Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 064

Thursday, December 25 2003

• Re: Did Yitzchok Avinu Speak Rechilus?
• layning on Chanukah
• kitzur
• Re: Where is Ararat
• Techumim above ten
• On bigotry and racism in the frum community...
• Flashlight for Chanuka lights
• Fwd (levtov@torah.org): Sfas Emes -- Chanuka
• Re: Chanukah Candles in Shul
• Early Maturity
• Re: Chanukah Candles in Shul
• Re: chanukka lights at work
• Re: Did Yitzchok Avinu Speak Rechilus?
• Re: Chanukah Candles in Shul
• Re: Chanukah Candles in Shul
• Re: Did Yitzchok Avinu Speak Rechilus?
• Re: Did Yitzchok Avinu Speak Rechilus?
• Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus

On 24 Dec 2003 at 12:30, SBA wrote:
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
>> SBA wrote:
>>> Nu, so Yitzchok told Eisov the facts...So what?
>>> Is it rechilus to report to someone that I saw ploni robbing your home??

>> Yes, unless there's a toeles (i.e. that the person you are telling is
>> going to go and recover the money from ploni). Where's the toeles
>> here (and since we're talking about Yitzchak Avinu, I have to believe
>> there was one, but it's not obvious)?

> There's an issur to talk LH on a ganev or baal aveireh?

Without getting into other possible limudei zchus, are you suggesting 
that Yaakov Avinu was either of the above? 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

There is a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah whether the
"shishi" on Chanukah continues to the next day or goes over the current
day done by the first two aliyot.

1. What is the basis of the disagreement?
2. Ashkenazi (i.e Nusach Asskenaz and Sefard) shuls in Israel follow
the Mechaber. What is the reason that these shuls follow the Mechaber
on some halachot which then get turned into minhag Eretz Yisrael while
normally paskenening like the Ramah.

Chag Sameach,
Eli Turkel

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:49:15 -0600, Avodah wrote:
>> Several of us have never seen it lit on the left side before and asked
>> about it. He said that it came from the Kitzur. (It was not the standard
>> Kitzur but a sefer of halachot by that name from a Rabbi (I cannot
>> remember his name) in Tel Aviv.

> It would be interesting to know the sefer and its mechaber is.

The was a sefer Kitzur Mekor Chaim written by R. Chaim David Halevi Zt"l
former sefardi chief rabbi of Tel Aviv. He also wrote the complete set. I
understand that this kitzur is very popular in Israeli schools.

-- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 24/12/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

RYZ wrote:
<<See also Sede Hadors year 1656 lash paragraph.>>

Vus? I don't own a copy. What's written there?

Note, BTW, that I hit the send button too early. I needed to write
the next word or two in the Ramban, where he states explicitly that
the mountains of Ararat are in Bavel, which means those mountains
were rather low. (Although, considering this thread will be mingled
in the imagination of list members with the thread about whether the
Mabul happened on the entire earth, I must stae, in the interest of full
disclosure, that Ramban disagrees with RYHH's interpretation of ta'hat kol
hashamayim. For RYHH it means the common mountains that are to be found
anywhere under the heavens, whereas for Ramban in Bereishit chapter 8,
it means the highest mountains.)

Arie Folger

I am surprised that in this thread (unless I have missed something)
nobody has mentioned the Chasam Sofer.

Although he passed away in 1839 he wrote a Teshuva (in Last Chelek of
Shu't) about the problem of railway trains and Techumim.

Elozor

One of our chaveirim (who wishes to remain anonymous) wrote the following
letter to the Jewish Observer. It became the the subject of deliberations
held by their review board. The board concluded that although the issue is
urgent and must be addressed, a letter latching on to an essay of last
May, focused specifically on bigotry and racism, is not the way to do
it. Rather, it should be a free-standing essay covering kavod ha'brios
on all fronts, including other types of Jews, written by someone with
real clout. If there are some of our chaverim who are so inclined,
they may perhaps express their gratitude and appreciation of the JO's
intent to tackle the issue and urge that salient points in the letter
below not become overly diluted in the essay that ultimately emerges. JO
e-mail address and phone number available upon request.

To the Editor:

In a fine essay: "Teaching Churban Europa to Our Children" (JO, May '03),
Rabbi Yaakov Feitman shlita presents the following cogent point as one
of the lessons that we can learn from the Hitlerian plot to annihilate
the Jewish people, R"l:

    Disappointment in the Gentiles - Rabbi Hutner zt"l taught us that one
    of the prime lessons of Jewish history is learning not to be enamored
    of the gentiles and their ways by recognizing their unreliability
    throughout the ages.

While this is an invaluable lesson, care must be taken in its
presentation, particularly to young students. This is because there
is cause for concern lest we inadvertently cause racism and bigotry to
develop in our society.

It is essential that we take care that it does not become acceptable
in our society to use pejorative terminology to describe other races,
especially since there are ever-increasing numbers of Jews, Shomrei Torah
u'Mitzvos, of other races. We must be careful never to present people
of other races as stereotypical examples of degenerate and dim-witted
behavior, particularly in light of the evident accomplishments and
prominence of many individuals of other races. A special pitfall to be
avoided is the acceptance of questionable "Biblical" justifications of
such attitudes. Indeed, most of these rationalizations may be traced to
Southern, pro-slavery, antebellum (pre-Civil War) Christian preachers.

To expand somewhat, there are many problems in such attitudes and modes
of expression. Among these problems are the following:

1. These attitudes and modes of expression will not go unnoticed by
general society. If they were to become known, they would likely to lead
to Chillul Hashem and to setbacks in our task of leading, by refined
example, to "Yakiru v'yeidu kol yoshvei seivel ke lecha tichra kol berech
("May all the world's inhabitants recognize and know that to You every
knee should bend" - second paragraph of Aleinu, based on Yeshayah
45:23). They certainly would not help the other races (nor gentiles
in general) to recognize that "rak am navon v'chacham ha'am ha'zeh"
("Surely a wise and astute people is this great nation!" - Devarim 4:6).

2. Additionally, all generalizations only apply generally - at best.
Nevertheless, they create stereotypes, branding individuals with the
typecast of the group. Thus, upstanding members of other races who remain
gentiles, yet may fall into the category of Chasidei Umos Ha'Olam (pious
non-Jews who - see Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 8:11) may become subsumed
in the derogatory categorization.

3. Such attitudes and modes of expression are likely to spill over when we
would not want them to do so. Olam ha'Bo issues of malbin pnei chaveiro
(deriding one's friend - see Bava Metzia 58b-59a) and other explicit
d'oraysa prohibitions, such as ona'as ha'ger (deriding a convert - see
Bava Metzia, ibid.) - and, of course, Chillul Hashem - are involved in
such "slips of the tongue."

4. The usage of pejorative terms - particularly when the word's intended
use is clearly coarse - may constitute nibbul peh.

5. Perhaps most importantly, were such attitudes to take root in our
society, chas v'shalom, they would clearly run counter to the refinement
of middos and to the pathways of mussar to which every Ben Aliyah and
Ba'al Avodah should aspire. Haughtiness (ga'avah), scoffing (leitzanus),
derogation (bittul) and other middos ra'os pervade such attitudes. The
tumas sefasayim that is inherent in such modes of expression doubtless
impacts negatively on the neshama of the speaker.

In this brief piece I have focused on the pitfalls of bigotry and
racism. This is not the vehicle for a comprehensive treatment of our
relationship with non-Jews of various orientations. However, to the best
of my knowledge, the finest comprehensive treatment of that topic is an
essay in Divrei Talmud vol. 1 by Rabbi Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan zt"l.

Perhaps, however, all the technical categories are moot, as the Yerushalmi
(Bava Metzia 2:5) states so powerfully (free translation):

    Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach dealt in linen. His students said to him:
    "Rebbe, desist from this trade. We will buy you a donkey [to make an
    easier living as a donkey driver] and you will not have to toil so
    much." They went and purchased a donkey from a bandit. The students
    subsequently found a precious stone dangling from it. They went back
    to Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach and said to him: "From now on you need
    not exert yourself." He asked: "How so?" The students responded:
    "We purchased a donkey for you from a bandit and a precious stone
    was dangling from it." Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach asked: "Did the
    donkey's seller know that the stone was there?" They answered:
    "No." He then said to them: "Go return it." The students remonstrated
    with Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach: "Although theft from an idolater is
    prohibited, is one not permitted to keep an object that an idolater
    has lost?" He responded: "What do you think, that Shimon ben Shetach
    is a barbarian? More than all the wealth of the world, Shimon ben
    Shetach desires to hear [the non-Jew say]: "Berich Eloko d'Yehudo'ei"
    ("Blessed is the God of the Jews").

Our paramount value, beyond even halachic considerations, must be Kiddush
Shem Shomayim.

In sum, therefore, while Rabbi Feitman's point is well taken, it must
be nuanced. There are cases in which we must denigrate evildoers, but
there are cases where denigration is out of place - indeed, counter to
the Torah's expectations of us. There is a fine line to be tread between
"Ein lanu l'hisha'en elah al Avinu she'Bashomayim" (We cannot rely on
anyone but our Father in Heaven - see Sotah 49b) and Al tehi baz l'kol
adam ("Do not denigrate any person" - Avos 4:3).

The vast majority of poskim don't allow using electric lights as
fulfilling the mitzva of ner chanuka (since we need NER rather than
just OHR). The only one who indicates that b'shaat had'chak one can use
an electric menorah is R. Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer III 35. But even
here, it's without a bracha and must be a special electric menorah.
I have never heard of using a flashlight !!

Josh

A nice vort. Not that the Sefas Emes needs my approval. -mi

Sfas Emes
Rabbi Nosson Chayim Leff
Torah.org

Chanuka, fifth night, 5631

The Sfas Emes begins this ma'amar with a quote from his Grandfather. The
Chidushei HaRim, in turn, is commenting on a statement in the Gemara
(Maseches Shabbos, 23b). As you will soon see, that statement cries out
for explanation ' for it comes across as a total non-sequitur. Thus:
'Ha'ragil be'neir..." ("If a person takes the lighting of candles --
for Chanuka or for Shabbos -- as a regular feature of his life, his sons
will be talmidei chachamin. ").

To say the least, this statement is puzzling. Why? Because no connection
is apparent between lighting candles regularly and having one's sons
develop as talmidei chachamim. How did the Chidushei HaRim handle the
puzzle? He pointed out that lighting candles in a context of mitzvos can
convey a vital message to one's children (and to oneself!). That message
is: even in a setting of hergeil (habait, routine), one can rise in one's
Avoda. How? By bringing to bear the elucidation (he'ara) and freshness
(hischadshus) that newly lit candles symbolize. Thus shielded from the
deadening power of hergeil, a person (and his progeny) can reach higher
levels of ruchniyus. As noted, the message can help the potential talmidei
chachamim in two ways -- either via its impact on the sons directly. or
indirectly, via its impact on the potential facilitators, the parents.

Mention of the word "hergeil" leads the Sfas Emes to another phrase where
-- if one looks with eyes inspired by the Sfas Emes -- one can also find
the word "hergeil". But to understand what comes next, we must go back
to first principles.

The reason why we light candles on Chanuka is for 'pirsu'mei nisa'. (That
is: to broadcast news of the miracle that we experienced on the first
Chanuka). The reason for the candles to be lit is to enable passers-by to
see them. and remind themselves of the miracle. Accordingly, the Shulchan
Aruch (Orach Chayim, 672,b) tells us that Chanuka candles may be lit: "ad
she'tikaleh ha'regel min ha'shuk". In a non-literal translation: "until
traffic in the market-place stops". In a more-or-less literal translation:
"until the feet [of passers-by] are no longer in the market-place".

So much for the plain, simple meaning of the phrase: "ad she'tikahleh
ha'regel". The Sfas Emes leads us forward now to another dimension of
meaning. The word ha'regel means "the foot". But working with allusion
(remez), the Sfas Emes reads the word as "hergeil" -- habit, routine. Thus
the Sfas Emes is telling us that we light the Chanuka candles to bring
renewal and remove habit from our Avodah.

Doing mitzvos as a matter of unthinking routine is a constant threat
to the active, conscious way in which we should strive to live our
relationship with HaShem. The Sfas Emes is telling us to let the Chanuka
candles remind us to focus our mind and our emotions on our actions
when we do mitzvos. "Hergeil" (routine; habit) is the enemy We should be
aware of what we are doing rather than live our Yiddishkeit as unthinking
creatures of habit.

"Ad she'tikaleh hergeil min hashuk!"

R' Ari Kahn wrote <<< Hence the opinion that if a guest hears the bracha
in shul, and will not light by himself he is yozie - pirsumie nisa,
hence it is probably best for such a guest to actually light in shul. >>>

Mechaber 676:3 says that She'asa Nisim can only be said upon seeing a Ner
*Chanuka*. One would not be able to say it on other sorts of lights. We
must ask whether or not the shul's menorah counts as a Ner Chanukah.

My understanding is that the shul's menorah is *not* adequate for this
purpose. If it was, then the person who lit in shul would not be able
to repeat She'asa Nisim on the neros he lights for him self at home,
since he would already be yotzay that aspect. And it seems clear from
Mishnah Berurah 671:45 (which makes and exception only for Shehechiyanu)
that he *does* have to say She'asa Nisim at home.

OTOH, MB 673:13 says that one may not get hanaah from the shul's lights
until after the half-hour has passed, indicating that they *do* count
as Ner Chanukah. Sounds like a contradiction, and I don't know what to
make of it.

Akiva Miller

The Chizkuni on Parashas Vayeshev points out that in Biblical times,
people were able to bear children much earlier, otherwise Peretz and
Zerach (born significantly after Mechiras Yosef) would not have had
children by the time Yaacov et al went down to Mitzrayim. He says that
if Er, Onan, and Peretz had their first-borns at the age of 7 or 8,
it work out.

I'm trying to reconcile this with Rashi on Mikeitz who says that Achei
Yoseif didn't recognize him because he was beard-less when he was sold,
at the age of 17.

Thanks,
Meyer

On 24 Dec 2003 at 19:31, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> My understanding is that the shul's menorah is *not* adequate for this
> purpose. If it was, then the person who lit in shul would not be able
> to repeat She'asa Nisim on the neros he lights for him self at home,
> since he would already be yotzay that aspect. 

No. Lighting in shul is not adequate for someone who has a home in which
to light. But for someone who does not have home in which to light,
it is adequate (you're not going to argue that the guest cannot make a
bracha in shul, are you?).

But let's turn this on its head. Presumably you lit at home before
you went to shul last Friday, right? But someone else lit in shul and
he could have lit at home first too. Did HE make the brochos again?
Why? He was yotzei at home already! And to go a step further, I'll bet he
even made She'he'cheyanu again in shul (that's the minhag, although it
is a machlokes among the Achronim). Obviously there's a separate kiyum
in shul from the one at home, and having lit in shul does not preclude
you from lighting (with a bracha) at home or vice versa.

> OTOH, MB 673:13 says that one may not get hanaah from the shul's lights
> until after the half-hour has passed, indicating that they *do* count
> as Ner Chanukah. Sounds like a contradiction, and I don't know what to
> make of it.

See above. 

For the record, I have been to two chasunas in the last two nights
and not a Chanuka candle in sight. But neither of them were true, old
fashioned Yerushalmi chasunas (the REAL Yerushalmim make their chupas
before shkiya year round).

 - Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

<<This brings to mind a question that I've had for a while. What about
the sugya of the chenvani (shopkeeper) who had a camel knock down his
candles and start a fire? While everybody's busy trying to figure out
whether or not the halakha is that you should put your candles lower
than 10 tefachim, I have a more basic question: If there's no kiyum
(at least) in lighting at work if that's where you happen to be when the
zeman hadlakah comes around, then what is the shopkeeper doing lighting
Chanukah candles in the first place?!>>

In addition to the comment of R. Kay, let me note that at the time
of Hazal many or most shopkeepers had their shop in entrance to their
house and lived in the same building. Most private houses faced not to
r'shus harabbim but to the hatzer; most that faced to r'shus harabbim
were houses with a store in the entrance.

Seth Mandel

In Avodah V12 #63 dated 12/24/03 "Rn Rena Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il> 
writes:
> "V'YECHARAD YITZCHAK" When Ya'akov came in to his father, Yitzchak
> smelled the rayach of gan eden; when Eisav came in afterwards, Yitzchak
> saw gehinnom opening before him. Pirkei d'rav Kahana says that "the
> presence of gehinnom with Eisav made Yitzchak realize that he had been
> decieved all along - Eisav was truly evil....

> Now, since Yitzchak has just realized just who this son of his is, I
> am not sure that that Yitzchak really cared how upset Eisav was going
> to be, as he just found out he had been really duped....

Hirsch says something similar. He says that Rivka, the daughter and
sister of duplicitous men, was able to see through Esav all along, whereas
Yitzchak, the son of tzaddikim and an ish tam, was not. The pasuk itself
says about Esav, "Tzayid befiv," which means, according to Rashi, that
Esav deceived Yitzchak--not once, but all his life. Rivka was forever
telling her husband, "I'm TELLING you, the boy's no good," but he just
didn't believe her.

She came up with a scheme that was transparently simple--that would
be seen through right away, as soon as Esav showed up--and her purpose
was two-fold. She wanted Yakov to get the brachos that went along with
the bechora. [And don't forget, she had received a nevua before the
boys were even born, "Rav ya'avod tza'ir" AND the pasuk testifies that
Esav had despised the bechora.] And her second purpose, she wanted to
show Yitzchak how easily he COULD be fooled.

When he realized what had happened, he trembled exceedingly because in one
flash, the scales fell from his eyes. He suddenly realized that Rivka
had been right all along--that he WAS easily deceived, and that Esav
WAS no good. Therefore, in the very SAME pasuk, without hesitation,
right after he told Esav that he had given the bracha to Yakov, he
immediately added, "Gam baruch yi'heyeh." THE BRACHA STANDS.

He could have revoked the bracha at that moment. After all, when he
bentshed Yakov he had Esav in zinnen. The moment he found out that the
person in front of him at the time had not been Esav, he could have said,
"My intention was to bentsh Esav, and those brachos go to Esav." Instead,
he confirmed mida'as what he had first done shelo mida'as.

Hirsch does not directly address the charge that Yitzchak was commmitting
rechilus when he told Esav what had happened. I doubt that such a
ridiculous and anachronistic charge even occurred to him. But Hirsch's
take on the case implies that R'n Rena is on the right track: Yitzchak
was telling Esav "Your brother came to me with cleverness and opened my
eyes to what kind of cleverness I am vulnerable to. You're busted, Esav."

I have translated "mirmah" as cleverness because when there are
two different synonyms in Hebrew (or in any language), each conveys a
slightly different shade of meaning. By defining "mirmah" as "chachma,"
Rashi wanted to obviate the possibility of reading the whole incident
as a case of fraud perpetrated on Esav by his mother and his brother.

But "chachma" means wisdom, and "mirmah" means something a little
different--cleverness is the best translation I can think of. But not
sheker, at least not in this context.

(BTW I well remember how a C teacher in the Chattanooga day school told
the kids that Rivka was a conniving schemer and Yakov was just like his
mom, and that's why she loved him.)

The motive behind Rivka's ruse, which Yakov of course shared, was to
reveal the TRUTH. Her whole plan was to lay bare the truth--about
Yitzchak's vulnerability, about Esav's real nature.

And it wasn't because she didn't love Esav, she did love him. When she
tells Yakov to run away she says, "Why should I be bereaved of both of
you, both my sons, on the same day?" Either Yakov would fight back and
there was a risk that both sons would die in the fight, or Esav would be
executed for murder. In either case, the way she talks of "both sons"
makes it clear that she loved them both.

The reason I said before that the charge of rechilus against Yitzchak
is anachronistic is that the Chofetz Chaim's sefer had not been written
yet in Yitzchak's day.

Back then people knew by logic or by nevuah or by the teaching of Shem
v'Ever (an oral tradition) or by mimetics what to do--but they didn't
have a sefer that they could read a few pages of, and then speak
condescendingly towards their elders and betters, as we do nowadays,
the minute we have a few pages of book learning under our belts.

There is a coda to this incident of the bracha, which perhaps deserves an
essay of its own, and that is the very poignance and pathos of Esav's cry,
"Abba, don't you have one bracha left for me?"

As far as I can recall, this is the only place in Chumash where a rasha
has genuinely moving lines. Try to think of other examples of pathos
in the Chumash.

Yakov saying, "My beloved wife died tragically young, my son Yosef is
gone, Binyomin is all that's left to me of Rochel. If I lose him it
will be unbearable." Or Yosef revealing himself to his brothers--the
single most poignant moment in the whole Torah. Or Moshe, so loving to
a recalcitrant nation, so self-effacing, saying, "Please spare them--or
else, mecheini na misifrecha asher kasavta."

In all this assembly of deep-feeling individuals, the lines that you
can't read without a tissue all come from tzaddikim--except for this one
line of Esav's. Which BTW represents Esav at a rare moment of actual
goodness, because what does he want? Not worldly goods, not power,
not wealth--but the intangible good of a bracha given by a tzaddik.
True, he believes this bracha has the power to confer money and wealth,
but that belief itself is already a madreiga in emunah.

What does it mean that a rasha is given a line of such unmistakeable
poignance? I take it to mean that there is one grain of genuine
grievance, that Esav does have one nekuda of justice on his side.

And that one nekuda is played out cosmically the way Rashi understands
the bracha Yakov ended up giving Esav by default: your brother Yakov
is deserving of the bracha only when he is clearly your moral superior.
But when his behavior descends to the level of Esav, then his right to
the bracha is tenuous, and Esav then acquires the power to throw off
the yoke of Yakov.

Throughout the long course of Jewish history, this is the principle: Esav
gets to state his case, and take power back, when we do not behave on the
high moral plane that gave us the right to the bracha in the first place.

 -Toby Katz

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Lighting in shul is not adequate for someone
who has a home in which to light. But for someone who does not have home
in which to light, it is adequate (you're not going to argue that the
guest cannot make a bracha in shul, are you?). >>>

Of course he can light in shul, and with a bracha too. But that doesn't
prove that he's actually yotzay anything other than the minhag of lighting
in shul.

It's nice and comforting to be able to say the words of those brachos,
and the gabbai gets a nice mitzvah of chesed for offering this opportunity
to this traveler. But the bottom line is that whatever his status might
be for the mitzvah of Ner Chanukah and Pirsumei Nisa, lighting in shul
doesn't help.

<<< Presumably you lit at home before you went to shul last Friday,
right? But someone else lit in shul and he could have lit at home first
too. Did HE make the brochos again? Why? He was yotzei at home already!
And to go a step further, I'll bet he even made She'he'cheyanu again in
shul (that's the minhag, although it is a machlokes among the Achronim).
Obviously there's a separate kiyum in shul from the one at home, and
having lit in shul does not preclude you from lighting (with a bracha)
at home or vice versa. >>>

Exactly. We agree that the lighting at home is totally distinct from the
lighting in shul. And the brachos are mostly distinct too. So my point
is that lighting in shul will not offset the fact that he did not light
at home.

This is not to suggest that there's anything *wrong* with the traveler
lighting in shul, only that the traveler does not need to go looking for
a shul where he can do the lighting. At least, no more than he would want
to light the shul's menorah on a night that he was at home and lit there.

I have to admit, I am very unclear about the whole topic of brachos
which are said on minhagim. This includes not only the bracha on Hallel
of Rosh Chodesh, but *any* brachah which is post-Chazal in origin. I
don't understand why we say it, and I don't understand why it doesn't
count as a Bracha L'vatalah. But most relevant to this discussion,
I don't see why recital of a bracha is being used as evidence that one
has fulfilled a chiyuv d'rabanan -- it doesn't work like that.

Akiva Miller

From: Zev Sero <>
> IIRC your shul faces west, so the south wall would be the left; perhaps
> your shul lights at the front of the left wall, which would fulfil both
> ideas - front and south.

Yes, our Shul faces west.

The Menorah stands at a right angle to the Oron Hakodesh - west to east -
on the south side of the 'platform' before the OH.
[I hope all this makes sense]

SBA

From:avi@tenagurot.com
>> Hirsch says something similar...

> I'm curious - I imagine you respect R' SR Hirsch as a talmid chacham
> worthy of respect. Would you also describe a teaching from R' Moshe as
> "Feinstein says...". Not that I think the way you described is really
> disrespectful. But I imagine you'd take umbrage if someone said
> "Elyashuv writes...", no? If you would find that problematic, isn't this
> equally so?

You have a point, and I suppose I should have written Rav Hirsch or RSRH,
but all my life he was always referred to as just "Hirsch" as casually as
you would say Rashi or Rambam--and not without respect, but just the opposite.

--Toby Katz

On 24 Dec 2003 at 18:08, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> When he realized what had happened, he trembled exceedingly because in one
> flash, the scales fell from his eyes. He suddenly realized that Rivka
> had been right all along--that he WAS easily deceived, and that Esav
> WAS no good. Therefore, in the very SAME pasuk, without hesitation,
> right after he told Esav that he had given the bracha to Yakov, he
> immediately added, "Gam baruch yi'heyeh." THE BRACHA STANDS.

> He could have revoked the bracha at that moment. After all, when he
> bentshed Yakov he had Esav in zinnen....                    Instead,
> he confirmed mida'as what he had first done shelo mida'as.

Rashi brings the Medrash that Yitzchak only said "gam baruch yihye" 
after he found out that Yaakov 'purchased' the bechora from Eisav; 
the brachos were apparently meant to go with the bechora. 

This also doesn't shtim with Yitzchak specifically giving Birkas 
Avraham to Yaakov (and not as part of these brachos). If Yitzchak was 
so completely fooled by Eisav, why wouldn't he have given Birkas 
Avraham to Yaakov as part of the first bracha? 

> The reason I said before that the charge of rechilus against Yitzchak
> is anachronistic is that the Chofetz Chaim's sefer had not been written
> yet in Yitzchak's day.

But the halachos applied.... And the rishonim all say that the avos
kept kol ha'Torah kula and do acrobatics regarding things that indicate
otherwise (Rav Asher Weiss has a chapter on it in Minchas Asher - Shiur
42 for those who have the sefer - in which he brings no less than eight
teirutzim as to how Yaakov could have married two sisters).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

On Areivim, Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> wrote:
>>Over the years, many people have suggested that hechsherim should turn
>> down applicants if the foods were not healthful, or not
>> environment-friendly, or don't meet whatever other worthy goal a person
>> has in mind.

> Eco-kosher, as it's known in certain circles.

>> My feeling has long been that rabbis should stick to their
>> area of expertise, which is kashrus.

> true -- but (an extreme case) if I wanted a hechsher on a bottle of poison,
> would you expect the Star-K to give me one?

> Or Pate de fois gras -- where the production involves Tzar Balei
> Chayim but the actual food is kosher -- is there such an inyan as
> "kosher al yedei avera"?

Anything that is for an actual purpose, rather than for the sake of
torturing the animal, or pure laziness, is not included in the issur
of Tzaar Baalei Chayim. It is even technically permitted to strip
feathers from a live chicken, if there are no other feathers to hand,
though actually doing such a thing wouldn't be consistent with the image
of Jews as "rachmanim" (cf Rema EH 5:14).

So the production of fois gras does not involve a problem of Tzaar
Baalei Chayim; the only questions about eating it are hilchot treifot,
which is definitely the province of a hechsher provider, and the wise
use of money, which is definitely *not*.

-- 
Zev Sero                    "I will do whatever the Americans want,
zsero@free-market.net       because I saw what happened in Iraq, and
                             I was afraid."
                                               - Muammar Gadaffi

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


[ 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         ]