to give b'rachos to children. [Related
m'koros will deal with the bracha of a tzaddik, or the gemarah re:
"al tehi bircas hedyot kal b'ainechah." However, I am particularly
interested in bircas av/am l' bein/bas.]

Thanks in advance.
YK

In message <20030919.100014.20003.278435@webmail13.lax.untd.com>, 
Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes
>R'n Luntz wrote:
><<It is not
>Robert's custom, but a lot of Sephardim have the custom of making
>brachot prior to washing but after kiddish on shabbas (every shabbas), 
>I have eaten at some Gibraltarians with that custom - it is a way of
>making sure you make up the necessary number of brochas, and, at least
>as I have seen it, they never bench before going on to make hamotzei,
>they just seem to get up at some point in the middle of tasting all
>these bits of food, such as olives etc (which of course you have tasted
>in the correct order as identified by the pasuk!), and wash. >>
>
>What about berachos she'einan tzerichos?

Apparently getting to meah brachot is considered enough of a tzaruch 
that it is permitted (that is why the do it on shabbas, to make up for 
the brachos you don't say in the shmonei esrei).

> What about beracha acharona on those "tasties" before going to wash?

I checked with Robert (who has seen this a lot more often than I have) 
and he agrees that they do not make a bracha achrona, but (presumably) 
rely on the benching at the end of the meal.  (Question, if you are 
eating something - eg soup, and then decide you want bread with it, do 
you make a bracha achrona on the (part portion of) soup you have just 
eaten, before you go and wash?  I wouldn't but as with the above, I 
would rely on the benching at the end to cover the brocha achrona on the 
soup.  Additional question, if you make a bracha on, say, fruit during a 
shabbas meal, - holding by the position that the hamotzei does not cover 
fruit eaten as dessert, do you make a bracha achrona on that fruit as 
well, or do you rely on the benching?  Is it again not the same thing?)

Regards
Chana

-- 
Chana Luntz

In a message dated 9/19/03 10:09:24 AM EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> note on pg. 44 WRT driving, I would like to add that the Torah permits
> "Uvilechticha Baderech" which according to the Gemara (Brochos 11a) is
> Rishus not for a Mitzva, even though "Kol Hadrochim Bchezkas Sakana"
> Yerushalmi Brochos 4:4 (Rashi Breishis 44:29) (note also Yerushalmi
> Shabbos 2:4). Also the known issue that a woman who dies in childbirth
> is burried in a seperate place because she was Moser Nefesh (see Shabbos
> 32a) even though the Mitzvah of Pru Urvu is not on the female.

All of these are examples of endangering one's self, not of endangering
others.
1) My addition from uVilechticha Baderech endagers was since I brought
something I added a Raya of my own since Ein Beis Medrosh Bli Chiddush,
my addition for today :-) is see Mogein Avrohom end of O"C 156 WRT Rav
and Shmuel's hanhaga for taking a boat taken from Shabbos 32a (BTW there
are those who will only travel Ldvar Mitzvah).

2) in the case of driving while he discusses going by car he makes no
distinction who is the driver IOW one may drive a car even though by
doing so he is endangering others.

3) WRT Pru urvu the husband endangers his wife and the Torah made it
a Mitzvah.
In my original post I distinguished between the Aseh of maakeh and a
possible lav (??) of endangering others by pointing out that the aseh
restricts objects, not actions. Are you suggesting that ki yipol hanofeil
is a separate lav? What is it's extent?
1) My point was that in the Possuk there is no distiction between
himself and someone else and both are included in the Lav of Vlo Sosim
Domim Bivesecha, so whatever would be included (as to the different
opinions mentioned in the text I faxed) would also be Tolui on others.

> and see C"M 382:1.

Again that restricts objects, not actions. In addition it's a din in
nizkei mamon, not shmiras hanefesh.
1) My intention was not to bring that as prove WRT your distinction rather
as proof that if it is a Mitzvah to kill a Shor and to chop down a tree
(and note Sanhedrin 55a Ilonos...Amra Torah Hashcheis...Baalei Chayim
Koamrinan Dchas Rachmana Alayhu) it makes no sense to say that a person
is allowed to do actions that endanger.

2) See Rashi on the source in the Gemara Bava Kama 91b that it is talking
about Sakanas Nfoshos not money.

To summarise in what is derech haolom and proffesions since there is no
Issur on oneself then it is not included in Shmiras Haguf, a case that
would be Ossur for oneself then in addition to it being Ossur because
of himself LAN"D it would be Ossur also because of the other. (and plz
see further my notes on your response to RJB).

Ksiva vaChasima Tova,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Does anyone know/is there a good work out on what caused R' Gershom to
make his takkana disallowing polygamy? Given the oft repeated position
that Halacha defines morality, was there some non-moral(eg economic)
basis for this takana?

KVCT
Joel Rich

The S"A (Y"D 359:2) says women should be restrained from going to
the cemetary for a burial - the source(quoted in the bet yosef) is a
zohar. Reading the S"A one gets the impression that it might have been
at one point the custom for women to go but that it changed (could be
not as well). In any event, how did those communities that a woman now
goes to the burial develop this minhag? If they go, can they shovel?

KVCT
Joel Rich

As everyone knows, S'faradim say slichos for all Ellul, getting up early
in the morning every day except for shabbos. When the M'habber in O'H
581 mentiones this minhog, the R'Mo says: "The minhog in Ashk'naz is not
that way. Rather, from rosh hodesh on we blow shofar after shaharis,
and some places also blow it after 'arvis. And we arise in the pre-dawn
hours to say slihos starting from the Sunday before Rosh haShono ..."

 From the R'Mo, as well as the way he states the minhog in Darkhei Moshe,
it is clear that on the first day, slichos were recited in "ashmores
haboqer," just as they were on the other day. Nor do any of the nos'ei
kelim mention the custom of doing it late Saturday night. And for that
reason, the acharonim don't even mention here the issue of not doing it
before hatzos (the source of which is qabbolo), since it apparently was
not done at night, but rather in the pre-morning hours.

I have spoken to several Oberlander Hungarians who told me that that
is the way it was done in their communities in Hungary, and from R SBA
I understand that that is the way it is still done in his community
in Melbourne.

Does anyone know when the custom of starting slihos Saturday night
began? Does anyone have more data points about which communities did
it which way?

Seth Mandel

In a message dated 9/19/03 11:59:29 AM EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
 I was asking whether any such halachoth applied
to other's unanticipated death.
  Here are two possibilities:

H. Rotzeah 12:6 (could that be the machloketh with the Raavad?)

ibid. 12:12

though again, both of those could be attempts to prevent injury rather
than death.

The chiluk BTW is that adam muad l'olam, so he has a positive obligation
to avoid injuring people. But murder requires kavannah.
1) WRT Esrog there are many Nafka Mina's without making Machlokes (in
addition while the Issur is the sticking the knife, once done we have
an object that is Sakana. There are many Rishonim who say it is because
of death not injury.

2) WRT wepons See Rashi oh the Sugia in AZ (harm to Yid) also Loshon
haRambam Nezek Lrabim (in addition there is issue of Lifnei Iveir),
and in any case this is an object that he is placing in a dangerous
place. (which as you noted driving can be understood that way too, as
an aside note discussion in Nishmas Avrohom C"M WRT a speeding ambulance).

3) another few examples:
a) pouring out Negel Vasser where people may walk (O"C 4:9)
b) throwing clipped nails where a women might walk over (see Loson Hashas
Nidda 17a)
c) not to play with dangerous objects (Kaf Hachayim Y"D 116 ois 194

4) See MaHaRShA Bava Kama 15a WRT what Kelev Ra adds on to Maakeh.

Ksiva vaChasima Tova,
Yitzchok Zirkind

[I don't mean to pick on the Zirkinds, but we really need to stick to
standard quoting styles. I don't know how people are expected to follow
who says what in these emails. -mi]

In a message dated 9/21/03 12:19:51 AM EDT, meyoz@yahoo.com writes:
3. Is there a distinction between endangering one's self (I know psukim
commonly cited to prohibit such behavior, though I don't know if that's
merely derech drush) and endangering others (for which I know of no
issur in the absence of intent)?

THE POSSUK THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 'TO PUT A FENCE AROUND YOUR ROOF'
IS ONE OF THEM, AND THE SECOND ONE WHICH IS THE MAIN ONE IS THE COMMAND
OF COVERING A PIT. (NOT THE POSSUK 'DO NOT PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE
A BLIND PERSON')

Just to welcome my brother aboard this list :-) according to the S"A
the Limud Rak Hishomer Licha, which could be interperted that there is
no Assei (or Lav due to Hishomeir) when not nogeia to you.

Ksiva vaChasima Tova,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:11:47 +0100 Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.net>
writes:
<<Question, if you are eating something - eg soup, and then decide you
want bread with it, do you make a bracha achrona on the (part portion of)
soup you have just eaten, before you go and wash? I wouldn't but as with
the above, I would rely on the benching at the end to cover the brocha
achrona on the soup. >>

Ashkenazocentric alert <g> The Mishna Berura says so, but it isn't that
clear (to me) if he includes nimlach or just the situation of, say, making
kiddush, having soup, then washing, all as part of a planned exercise.

<<Additional question, if you make a bracha on, say, fruit during a
shabbas meal, - holding by the position that the hamotzei does not cover
fruit eaten as dessert, do you make a bracha achrona on that fruit as
well, or do you rely on the benching? >>

Devarim haba'im toch hase'uda shelo machmas hase'uda te'unim beracha
lifneihem velo le'achareihem.

If I may extend your question, the Mishna Berura cited above makes the
distinction between fruit, that would need a beracha during the meal,
for which you do NOT make a beracha acharona before washing if you intend
to eat more fruit during the meal, since your pre-meal beracha could
include the in-meal fruit as well, and something like meat (or soup)
which your hamotzi covers, and thus no extension of pre-meal to in-meal
is necessary and you DO make a beracha acharona before washing.

Sorry for adding to a confusing issue with such as runon sentence.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>: "Decree on RH based on considerations that include what from human point
>: of view is the future as well as the past--e.g., Hashem's foreknowledge
>: that you WILL say Tehillim, or that you are the kind of person who says
>: Tehillim, therefore deserving of Decree X rather than Decree Y"

> The Chazal on Yishmael "V Baasher hu Sham" shows that G-d does not
> take future events or tendeicies into account. Only a person's current
> status affects his reward and punishment.

When I was in Denver last week I spoke with some BJ girls who said that
in their school they said tehillim for some Israeli gadol and when they
said the name it was very similar to R. Elyashiv.
Obviously these girls had never heard of him and had no idea who they
were saying tehillim for. Outside of the educational value I fail to
find any rationale that this can help.

R. Elyashiv is a posek and so a number of people have benefited directly
or indirectly from his wisdom. However, in the case of a RY saying
tehillim by people who have no idea who the gadol is sounds rathger
strange to me.

Shana Tova,
Eli Turkel

The interesting thing about haskafa is that it is a recent conceptual
construct; the word itself is not even found before one or two generations
ago. The reason, I think is clear. Hashkafa, as opposed to older terms,
refers to a more facile, easy to digest summary of Jewish belief,
that attempts to avoid the complexity and the real challenge of Jewish
thought. A related term among Dati-Leumi is "machava". This term removes
some of the "hashkofo's" definitiveness and finality and allows a bit
more complexity. However, it also loses authoritativeness in the process.

Both terms lavoid the immediacy of living Jewish and substitute
intelelctual meandering for the skin-to-skin experience of direct
worship. Gemoro learning gets you going, sweating and cogitating precisley
on that engaged level. Gemoro study is much closer to real life than
the artificial and sometimes empty exercise we now call hashkofo.

M. Levin 

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


[ 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         ]