Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 046

Wednesday, November 19 2003

• mar-ei mekomos search
• Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide
• Bentham and Rawls
• Zeh Sefer Toldos Ha-Adam
• Megilla
• Re: Why Jewishness is determined by the mother
• Re: Why Jewishness is determined by the mother
• Re: wives of Tanaim or Amoraim
• Re: Lot and David Hamelech
• Sakkin M'din Kli Shareis
• mitzvah kiyumit
• Re: mitzvah kiyumit
• Re: The Name in Arabic
• Re: From Lot to David HaMelech
• Re: Why Jewishness is determined by the mother
• Zeh Sefer Toldos Ha-Adam
• Re: v'kharot 'imo... printer's error
• Re: ban on torah b'shem the gr'a
• Re: v'kharot 'imo... printer's error
• RE: Judenrein
• Re: Where there's a Halachic will... (was: Re: Kullos & Chumros)
• Re: Torah Observance and Crime Statistics
• Re: From Lot to David HaMelech
• RE: Judenrein

I seek earliest knowns sources for the following:

1) Pischu li pesach ke-khu-doe shel makhat, va-ani ephtakh lachem pesach
ke-piskho shel oolam.

(Not "ha-ba le-ta-hayr, mesa'ayin oso.")

This might be in the singular in the original.

2) Ain davar 'omaid be-fnei ha-ratzon.

I am aware of the essay on ratzon in Michtav May-Eliyahu, v. 3, p. 96.

I was unable to find these ma-amarim in the three volume Michloll Mamaarim
U-Phitgamim (Mosad Harav Kook publ.)

Finally, with thanks to those who cared enough to respond a year ago,
the midrash that I sought to source, "Ha-dooda-im nasnu ray-ach--ze
Reuvain she-heetzil es Yosef; ve-al pesachainu kol megadim--ze ner
Chanukah," is in Midrash Pli-ah. I found the reference in the sefer of
Rav Avraham Dov of Avritch, a talmid of Reb Menachem Nachum of Chernobyl.
The sefer is titled Bas Ayin, probably because his rebbe's sefer is
entitled Me'or Ainayim.

Noach Witty

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>R' Elchanan Wasserman posits that this is a machlokes rishonim.

>>Tosafos in Kesuvos 30a sv ha-kol write that one may commit suicide
>> even if it has not been previously ordained - "de-ha vadai
>> she-be-yado le-hamis atzmo".

>>REW in Kovetz Ma'amarim, peirushei aggados on "ha-kol biydei
>> shamayim" cites this tosafos and suggests that the Chovos HaLevavos
>> disagrees.

> R' Gil Student asserted that according to R' Elchanan Wasserman
> there is a machlokes rishonim. According to my reading [page 54] he
> makes no such assertion....

Are you reading different ma'amarim, or simply different editions?

I looked over the ma'amar RGS faxed the list. (pp. 47-48, not 54.) I'm
lost on a number of points.

1- Tosafos seem to take the ma'amar on tzinim and pachim to mean their
occurance is random. If tzinim upachim were taken to be caused by teva
and therefore a consequence of a person's choice not to dress for the
weather, it would be an /example/ of the ability to guard oneself from
pur'anos, not a question. (Which fits REW's wording toward the end of
the ma'amar calling tzinim upachim "miqreh".) Or perhaps they identify
"yachol lishmor es atzmo" with a guarantee that the person won't err
and abuse or neglect that yecholes. I don't understand either
assumption.

2- Why does REW bring a ra'ayah from the Ramban that someone who kills
another who happens to deserve death is still chayav? It's befeirush a
mishnah, R' Aqiva's words to the skull in Mes Avos.

> Rather he raises questions from a number of
> sources against Tosfos (Kesubos 30a) which says that one can in fact
> commit suicide and Tosfos doesn't say it is a gezera....

REW's "Vedivrei Tos' tzarich iyun gam mah shesaimu ... vetzarich iyun"
sounds like that to me too.

-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

I assume many if not most of the readership don't know who these people
were.

Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832, British) invented an ethical theory called
"Utilitarianism". In it, "The greatest happiness of the greatest numbers
is the foundation of morals and legislation."

John Rawls (1921-2002, Harvard) rejected Utilitarianism because it
lacks absolute values. Therefore it could yeild an "oppression by the
majority". For example, if slavery or torture of a minority were found
to make the majority of the population happy, would that morally justify
the suffering of a minority?

How did any of this spark an idea that belongs on Avodah?

The oppression by the majority is possible because Bentham is defining
ethics in terms of the pursuit of happiness. Even if it's the happiness
of others, or the happiness of the majority, Rawls' argument shows that
such definitions fail.

Perhaps this is why Hillel formulated his rule (Mah desani lakh...) in
the negative, making his morality about the avoidance of suffering. As
opposed to the Notzri Golden Rule.

-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

I found my notes on a eulogy I gave for my friend Alan Dutka z"l that
covers the machlokes between R' Akiva and Ben Azzai over what is the kelal
gadol ba-Torah.  I typed it up and Micha was kind enough to post it at
http://www.aishdas.org/articles/dutka.html

Gil Student

RSS:
>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?

See Shinuei Nuschaos there in Mishna which also refers to Tos YT there.

>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.

See heara on side of Gemara, Shinuei Nuschaos on the Mishna, Tos Chadashos
on Mishna and Or Gadol underneath.

Shlomo Goldstein

Jonathan S. Ostroff wrote:
> 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.

Once again, I know of no sources. When learning Ezra, I found meqoros
discussing the gezeiras hakasuv, but no one giving ta'am hamitzvah.

Lineage is after the father for determining shevet too.

I once wrote a vertl on the difference between the bechor WRT yerushah
and the peter rechem. Yerushah follows the father, which is why the
shevet does. However, the natural kohein in the family would be the
mother's eldest. Yahadus is a "mamlekhes kohanim", so it too follows
the mother. It has to do with the centrality of Toras imekha.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/bamidbar.html>.

-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

Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
>See Gem. Kiddushin beginning of 4th perek that the sources are psukim.

R' David Nieto in his Kuzari Sheini speaks at length about these pesukim
that are sources and the arguments and counter-arguments over matrilineal
descent. I have a draft of an English translation somewhere in my house.

Danny Schoemann wrote:
>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.

R' Hershel Schachter in his Eretz HaTzvi said it differently.  A person's
nationality is determined by his mother.  His familial/tribal affiliation
is determined by his father.

Gil Student

In Avodah V12 #45 dated 11/17/03 [RGDubin writes:]
> How many names of wives of Tanaim or Amoraim can you name (off the top
> of your head, no encyclopedias, CD's etc.)?

Rachel, R' Akiva's wife; and Bruriah, R' Meir's wife. That's all!
Pretty sad. I guess you have a longer list?

 -Toby Katz

RMLevin:
> To be brief, I offer a an apparent thread that runs from Lot through
...
> One solution to these problems can come from considering the
> personality of Lot's father - Haran. As Rashi brings at the end of
> Noach, Haran was a follower; he said "if Nimrod wins I am with him
> but if Avram wins I go with him". Like fathers, like sons.

(That last comment is an odd thing to add to a paragraph discussing
Terach's children.)

Thank you for drawing a connection between Haran's indecisiveness
and Lot's. If I may draw a different nequdah, though... Haran waited
for evidence. His worldview was one centered on the empirical (as,
unfortunately, is that of most of our contemporaries). Nothing existed
or is real until it is tested and measured.

If Lot inherited/learned this middah, then he faced a dilemma WRT the
destruction of Sedom. Waiting for proof was not an option, as it would
spell his death. Perhaps this was even the reason for the severity of the
punishment for looking back to witness the distruction. That inability
for real emunah had to be broken.

The lashon used here is "Vayismahmah" (beshalsheles). This peshat works
for the brothers' use of "lulei hismahmahnu" for not returning to Par'oh's
second. Also "Velo hismahmahti lishmor mitzvosekha" (Tehillim 119:60).

Compare to a statement made about Lot's future descendent, "Im
tismahmeiha, chaqei lo" (Chabaquq 2:3, cf "Ani Ma'amin"). "Be'ito
ach'ishena -- zacha 'bei'to', lo zacha, 'ach'ishena'". Lehismahmeiha is
inherently a "lo zacha" state.

-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

The Rambam paskens that l'chatchilah the sakkin used for shechitas
korbonos should be a kli shareis but b'dieved if one doesn't use a kli
shareis it is okay.

Elsewhere the Rambam paskens that by keilim we say "avadosan
m'chanchasan".
If this is true, how do you ever have a case of b'dieved not haveing
a kli shareis. Once I do the avodah with the knife it automatically
becomes a kli shareis.

<<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.>>

I am missing something here. Tzizit is a mitzvah kiyumit and has a
berachah and the gemara tells us that we are surrounded by the mitzvot
of teffilin, mezuzah and tzizit and so presumably they are all equal.

I find it difficult to believe that someone keeping tzizit gets less of
a reward than tefillin.

What is mezuzah? Only if one has a house is one required to put on
a mezuzah.

I have a different question about tzizit. The gemara brinds a disagreement
if women are obligated in tzizit. SA brings that though Tzizit is a
mitzvah kiyumit nevertheless it is not proper to avoid wearing a beged
with 4 corners.
Since one opinion equated women with men for the halacha why does there
not exist a chumra for women to wear tzizit. On the contrary women are
usually strongly discouraged from this mitzvah.

Interestingly when the gemara says we are surrounded by tefillin, mezuzah,
tzizit, and always with Milah, only mezuzah applies to women. Hence,
women seem to lose out on being surrounded by these mitzvot.

My only thought was that perhaps they don't need the constant reminders.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:00:24PM +0200, eli turkel wrote:
: I am missing something here. Tzizit is a mitzvah kiyumit and has a
: berachah and the gemara tells us that we are surrounded by the mitzvot
: of teffilin, mezuzah and tzizit and so presumably they are all equal.

By R Dovid Lifshitz's taxonomy, there are different kinds of mitzvos
qiyumios.

Tzitzis is a matir for four cornered clothing. If you want to wear
such a beged, it must have tzitzis. Similarly shechitah is a matir
for meat, aside for the first night, Sukkah is a matir for
bread and mezonos, etc...

However, Sukkah for women is not a matir. Which is why the Rambam,
most Sepharadim and many Chassidim would not have her make a berakhah.

-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 Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: It is an alif, not an ayn. But the alif is not part of the shoresh.
: The initial `al' is the definite article, as in `al-Quds' or `al-Qaeda';
: the word itself is `LLah', spelled `lam-with-dagesh, ha'.

And yet, they achknowledge the meaning of the second root of "Ishma'el".

I will leave the subject of "E-loak", A-llah, E-l and the Canaanite El to
RSM, when he chooses to quibble.

-mi

R' Daniel Eidensohn quoted Rav Bulman <<< Much as we like to view a ger
as a newborn individual, there is a continuity between what they were
before they converted. >>>

If a non-Jew's child converts, and his Jewish grandchild is good (or bad)
at something which that non-Jew values, it is reasonable that he will
feel pride (or shame) in his grandchild. And the grandchild will have
similar feelings if he sees good (or bad) values in his grandfather.

All that is reasonable, but it all relates to physical and genetic
relationships, or to memories which the ger retains after his gerus, or
to other human and emotional factors. Is that what zechus avos is about?

For the past few days I've been reading up on some of the Taamei HaMitzvos
about the mitzvah (Devarim 23:4-5) that gerim from Moav cannot marry
other Jews, and it SEEMS to run contrary to this idea that such converts
are newborn, unrelated to their physical ancestors. On the other hand,
if we take the word "newborn" literally, then he has no connection to
Judaism either, but we know that he does.

I need a better understanding of this concept that the ger is newborn.
Perhaps the real problem is that I've misunderstood it, probably as a
result of never having seen its sources "inside". Can someone suggest
some sources which explain where this concept came from, and how far it
goes? Thank you.

Or even beyond that, I think I need to learn more about the "Taamei
HaMitzvos" of gerus in general. For example, I know that the Chumash
speaks about gerim in many places, but I haven't the foggiest idea of
which psukim prescribe the process used to acheive that status. Can
anyone offer some pointers? Thanks.

Akiva Miller

R. Y.B.Soloveitchik explained that Jews are the only nation in existence;
all others are referred to as "mishpachos ho'adoma". In a family or tribe,
for example, belonging to a shevet or kohen, levi etc, is determined by
the father. Ditto for before Matan Torah. Once a nation was formed, the
chidush of the derivation in Kiddushin is that we have becoem a nation and
belonging depends on the mother.m ne can connect that to his explanation
of the difference between toras avicha and musar imecha, in the eulogy
on the Tolner Rebbetsin. Whereas the father teaches you facts and laws,
it is the mother that teaches the embodies way of life. Eim, Umah

M. Levin

It seems to me that the Meshach Chochma and the Netsiv who explain
Klal Gadol B'Torah to refer to human history have an excellent textual
support. The phrase "Klal Gadol" is found in Mishna Shabbos and Sheviis
and always is followed by an enumeration of specifics. If so, Ze Sefer
Toldos Ha'odom is simply an opening to the history that follows.

M. Levin

From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
> ..., 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.

Probably , because the mohel was also the chazan. [That's how it used
to be here until recently, anyway.]

BTW do other kehilos do as we do - and in the minyan of the Mohel say
'Anim Zemiros'?

SBA

REB wrote:
> Does anyone have resources on either this particular piece, or on the
> ban R' Shachter mentioned?

Look in the introduction to several of the Gaon's sfarim, including his 
peirush 'al qamah agadot.

Arie Folger

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:35:16PM +1100, SBA wrote:
:> ..., 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.

: Probably , because the mohel was also the chazan. [That's how it used
: to be here until recently, anyway.]

My greatuncle, R' Joseph Goldberg, was a mohel for decades. He told me
that they were noheig for the mohel to lead Vecharos Imo even if he was
not the chazan.

: BTW do other kehilos do as we do - and in the minyan of the Mohel say
: 'Anim Zemiros'?

This is the first I head of that minhag.

-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

R Akiva Atwood 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).

> 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.

If there are no people present, there can be no Jews. Did I forget,
and RYGB said it was inhabited by others?

-mi

In a message dated 11/9/2003 9:30:28 AM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> And R' Micha Berger responded <<<How quickly do you expect halakhah to
> move? How many farmers went into poverty because they couldn't secure a
> loan and the heter iska wasn't promulgated yet? Historical events never
> seem as far apart as contemporary ones. The agunah problem only became
> accute when the notion of kehillah collapsed. Around 75 years ago,
> most centers of population had batei dinim with the power to deal with
> mesarvei get. >>>

> ZGG! I feel this response should repeated over and over until memorized.
> The poor farmers is a great example, and perhaps some of us can think
> of even more such examples.

> We must not let it appear that our hearts are hardened to people in
> tough situations, but neither can we insult the Torah's way of doing
> things....

I don't disagree that Halachah needs to be "fixed" with caution.
But it isobvious that Takkanos did take place- EG takkanos Rabeinu
Gershom re: polygamy
There are devices such as hor'as sho'ah etc. to address just such
difficult cases.
I do not see the sense of urgency here.

When Rav Aaron Kotler saw that Torah might not succeed in the hinterlands,
he was maskim to having mixed classes in Day Schools in order to promote
Torah in locales that otherwise might not have been able to feasibly
run a day school {how's that for a long run-on sentence?!} IOW, he
overlooked the Halachic objections because of eis la'asos.

Hameivin Yavin.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

>> 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.

Nor do I claim that they do. What I said was that our ideal differs
from their ideal primarily in the territory of bein adam laMaqom.
Therefore, we define ourselves in those terms and end up stressing
that side more than we would have otherwise.

I did not make any statement about the reality of actual observance.

Just that their ideals bein adam lachaveiro are far closer to ours
than those bein adam laMaqom.

We have to admit to ourselves that the Haskalah and the creation of R
did cause some counterreformation on our part. There are features of
contemporary Yahadus which exist because we're rejecting what "they"
do.

The neglect of Nach and of diqduq, which is more societal than a shift
in values and ideal.

The push away from using variant girsa'os in understanding the tannaim
and shas.

The "chumrah of the month club". And on a more positive note, more people
adopting chumros for the right reasons as well.

The push toward greater mimeticism, in particular as proposed in "Chadash
assur min haTorah". Even though this contradicts the tendencies of the
previous group, both are moves away from feeling comfortable with new
heterim.

And, nidon didan, the shift from an ideal of ehrlechkeit to one of
frumkeit.

Yes, I agree with RnTK that proper bein adam laMaqom will go hand in hand
with improvement in bein adam lachaveiro. It's all of one piece. However,
in a kehillah, people approximate the ideal to varying extents. So,
if you stress only one, there is no guarantee by a long shot that the
masses will get to mastery of both. Particularly when you downplay the
prerequisite.

-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

RGStudent:
> 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 son of a Jew could look just like a non-Jewish grandfather too.
With current intermarriage rates, it's quite common. Conversion isn't
the only way such propensities can cross the communal gap into Klal
Yisrael.

I also would not agree with using the word "genes". Both nature and
nurture involve his pre-Jewish life. However, the child with the
non-Jewish grandfather has the nurture of a Jewish mother, which seems
to be quite relevent.

In general, this raises the question of mind vs soul. Someone can
acquire a new soul while having pretty much the same mind.

And yet, the neshamah is the seat of bechirah (provable from the
concept of oneshim in olam ha'emes) and yet we feel ourselves
*mentally* (as in "mind") making choices.

-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

[RYGB:]
>>> 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).

> R Akiva Atwood wrote:
>> 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.

[Micha:]
> If there are no people present, there can be no Jews. Did I forget,
> and RYGB said it was inhabited by others?

IIRC RYGB said there were no Jews in E.Y. during that period -- and
brought the above posuk.

My points were:

1) "adam" in the possuk couldn't mean "person/human", since we know that
there were non-Jews living in E.Y., and traders continually passed through
("avar") E.Y. -- so it had to mean "Jews";

2) We know (from archaeological records) that there were *some* Jews
here during the exile -- so the possuk must be speaking in loshon B'nei
Adam, in the same way that a person would say "no one's here yet" when
obviously at least one person IS here -- the speaker.

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]