Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 045

Monday, November 17 2003

• Re: From Lot to David HaMelech
• Re: ibn Ezra on Esav and Yishmael
• Judenrein
• Re: Why Jewishness is determined by the mother
• Re: Torah Observance and Crime Statistics
• re: From Lot to David HaMelech
• Re: pidyon shivuim
• Re: From Lot to David HaMelech
• Re: From Lot to David HaMelech
• Re: Why Jewishness is determined by the mother
• Discussion re segulas
• Why Jewishness is determined by the mother
• Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide
• RE: Judenrein
• Re: Judenrein
• Torah Observance and Crime Statistics
• pidyon shivuim
• Re: v'kharot 'imo... printer's error
• Megilla -- Perek 3? 4?
• Riddle
• Uncommanded Fulfillments
• ban on torah b'shem the gr'a

Akiva Miller wrote:
> Chazal are very emphatic that a ger gets a whole new yichus when he
> converts, and that his descendants are in no way "related" to his
> physical ancestors.

> Chazal also make a very big deal about how David HaMelech is descended
> from Ruth, and is therefore also a descendant of Lot and Moav.

You can lose your yichus but you can't lose your genes. The son of a ger
can very likely look just like his biological non-Jewish grandfather,
and may very well act like him in many ways.

The Kotzker (IIRC from Shem MiShmuel on Shavuos) says that David HaMelech
inherited a certain amount of cruelty from Lot that is necessary to be
a king but is not a Jewish trait.

Gil Student

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> R Herbert Basser translated the IE:
>: Actually the Roman nation which sent us into exile is descendended
>: from the Kittim. And the Targum translates "ships coming from Kittim"
>: to refer to Rome. This term in fact designated the very kingdom of the
>: Greeks as explained in the book of Daniel....

> Lo zochisi lehavin.
> If seifer Daniel designates the Greeks as Kittim, then why does the IE
> think they're the Romans?

The Greeks colonised southern Italy.  Rashi in `mishmanei haaretz
yihye moshavecha' says `zo Italia shel Yavan'.  Also the land that
was created from the sea on the day that Shlomo married the daughter
of Par'o was `Italia shel Yavan'.

> His ra'ayah from the Targum doesn't indicate
> one seafaring people over the other.

Eh?  The Targum he quotes explicitly translates `Kittim' as `Roma'i'.

-- 
Zev Sero                I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that
zsero@free-market.net   article of the Constitution which granted a
                         right to Congress of expending, on objects of
                         benevolence, the money of their constituents.
                                                     - James Madison

>While this is a lovely theory there is a major problem with it -- Israel
>was not Judenrein during that period. In fact most of shevet Binyamin
>stayed in their villages.

You think I make this up?!

Pesikta Rabba 1:
Amar R' Yose ben Chalafta, 52 shanim l'achar churban ha'bayis lo avar
adam b'EY, kema she'kasuv: "Ai he'harim... nitztu mibli ish over..."
(Yir. 9:9).

IIRC RYBC is also the author of Seder Olam. Also a Gemara in Yoma 54a,
there in the name of R' Yehuda

R' Jonathan Ostroff asked <<< I am looking for meforshim who explain why
(a) the Jewishness of a child is determined by the mother; (b) before
Matan Tora by the father; (c) by gentiles it still goes by the father
(e.g. who is a Moavi). >>>

There is a fourth situation which will help clarify the first three: (d)
among classes of Jews it also goes by the father, e.g., who is a Levi.
Thus we see that the mother determines Jewishness and nothing else.

I do not know the source for the father being the "default value" for all
cases of familyhood (other than Jewishness, which is the exception to the
rule). My guess is that it is one of those things that is just taken for
granted and never needed an explanation (until recent decades, anyway).

Matrilineal Jewishness is the exception to that rule, and my understanding
is that the source is Devarim 7:3-4, and the way Gemara Kiddushin 68b
darshens those pesukim. For a fuller explanation, see the perushim
on those pesukim. In particular I'd suggest Torah Temimah #10 there,
or http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/422

Akiva Miller

In Avodah V12 #44 dated 11/13/03 Micha Berger writes:
> Since
> our non-frum brothers largely differ on matters of bein adam laMaqom,
> our self definition and priorities are artificially skewed to that arena.

I don't agree that our priorities are skewed to one side, nor do I
agree that our non-frum brothers excel in bein adam lachaveiro, but let
me elaborate.

R' Micha posits--correctly, in my view--that there is a big difference
between a person who is merely outwardly "frum" and one who is genuinely
shomer Torah umitzvos (STM). He further posits that this difference
explains why it is possible for one person to say, "People in the Torah
community are better than other people" while another observer may say,
"People in the Torah community are no better than anyone else"--and they
may both be correct. It depends on which subset of the whole observant
community you are observing, the "frum" or the real STM.

I accept this formulation of the case as being substantially correct,
and would like to add this point:

Many Christians believe that they focus on the bein adam lachaveiro, the
spirit of the law, and that Jews focus on ritual, the bein adam laMokom.
Similarly, many R and C Jews believe that they specialize in the "social
justice," goodness, kindness, and charity part of Judaism, while Orthodox
Jews neglect those aspects and keep only the holidays/kashrus/prayer part
of the Torah. And again, MO and DL Jews pride themselves on their ahavas
Yisrael, love, warmth, acceptance of all Jews, while assuming that those
to their right are deficient in these qualities and care only about the
bein adam laMokom aspect of Torah.

However, all these stereotypes prove to be far from the truth when you
observe the actual behavior of people who are genuinely shomrei Torah
umitzvos. When you read the biographies of the greats, of the Chofetz
Chaim, the Chazon Ish, R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, R' Aryah Levine and
many, many others, you find that increasing care and precision in the
ritual side of Torah law go hand in hand with increasing concern for
the bein adam lachaveiro side.

It is not a see-saw, as some imagine, in which concern for one side
of the luchos causes a deficiency in the observance of the other side.
Just the opposite: the two are yoked together, and when one side goes up,
the other goes up in equal measure.

I think it is safe to assume--not that I or anyone can totally see into
another person's heart--that a person who is clearly deficient in midos
and bein adam lachaveiro is equally deficient in his bein adam laMokom,
no matter what his external appearance.

--Toby Katz

> Chazal are very emphatic that a ger gets a whole new yichus when he
> converts, and that his descendants are in no way "related" to his
> physical ancestors.

> Chazal also make a very big deal about how David HaMelech is descended
> from Ruth, and is therefore also a descendant of Lot and Moav.
> The two statements above seem to contradict each other, and I'm trying to
> figure out how to reconcile them. Any suggestions? 

A ger does indeed get new yichus and is in no way related to his physical
ancestors. That's why he is permitted, at least on a Torah level, to marry
blood relatives (e.g., sister) who have likewise been misgayer, and why
he is a valid witness in a case involving his physical relatives. Also,
any aveirah involving the Noahide mitzvos which he committed as a goy
are forgiven upon geirus.

However, just as he retains his physical DNA after the conversion, so
does he retain his "spiritual DNA." Otherwise, how do we understand the
special (negative) status accorded a ger Amoni, Mo'avi, Mitzri or Edomi?
What makes those adjectives applicable to the ger is the nationality
of his father; obviously, it is not lost by geirus. Thus, there is no
contradiction between the two quotes from Chazal.

EMT

Yoreh Deah 252:1-12 deals with "din pidyon shvuim v'keytzad podin otam".

Josh

Rav Teitz wrote <<< A ger does indeed get new yichus and is in no way
related to his physical ancestors... However, just as he retains his
physical DNA after the conversion, so does he retain his "spiritual DNA."

So, at one and the same time, he is both new and untainted, and also
retains some of their status. I guess what I'm looking for is some
sort of theme or criterion which distinguishes these inyanim from those
inyanim. When do we look at the ger as new, and when don't we?

Idea #1: Perhaps it is broken down by situation: For some halachos
(marrying relatives, being eidim) they are new individuals, but for
other halachos (marrying a Moavi) they retain the old status.

Idea #2: Or perhaps it is broken down by the family: For most gerim
(including Amalek, for example) they are totally new individuals, but
for some families (Moavi, et al) they are *not* totally new individuals..

Here are two tests which might help figure it out:

(a) Can two brothers who both converted from Moav testify together,
d'Oraisa? If they can, that lends credence to Idea #1.

(b) In Shmos 22:20 (and elsewhere) we are warned about how we must treat
the ger; for example, we must not taunt him about his original status.
Does this also apply to *all* gerim, or perhaps gerim from Moav are not
included? If it applies even to Moav, I'd hate to be the person laining in
shul when we get to the psukim which remind the Moavi ger of his "special"
status. The many Chazals which remind us of David HaMelech's "yichus"
(such as R' Gil Student's cite from the Kotzker) make me suspect that
maybe this halacha does *not* apply to gerim from Moav and the others,
though I admit that (unlike laining) these are not said to the ger's
face. Still, maybe gerim from Moav et al are not totally new individuals,
and maybe Idea #2 isn't as crazy as I had thought at first.

Is there a Brisker in the house? :-)

Good Shabbos to all,
Akiva Miller

Elazar M Teitz wrote:
>A ger does indeed get new yichus and is in no way related to his physical
>ancestors. ...

>However, just as he retains his physical DNA after the conversion, so
>does he retain his "spiritual DNA."

He also retains his psychological characteristics. Rav Bulman once asked
me to show a new ger how to put on Tefilin. The young man explained that
he had been planning to go to mikve for a long time but hadn't because
he felt the topics of the Torah readings were unlucky for him. When I
reported this to Rav Bulman he said: "Much as we like to view a ger as a
newborn individual, there is a continuity between what they were before
they converted."

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Jonathan S. Ostroff asked:
> I am looking for meforshim who explain why (a) the Jewishness of a child
> is determined by the mother; (b) before Matan Tora by the father; (c)
> by gentiles it still goes by the father (e.g. who is a Moavi).

Re: (a)
I recall I shiur by RSZA zt"l (nearly 2 decades ago) where he clearly
said that in the case of 2 Kosher Jewish parents, the kid is Jewish becuse
of his FATHER. One proof is that he is of the same shevet as his father.

Your best bet is to start at the source; the end of Kidushin. From
Perek 3, Mishna 12. The next few mishnayot deal with all of you cases
IIRC. "Even" the Bartenura and Kehati has some "superficial" exlanations.

The intricate detials can be found in Kidushin from daf 66b onwards - with
references to other meshechtos that deal with this fascinating subject.

Hope This Helps
- Danny

From: SBA
> Discussion re segulas of Sandeko'os and Netilas Yodayim with extra water:
> <http://www.hydepark.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=3D674453

That link seems wrong. Please try:
<http://www.hydepark.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=674453>

SBA

[I know what happened. There is a MIME setting for transferring email
that would convert "=" to "=3D". -mi]

RJO:
>I am looking for meforshim who explain why (a) the Jewishness of a
>child is determined by the mother; (b) before Matan Tora by the father;
>(c) by gentiles it still goes by the father (e.g. who is a Moavi).
>Any pointers to meforshim would be most appreciated.

See Gem. Kiddushin beginning of 4th perek that the sources are psukim.

Shlomo Goldstein

RMB:
>I'm not sure why this is bedavka about suicide, but anyway...

>What if the attempt is foiled by preventing the opportunity to arise.
>Would the person be punished for hirhurei aveirah? And if so, are you
>suggesting the same punishment as if he was permitted to succeed?

>In general, would you assert that someone who tried to steal but was
>caught leaving the store really committed the same cheit as one who
>wasn't caught?

In mitzvos as well as aveiros, the ChL in Shaar HaBitachon ch. 4 asserts
that all actions require help from Above. Just like a mitzva which
is actually performed is a greater mitzva than merely unsuccessfully
trying; so too an aveira which is actualized is a greater sin than one
merely contemplated. Yet, in spite of the contrast in reward, a person
may only attempt to act for without Divine assistance nothing occurs.

RMB
>I think the basic problem here is in assuming absolutes when the issue is
>really better measured by degree. The greater the sakanah implied by the
>teva of the situation, the greater the merit required to be saved from it.

Here, at least according to ChL, I'm not sure I agree.  ChL holds that one
may continue to live due to a previous gzera and one loses mitzva reward.
This result seems to me totally independent of the level of danger (though,
perhaps the loss of zechuyos is relative)

RMB
>Thus the tanna's "Hakol biydei Shamayim chutz mitzinim upachin".
>(Which I'm not sure is the same shitah as the one about "chutz miyir'as
>Shamayim". Perhaps we aren't supposed to make the two fit.)

See Tos. which does make them fit.

RMB
> It's not fully biydei Shamayim; in many (most?) cases Hashem will value
> our experiencing the natural consequences of our actions over issues of
> merit and tailored outcomes.

This statement does not match ChL who seems to hold that EVERYTHING is bidei
shomayim.

Shlomo Goldstein

> Pesikta Rabba 1:
> Amar R' Yose ben Chalafta, 52 shanim l'achar churban ha'bayis lo avar
> adam b'EY, kema she'kasuv: "Ai he'harim... nitztu mibli ish over..."
> (Yir. 9:9).

The only way this could even *possibly* be true is if you translate
"adam" as "Jew"; and even so, the archaeological evidence shows that
*some* Jews remained in E.Y. during the exile.

Also -- AIUI Seder Olam is *not* considered 100% accurate.

Akiva

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> Pesikta Rabba 1:
> Amar R' Yose ben Chalafta, 52 shanim l'achar churban ha'bayis lo avar
> adam b'EY, kema she'kasuv: "Ai he'harim... nitztu mibli ish over..."
> (Yir. 9:9).

> IIRC RYBC is also the author of Seder Olam. Also a Gemara in Yoma 54a,
> there in the name of R' Yehuda 

There is in fact a machlokes rishonim as to whether Israel was ever
devoid of Jews

Rambam bases his understanding of the authority of the calendar on the
assertion that there was never a period when Jews didn't live in Israel
while the Ramban disagrees.

Rambam Sefer Mitzvos Positive 153 "If it ever happened that Israel
had no Jews - G-d forbid! - because He promised that this would never
happen..." Ramban comments that it has happened.

With regard to the discussion of whether learning Torah makes one a
better person, doesn't it say that Yiras Shamayim is the otzar for Torah
and without Yiras Shamayim your learning won't last?

thanks to the varous people that sent me rferences to SA on pidyon
shivuim. I wanted something beyond that and found one article in Techumim
vol 13.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Re: The posting of my southern neighbor R' Dov Bloom, R'DB. the younger 
<<The Ashkenaz minhag was to say on the Shacharit of a Brit, out loud
and responsively (chazzan and Kahal) parts of psukim starting from
"VeCharot imo HaBrit">>

As a non-Yekke with only limited exposure to Frankfort am Hudson many
years ago, I cannot say what they do. However, I think the original
minhag is not "chazzan v'kahal" but "mohel v'kahal". That's the way I
remember seeing it noted in old or, perhaps more m'dayyek, siddurim.

David

My 5th grade son and I are studying Mishna Megilla. One night, he was
using his Mishna, and I was using a Gemara. He was on Megilla 3:1.
I had previously recalled that perek 3 in the Mishna is perek 4 in the
Gemara, and vice versa. Does anyone know why?

But my main question is this: in the Mishna, the dissenting opinion is
R Yehuda; and in the Gemara the name is replaced by R Meir.

What am I missing here?

Thanks,
Sholom

Asked me yesterday by my son:

How many names of wives of Tanaim or Amoraim can you name (off the top
of your head, no encyclopedias, CD's etc.)?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Is the fulfillment of a mitzvah kiyumis the same as someone eino metzuveh
ve-oseh fulfilling a commandment? I saw in a sefer the equation of these
two but it strikes me that they might not be equivalent.

In one case you are commanded to do something if you want to. In the
other you are not commanded at all.

I thought that perhaps the nafka mina would be reciting a berachah, at
least according to the Rambam that women cannot say berachos on mitzvos
they are not commanded to perform.

Gil Student

From: Elly Bachrach <>
> R' H Shachter once mentioned in shiur that the beis din of vilna
> banned people from publishing torah in the name of the gr'a without
> prior approval.

[RSBA:]
> IIRC I saw this mentioned in a kuntres by Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit'a
> where he writes against RM Kasher's publication of Kol Hator.

> If necessary, I can try and find out more.

The bioraphies of the Gr'a say that the Vilna Beis Din met within the
Shloshim of the Gra and issues this ordinance. Since you have mentioned
the name of Rav Moshe Sternbuch, would you please pray for his oldest
sibling, Leah bas Devorah (my S-I L) whom we hope will recover from
a stroke.

Elozor Reich

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


[ 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         ]