Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 033

Friday, June 17 2005

• Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:41:57 -0500
• alarm clocks on Shabbat
• Re: When does mixed swimming mean?
• Kuntros HaSemicha - copy?
• ksv vs. kvs
• Where were all the firstborn?
• al chet ve'ayin
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: Sanhedrin Overturning a Previous Drash
• Re: daled, dalet
• Whats a rasha
• [Aspaqlaria] Different Parts of the Same Body
• Aaron's Menorah
• Re: Whats a rasha
• Re: Aaron's Menorah
• Aaron's Menorah

Nosson Sternbach wrote:  
>So I want to know if there are any examples of a real Halacha (rather
>then a minhag) that's learned from agadah.

The view of Rabbeinu Tam that there are two sunsets (the origin of the
72 minute view) derives from an aggadah in Pesachim as to the size of
the world, and its apparent inconsistency with the gemara in shabbat
34b. See Tosafot Shabbat 35a.

Shalom L. Kohn
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP

Shalom,

I came across a teshuva about this on Erev Hag while looking for something
totally different. RMF in Igrot Moshe O"Ch IV siman 70, part 6. He says
that if it is a quiet clock that will only be heard in the person's
room it's OK, but if it will be heard by others (even in the house)
it's forbidden.

Avi

R' Avroham Yakov asked <<< Is there any precise definition of what mixed
swimming is? >>>

This is a great example of something I often try to teach my kids, that
it is important to distinguish between a halacha and *applications*
of that halacha.

There is not, nor has there ever been, any prohibition of mixed swimming.

But by and large, most cases of mixed swimming will violate some
other halacha. Our job is to identify which halachos those are, and to
understand the parameters of those halachos.

As some others have already posted, in this example the relevant halachos
would be the prohibition against looking at people who are not dressed
properly, the prohibition against not dressing properly, prohibition
against associating in such situations, and the like.

<<< For example, if I am doing laps in a large pool and a woman enters
and swims on the other end, is that mixed swimming, etc.? >>>

Great example of what I'm talking about! The fact that she has entered the
pool is pretty irrelevant, I think. The situation is not much different
than if she'd be walking around outside the pool. In contrast, I can
see where someone might feel that a more relevant factor is whether or
not you're wearing your eyeglasses (presuming you're nearsighted, of
course). Having one's glasses on outside the pool and having a clear view
is a lot worse than being in the pool and unable to make out any details.

Akiva Miller

A friend of mine needs help finding a copy of "Kuntros HaSemicha"-
apparently an anthology of the correspondence surrounding The Mahari
Beirav's semicha.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks!
mendel

In Bereshis 30, Vayikra 1:10, 22:19 and Devarim 14:4, "kevasim" is
spelled with the Sin before the Vays. Outside of simple explanations
from ibn Ezra and Chizkuni who say the root is the same, does anyone
else have a more elaborate explanation ?

HG Schild
hgschild@yahoo.com

This question is from a good friend of mine, Ephraim Weinstein of
Monsey. But it has stumped me and everyone I've asked, so I'm hoping
the Avodah chevrah might have some ideas.

B'midbar 3:43 tells us that the census counted 603,350 men aged 20-60 in
Bnei Yisrael (not counting Shevet Levi). There were also an unspecified
number of men older than 60. And an unspecified number of the men who
were included in the census were unmarried, or were married but childless.

Given all that, I think it is reasonable to suppose that there were at
least 600,000 men who had at least one child. It is also likely that about
half of those men had a girl first, and about half had a boy first. Thus,
the census should have found around 300,000 firstborn males, at least.

But pasuk 3:43 says that there were only 22,273 firstborn males aged 30
days and up in all shevatim together.

Where are the other 280,000?

The census of the Leviim has a similar problem:

Psukim 3:22,27,34 give us a total of 22,300 Leviim, but that includes
everyone from 30 days and older, so it is not very useful for this
post. Instead, look at pasuk 4:48 which tells us that there were 8580
leviim aged 30 to 50. If they all had children, there would be over 4000
firstborn boys among them -- not to mention the firstborn Leviim whose
fathers were under 30 or over 50.

Yet Rashi on 3:39 tells us that there were only 300 firstborn among all
the Leviim.

Where are they all?

My only guess is that there was some catastrophe -- the plague of
darkness perhaps? -- in which a wildly disproportionate number of
firstborn died. But I can't remember ever hearing of such. Does anyone
have any ideas?

(BTW, several of the people I've posed this to have responded by referring
to the multiple births which were common in Mitzrayim. But I disagree
with that reasoning, because it is a comparison of firstborn children
to non-firstborn children, and we really have no idea how many children
there were. Even among the Leviim, where we know that the total of the
"30 days to 30 years" and "over 50 years" groups was 13,720 people,
you'd have to guess at how many were in each group, and 300 firstborn
boys would still be a surprisingly small number.)

Akiva Miller

SO perush rashi here: the gutteral semitic letter 'g and soft 'gh are two
separate sounds and most semitic alphabets (like arabic) differentiate
them. but they got assimlated into single written letters like ayin
(same phenomenon with Heth) because it seems the alphabets that were
used for the language did not have those sounds originally-- so the
closest letter was chosen and people just knew how to pronounce it--
like we know PSeudo (we have psi in English), couGH, we just know. Good
scholarly biblical dictionaries list Het I and Het II (the comon
convention today is to use a Greek chi [X] and spell Xet). Thus when
the Greek Septuagint transliterates 'yain 2 into Gaza and 'yin 1 into
Azariahu and since they DO have the letters to correspond to the sounds--
they use them. They are right-- we are not. without getting into details
we know when these spoken differentiations were lost. Origen, one of the
church fathers wrote his hexapla and in it he wrote the torah in hebrew
and transliterated the current pronunciation by using greek letters
too. note how shin and sin are identical and we differentiate by using
supernal dots-- but we can differentiate without the dots too. However,
Greek does not have a SH sound so they made do with Sabbath, although
Jews undoubtedly pronounced the Greek as Shabbath. Anyone familiar with
ashkenazi manuscripts knows when the cultural pronunciation shifts--
scribes start to make mistakes in their copying sholem instead of shalom,
samech and saf interchanges etc etc.

Artscroll hebrew is an atrocious invention and im not sure if it reflects
anything real. we tend to pretend aramaic follows hebrew syntacticasl
rules and over the ages the scribes have hebraicised the bavli just as
the babylonians babylonianized palestinian aramaic of the Galil into
babylonian forms. Hence its hard to know if targum didan (which we call
onkelos) is Eastern or Western at base.and of course our confusion over
bitul hametz, dela hamithei has support from machzor vitri although it
discards that nusaX as the main one-- it doesnt mention our babylonian
variant hazithei-- -- our present minhag is a mess confusing rashi and
tosafoth and eastern and western dialects. When I was in highschool
we had to take classical languages (yes, dayschools too) and dikduk
was really taught. Oh yes, we are still fighting the haskallah-- but
hazal had nothing against syriac (the aramaic closest to the bavli--
ramban quotes passages in syriac from hahmata [rabata] dishlomo), greek
(high percentage of it in mishna loan words) and latin (rare but there)
and praised each language for what it could express best.

Zvi Basser (in academic circles it is Tsvi, in frum circles Tzvi) but
I use Z(no subdot)vi as in german Zimmer, zwei,--- and zo on.

On 2 Jun 2005 Micha Berger wrote: 
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 08:33:02AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: The Rambam doesn't mean that divrei torah are only capable of healing
>: the soul not the body for if so, what's the issur of uttering pesukim
>: to try and heal someone? ...

> Being effective and being mutar are two different things, no? 

Yes. However, I did continue that passage as follows: "It can't be the
issur of lechisha because lechisha is a subset of chover and chover is
defined by the Rambam as words that are not part of any language and
don't have any intrinsic meaning i.e. mumbo jumbo. Therefore, he must
mean that it is assur to do because divrei torah are not to be misused
in this fashion. Divrei Torah are supposed to be a panacea for the soul;
by using them to expedite ones recovery from a makah, he is being michalel
the Torah..."

In the context of my discussion with RDR (could saying tehilim for healing
purposes actually be effective), what I had meant to say was that the use
of divrei Torah to heal a makah was prohibited for a different reason
than lechishah (veyeheyu chaim linafshecha) and thus did not have to
fall under the category of eino moil klum like lechisha. I didn't mean
to say that only ineffective incantations should be assur.

> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 02:23:10PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: I don't necessarily agree although you may be correct. Kishuf is a very
>: general term and to an extent, even the Rambam would have to admit that
>: it works as demonstrated with the chartumey mitzraim.....

> In Hil' AZ 11:16 the Rambam writes it was slight-of-hand. Even the issur
> is to use slight-of-hand to lead people religiously astray.

I'm sorry but that's not what the Rambam says. First of all, he never
even mentions the chartumey mitzraim in this perek. Second, in halacha 15
he says that one who practices kishuf is chayav sekila whereas achizas
einayim is only punishable by makas mardus. Incidentally, the kesef
mishna distinguishes between the achizas einayim mentioned with kishuf
which is only punishable by makas mardus versus achizas einayim mentioned
with me'onein (halacha 9) which is punishable by regular malkus.

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 I wrote:
>:> Lechishah is very distinctly described in the gemara as including
>:> reciting pesuqim.

> To which RSC commented (same email):
>: Not necessarily. I contend that the Rambam, and for sure the SA,
>: understood them as two distinct phenomena... 
>: The difference is that lechisha really doesn't work. It's just uttering
>: mumbo jumbo as opposed to certain sanctioned segulos such as kemios that
>: really do work. Lechisha is not thaumaturgy in the strictest sense because
>: lechisha is incapable of manipulating the forces of nature... 

> Given that RSR subsequently establishes that you were thinking of
> something the Rambam calls choveir, not lechishah, can we reopen this
> question? According to the Rambam (not RSC), what's the line between
> tefillah (avodas H' and effective), lechishah (sichlus and ineffective)
> and nechishah (assur)? 

I must have been unclear. My entire approach in this thread was stated as
peshat in the Rambam, not my own personal views. As far as your comment
above re choveir, I already addressed it but I will repeat.

The Rambam outlines several issurim related to lo selchu bichukos hagoy.
In halachah 4 and 5 he delineates the issur of nachash and brings a pasuk.
In halachah 6 & 7 he describes the issur of koseim and brings a pasuk.
In halachah 8 and 9, he defines the issur of me'onein and brings a pasuk.
In halachah 10 he outlines the issur of chover and brings a pasuk.

Only in this final halachah regarding chover does the Rambam mention the
ineffectiveness of its usage leading me to conclude that the Rambam felt
that only chover is strictly ineffective as opposed say, to kosem. Right
on the heels of this halachah, the Rambam brings the halachah of lachash,
states that it is eino moil klum, and brings no pasuk to support the
issur which lead me to my conclusion that lechisha is a subset of chover.

The truth is, the Rambam definitely felt that nachash, koseim and meonein
possessed at least some efficacy. There are several ra'ayos for this. The
Gra's ta'ana on the Rambam was limited only to lechisha which the Rambam
considered entirely ineffective.

Simcha Coffer

On 2 Jun 2005 Micha Berger wrote: 
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 08:33:02AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: The Rambam doesn't mean that divrei torah are only capable of healing
>: the soul not the body for if so, what's the issur of uttering pesukim
>: to try and heal someone? ...

> Being effective and being mutar are two different things, no? 

Yes. However, I did continue that passage as follows: "It can't be the
issur of lechisha because lechisha is a subset of chover and chover is
defined by the Rambam as words that are not part of any language and
don't have any intrinsic meaning i.e. mumbo jumbo. Therefore, he must
mean that it is assur to do because divrei torah are not to be misused
in this fashion. Divrei Torah are supposed to be a panacea for the soul;
by using them to expedite ones recovery from a makah, he is being michalel
the Torah..."

In the context of my discussion with RDR (could saying tehilim for healing
purposes actually be effective), what I had meant to say was that the use
of divrei Torah to heal a makah was prohibited for a different reason
than lechishah (veyeheyu chaim linafshecha) and thus did not have to
fall under the category of eino moil klum like lechisha. I didn't mean
to say that only ineffective incantations should be assur.

> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 02:23:10PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: I don't necessarily agree although you may be correct. Kishuf is a very
>: general term and to an extent, even the Rambam would have to admit that
>: it works as demonstrated with the chartumey mitzraim.....

> In Hil' AZ 11:16 the Rambam writes it was slight-of-hand. Even the issur
> is to use slight-of-hand to lead people religiously astray.

I'm sorry but that's not what the Rambam says. First of all, he never
even mentions the chartumey mitzraim in this perek. Second, in halacha 15
he says that one who practices kishuf is chayav sekila whereas achizas
einayim is only punishable by makas mardus. Incidentally, the kesef
mishna distinguishes between the achizas einayim mentioned with kishuf
which is only punishable by makas mardus versus achizas einayim mentioned
with me'onein (halacha 9) which is punishable by regular malkus.

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 I wrote:
>:> Lechishah is very distinctly described in the gemara as including
>:> reciting pesuqim.

> To which RSC commented (same email):
>: Not necessarily. I contend that the Rambam, and for sure the SA,
>: understood them as two distinct phenomena... 
>: The difference is that lechisha really doesn't work. It's just uttering
>: mumbo jumbo as opposed to certain sanctioned segulos such as kemios that
>: really do work. Lechisha is not thaumaturgy in the strictest sense because
>: lechisha is incapable of manipulating the forces of nature... 

> Given that RSR subsequently establishes that you were thinking of
> something the Rambam calls choveir, not lechishah, can we reopen this
> question? According to the Rambam (not RSC), what's the line between
> tefillah (avodas H' and effective), lechishah (sichlus and ineffective)
> and nechishah (assur)? 

I must have been unclear. My entire approach in this thread was stated as
peshat in the Rambam, not my own personal views. As far as your comment
above re choveir, I already addressed it but I will repeat.

The Rambam outlines several issurim related to lo selchu bichukos hagoy.
In halachah 4 and 5 he delineates the issur of nachash and brings a pasuk.
In halachah 6 & 7 he describes the issur of koseim and brings a pasuk.
In halachah 8 and 9, he defines the issur of me'onein and brings a pasuk.
In halachah 10 he outlines the issur of chover and brings a pasuk.

Only in this final halachah regarding chover does the Rambam mention the
ineffectiveness of its usage leading me to conclude that the Rambam felt
that only chover is strictly ineffective as opposed say, to kosem. Right
on the heels of this halachah, the Rambam brings the halachah of lachash,
states that it is eino moil klum, and brings no pasuk to support the
issur which lead me to my conclusion that lechisha is a subset of chover.

The truth is, the Rambam definitely felt that nachash, koseim and meonein
possessed at least some efficacy. There are several ra'ayos for this. The
Gra's ta'ana on the Rambam was limited only to lechisha which the Rambam
considered entirely ineffective.

Simcha Coffer

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:21:03PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> In Hil' AZ 11:16 the Rambam writes it was slight-of-hand. Even the issur
:> is to use slight-of-hand to lead people religiously astray.

: I'm sorry but that's not what the Rambam says. First of all, he never
: even mentions the chartumey mitzraim in this perek...

But he also discusses it on the mishnah AZ 4:7 (translation of Kafih's
edition by RHML at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n055.shtml#02>):
"Something that could have happened by chance, but is attributed to
these forces." And that's how the Ramban understands the Ramban, an
opinion that he then argues vehemently against.

As for issur, the Moreh 3:37 seems to include any action that attempts
to get some effect through means other than physically caused.

-mi

R Zev Sero wrote on Areivim:
> All "lo tasur" means is that until the Sanhedrin come to their senses,
> tefillin must be put on the right arm.  And every morning, someone who
> knows the truth may say, "I am ready to fulfil the mitzvah of 'lo tasur',
> by putting tefillin on my right arm, even though the Torah says to put
> it on the left; unfortunately I am not able to fulfil 'al yadecha',
> because 'lo tasur' overrides it".

There are limits to "lo sasur", though. Otherwise, Mes' Horios would be
even shorter!

I'm not sure tefillin arm qualifies, since "al yadekha" is
less than blatant. However it might. Hundreds of thousands
of pair of tefillin isn't the same thing as finding a single
tzitz. (Referring to the case given by RSCoffer back in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n013.shtml#01>.)

Tied into this is the question that if "al yadekha" means yad keihah is
a derashah, and Mamrim 2:1 allows a beis din to overrule an earlier one
on the grounds of a derashah, why wouldn't you be yotzei? Is it that one
follows the ruling of beis din either way, but they aren't defining din
if they violate mishnah Edios 1:4-5 or Rambam Hil' Mamrim 2? What does
that mean?

A related aside, an erratum: I recently posted
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n032.shtml#14> "13 Middos
she'ha'torah nidreshes ba'hem":
> And Rashi quotes a medrash found in Rus Rabba that "Moavi velo Moavis" was
> not darshened until Boaz.

Looking at a Mikra'os Gedolos over Shavu'os, I didn't see it in Rashi. It
/is/ in the Malbim, though. And in any case, the original source is
a chazal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In Avodah V15 #32, RnTK wrote re the letter "ayin":
> traces of its original guttural pronunciation are retained in two
> places

(<RMB-type Nit>"Ayin" or "a'yin"? ;-)</RMB-type Nit>)

Actually, at least two places. A third bit of evidence that it was
a vocalized consonant: dagaish qal in a following BGDKPT letter is
not elided.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Please forgive me for asking such a basic question, but I was wondering
according to the man'diamrim that the concept of a rasha exists in
today's time how dose a person c"v become one?

What I mean is if a person c"v did something that would make him a rasha
with the full halicik implications A.K.A. pasul adeus, dose he
Automatically become a rasha or
Dose it have to be proclaimed by a bais din that this person is a rasha? 

thank's 
Nosson Sternbach

We can draw a theme from parashas Bamidbar through the beginning of
Beha'alosekha.

In Beha'alosekha, Moshe and Aharon count the Jewish People "according
to their families, by their father's household" (1:2), divided by
sheivet. Sheivet is defined patrilineally. Membership in the Jewish
People as a whole is matrilineal, though. Why? We also find this asymetry
in a law mentioned later in that parashah -- pidyon haben. While the
father's oldest child gets twice the inheritance of his other children,
when it comes to the sanctity of the firstborn, and the need to redeem
it, it's the mother's firstborn that is holy.

We see a hint to the difference in a verse, "These are the children of
Moshe and Aharon; the children of Aharon are..." The medrash explains
that Aharon's children are the children of Moshe, their mentor, as
well. (Unlike Moshe's own children, who did not follow their father
as their mentor.) Fatherhood is captured by formal education. In fact,
the mitzvah of chinukh, formal education, falls only on the father.

Mothers inherently teach, whether they wish to or not. They are the ones
home, setting the tone that the children grow up within, the attitudes
they absorb preconsciously. Deeper than formal education, the exchange
of ideas, this is the exchange of culture, ideals, and values. In fact,
a command to provide this education, which would necessitate formal and
procedural "teaching" in order to fulfill this mitzvah, would get in
the way of the true transmission of the instinctive culture.

The difference is summed up by Shelomo haMelekh: "Shema beni mussar
avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha -- Listen, my son, to what your father
gives over, and do not abandon your mother's Torah." It's no coincidence
that Chazal tell us "Do not read 'toras imekha' but 'toras umaskha' -- the
Torah of your nation." Torah as orakh chaim, as the way the people live.

I analyze this aspect of things in more detail in Mesukim Midevash for
Bamidbar <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/bamidbar.pdf>. There are
two aspects to Oral Torah which affects our understanding of the decline
of generations in light of our progress to the messianic era, as well
as explaining the need for mussar and the other derakhim that emerged
in the late 18th and 19th centuries. I also wrote on this topic earlier,
in an entry titled "Fall of Mimeticism and Forks on the Hashkafic Road".
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/11/fall-of-mimeticism-and-forks-in.shtml>

But here I want to look at what it says about the nature of the
shevatim. We all share common values, which is why Jewishness is
matrilineal. Our roles, our assigned duties, are those of our sheivet,
and since this can be formally taught, it's patrilineal.

Parashas Naso continues this count down into the families of Leviim,
and describing their duties.

In his Shabbos morning derashah, R' Ron Yitzchak Eisenman (the rav of
my shul), repeated an interesting point he found in a seifer titled
Yalqut Shemu'el by R' Shmuel Fine, a rav in Detroit in the 1930s. Among
the coverings of the utensils of the Mishkan named when speaking of the
duties of the Leviim to carry them form place to place were ones made
of the leather of techashim. Tachash is the same kind of leather used
in the top layer of the Mishkan's roof. The word "tachash" is difficult
to translate. Some, following a comment in Yechezqeil that Hashem made
us shoes of tachash leather in the desert, identify it with an aquatic
animal, since Bedouins use that to make their shoes. Others translate it
as a "unicorn". The Targum Unqelus defines it as "sasgona", which the
gemara (Shabbos 28a) tells us is an animal that rejoices (sas) in its
many colors (gona). The Tankhuma (Terumah 6) says it has six (sheish -
sas) colors. Chazal also say the tachash was created once, just for the
Mishkan, which would fit the unicorn or the sasgona. (See Rabbi Nosson
Slifkin's Mysterious Creatures <http://www.yasharbooks.com/Creatures.html>
pp. 74-79 for a complete inquiry into the identity of the Tachash.)

The Yalqut Shemu'el asks why the animal used must be one that is sas,
rejoices, in his colors. The sasgona is not only a single creature of
diverse colors; it takes joy in its diversity! This is a key ingredient to
building the Mishkan and in fact of building any qehillah. We shouldn't
merely tolerate Jews of other stripes, we should rejoice in their
existence. Yahadus is stronger because we have Modern Orthodox Jews who
take that Judaism to the streets, Yeshivish ones who are constantly
raising the bar on the standards of Torah study, the chassidim who
breathed life into America's kashrus industry, the Zionists who secured
for us a homeland and the anti-Zionists who insure we don't worship it
as an end in itself. Within the four amos of halakhah we need multiple
expressions.

The tachash is not only identified with the sasgona, but also the
unicorn. A kosher animal that had one horn, one qeren. "Keren" also
means pride or power. As we say in Shemoneh Esrei "The sprout of David
should sprout soon, and he will lift his qeren for your redemption."
The tachash is not simply a plurality, it's a union of disparate parts,
a synergy to make one greater force, one inseparable being.

We must learn to look at other forms of Torah observance as "different
parts of the same body". Not to be tolerated despite their differences,
but loved because of them. All come from the same toras imekha, the same
basic worldview, values and aspirations. We differ, as did the shevarim,
in mussar avikha, in the formal layer of education after that, where we
learn our roles and where we fit in that greater mission.

This was the message Hashem gave Aharon in the beginning of parashas
Beha'alosekha. Chazal write that when the heads of the shevatim
brought their qorbanos (listed at the end of Naso), Aharon, whose
role included being the head of Levi, was pained at not being able
to participate. Hashem comforted him by pointing to the story of
Chanukah. The chanukas habayis, the consecration of the Beis haMiqdash,
by Aharon's descendents the Chashmona'im, was greater than the offerings
of the nesi'im. Why?

Each of the nesi'im brought what was physically the same offering.
However, each offering was distinct in intent. The Ramban itemizes the
allusions each nasi could find in the same offering that relate to his
particular tribe, to his particular ancestor. The offerings were colored
by mussar avikha, by each sheivet's particularist role.

Aharon is then told, "When you cause the menorah [flames] to go up,
toward the face of the menorah its lamps should burn." The menorah has
one central trunk, from which emerge six branches. The flame atop each
branch must point toward the middle. Each branch is a different wisdom,
a different skill-set. They all emerge from the same basic Torah, from
the mother-taught values that define our Jewishness. It is Aharon's job to
remind us that they also must be channeled back toward that central core.

We all work toward a common goal. Knowing that each of us are unique,
bringing unique thoughts and abilities, unique perspective and educational
background, leads us not only to realize the full value of our own part
in the greater whole (no man is "just another brick in the wall") but
to treasure the contributions of others because they are so different
than our own, and bringing something to the whole that we can't.

--
Posted by micha to Aspaqlaria at 6/15/2005 11:54:00 PM
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/06/different-parts-of-same-body.shtml>

I saw quoted in a "parasha sheet" in the name of the Sefas Emes al Shas
purportedly bring Zayit Reenan that the candles in the Menorah that Aaron
lit in the mishkan never were extinguished and he thus had to light the
Menorah only once.

I could not find this "inside" and would appreciate if someone could
point me to where this is stated in these or any sources

Chaim
hgschild@yahoo.com

on  Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:02:12 EDT Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
>See Choshen Mishpat Simon 34

you have not addressed the prob. the question was: what needs to
happen in order for someone to be considred a rasha that is posul from
testifiying. does the person just need to do the deed or does bais din
need to paskin that he is a rasha? or perhaps another way?

the rambam, shulchan aruch, Tor, shulchan aruch harav are all saying
what a person needs to do, not what needs to happen in order for this
person to become a rasha. of course a person who bais din allready said
was chaiv malkos or worse is a rasha and is pasul for testifiying with
all the laws that it entails.

sincerly, Nosson sternbach

H G Schild wrote:
> I saw quoted in a "parasha sheet" in the name of the Sefas Emes al Shas
> purportedly bring Zayit Reenan that the candles in the Menorah that Aaron
> lit in the mishkan never were extinguished and he thus had to light the
> Menorah only once.

This doesn't shtim with the Chazal (quoted by Rashi) that Aharon is
praised "shelo shinah" -- that he lit the menorah on his last day in the
same manner (usually darshened into the same freshness and enthusiasm)
as he did on the first. This implies far more than once.

:-)BBii!
-mi

> I saw quoted in a "parasha sheet" in the name of the Sefas Emes al Shas
> purportedly bring Zayit Reenan that the candles in the Menorah that Aaron
> lit in the mishkan never were extinguished and he thus had to light the
> Menorah only once.

> I could not find this "inside" and would appreciate if someone could
> point me to where this is stated in these or any sources

Here is from Midrash and Method on Tetsaveh.

Tetsaveh 5765 
And You command the Children of Israel...

Said R. Chanina the Segan (Kohen-in-Charge) of Kohanim: I was serving
in the Beis Hamikdash and a miracle took place with the Menorah. When
they lit it from Rosh Hashana it did not become extinguished until the
next year. Once olives did not produce oil. The Kohanim began to cry[1]
and R. Chanina Segan of Kohanim said: "I was in the Beis Hamikdash and
found Menorah burning more than what it was burning all the days of the
year (Tanchuma, Tetsavah, 3)".

From standpoint of Halacha this midrash is quite difficult for it
appears to state that the Menorah in the Temple was lit only once a
year. This contradicts the account in Bavli (Shabbos 22b-23a) that
all lamps were cleaned every day and if any candle was still burning,
it was extinguished, cleaned and relit with new oil. In addition, how
is the daily mitsva of lighting the menorah fulfilled, if it is lit but
once a year?

Several possible answers suggest themselves. Ultimately, one faces a
method question of when to allegorize difficult midrashim, such as this
one. One must resist the temptation to jump to derush for by resorting
to homiletics too quickly it is easy to overlook much simpler and better
answers. That not only shortchanges the learner and the passage but
opens one to charges of insufficient respect for sacred texts and can
even expose one to ridicule.

1. This midrash disagrees with the Bavli and represents an alternative
Tannaitic opinion. In other words, it holds an opinion that there is no
daily mitsva to light the menorah lamps and that some lamps, at the very
least the western one, burned for a prolonged periods of time without
refilling the oil or relighting. There are other Midrashic passages that
support this supposition, such as this one.

Before Hashem forever. You may think that they burn forever? It teaches,
"from evening to morning". You may think that the lamps burn forever-
It teaches, "from evening to morning". If "from evening till morning, you
may think that one should extinguish them (if they are still burning in
the morning)? It teaches: "there should burn seven lamps - from morning
to evening. Before Hashem always - this is the western light, that the
western light burned would burn so that the other lights were lit from it
(Sifri beginning of B'Ha'laoscha[2]).

This is understood by the commentary Zeis Ra'anan[3] as saying that
there exists a prohibition to extinguish lamps as long as they are still
burning. This implies that there is no mitzvah of daily lighting[4] for
as long as a lamp is still burning, it must be allowed to continue to
burn. These midrashim also appear to say that the western lamp burned
forever, both of these points in contradiction to the Bavli. The
difficulty with these suggestion is that it postulates a "new"
disagreement among Tannaim that was not noted or commented on by any
Rishon, to my knowledge.

2. Torah Shelema # 93, Tetsave cites two suggestions from a manuscript
by R. Yudel Hatsarfati
    1. Only the Western lamp never went out.
    2. They fulfilled the mitsva of daily lighting by daily exchanging
       the wick.

In the same vein, Mikraei Kodesh (Chanuka 7 and 8) by R. Tsvi Pesach
Frank attempts to resolve these problems through bringing to bear Talmudic
brilliance upon the problem. It tells that R. Chaim Soloveitchik asked of
this midrash to the Gerer Rebbe: "How did they fulfill the daily mitsva
of lighting the menorah"? The Gerer Rebbe answered: "They added a drop of
oil every day, as the Bavli states in Betsah 22 - "One who adds oil to a
lamp on Shabbos is culpable". This suggestions suffers from a number of
logical and textual difficulties which R. Frank's discusses in length.[5]

3. Certainly, the gates of interpretation are not locked. One may
understand R. Chanina's statement as a parable that contains a moral
lesson, not a literal description of what took place in the Temple. It is
not uncommon for aggadic statements to take the form of personal testimony
and still be a parable - witness the fantastic stories of Rabbah Bar
Channa (Bava Basra 73a -75), that open with "One time I was.... Perhaps,
the teaching contained within our midrash uses the Chinuch (lighting)
of Menorah as a symbol of Chinuch (education) of a child, in the spirit,
"everything follows the foundation, whether in regard to good or to evil
(Midrash Shmuel 3, 24).[6]"

We often tend to think that it is the later years, adolescence and
young manhood, that are formative. It is in these years after all,
that a man acquires most of his knowledge and approach to life and forms
his individual personality and character. "It is, however, an error, to
think so", says R. Chanina. On the contrary, it is that initial lighting,
the warmth and the fire with which love of Torah and Judaism was lit -
the education in early childhood, that lasts forever. There occur in life
times and periods when the olives do not produce oil, when impure fuels
promise a brighter and happier light. At such times, says R. Chanina,
it is that that initial fire that will sustain you.

Not infrequently the keepers of the flame are reduced to tears and
despair, when the olives fail to produce pure oil. "Fear not", says
R. Chanina, to the keepers of the flame, " do not weep for the initial
lighting is the one that determines. It will continue to keep burning
our inner light, even when the oil runs out."

Is R. Chanina's statement a parable rather than a straightforward
description of what took place in the Temple? It is hard for us to know;
presumably the Tannaim and Amoraim recognized conventions of their time
and place and would have had no difficulty in knowing how to approach
statements such as these. Whenever possible literal explanations should
be sought. Nevertheless, homiletic interpretation should not be easily
abandoned when we are faced with a Midrashic passage that directly
contradicts factual statements found in the Talmud - for that may truly
be its intent.

[1 Other variants have "began to extinguish", in other words, they
started to put out the menorah lamps as they would do every Rosh Hashana
in order to relight it again.

[2 Our Sifri appears to have a truncated version of this beraisa, which
is, however, brought whole in Raqmban and Rashbo, see Netsiv's commentary
to Sifri.

[3 Quoted by Mikraei Kodesh, see later. Unfortunately I had not been
able to find where this commentary says this.

[4 See Meiri and Ritva to Shabbos 22b and R. Gershom to Menachos 86b
for a discussion whether lamps must be extinguished and re-lit daily.

[5 One distinction from the Sabbath laws that he does not present
(although he does discuss a similar objection) is that on Sabbath adding
oil prolongs or improves the process of burning while in the case of
the Menorah in which the oil burns miraculously anyway, the additional
oil does not add anything to the process of burning.

[6 See Tosafos Chagiga 15a for a story how Acher's early education lead
to his embracing heresy later in life.

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


[ 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         ]