Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 069

Monday, August 15 2005

• spiders
• malchus/medina
• Re:Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• re: hefker
• hefker (had been: Haschalas Gemara)
• Kiddush Levana
• Airplane davening times
• re: shiurim on Tisha bav
• Re: Har Habayit
• Re: Har Habayit
• re:chaveirim
• Chassidus, Misnagdus, Mussar, and now TIDE
• Re: melech
• Some Theology
• Re: Kiddush Levana
• Re: TIDE Redux
• Re: Some Theology

I haven't been following the discussion too closely but re the source
for the spider saving David ha-melekh:

1. Targum to Teh 57:3
Academics are not sure when exactly this whole targum was done, but most
date it to sometime between 4-6th cens. Realize, though, that a specific
comment may have been added in much later. Not too many rishonim seem
to know of a targum to Tehillim but the Arukh (d. ca. 1110) quotes it
(although not specifically on the spider) so we assume it was completed
by then.

2. Alphabet of Ben Sira (in the Yasif ed pp. 237-239)
Medieval work. E Yasif estimates its date to about the late 9th-early
10th cen. (Incidentally, Yasif also cites a version of the story
involving R Nahum Ish Gimzo!)
In neither of these two sources is the idea of "not killing a spider"
found. Although of course, it is easy to see from where such an
implication derives.

3. The theme of a spider saving the life of a great man by spinning a
web around a cave is found in other literatures as well: namely, Indian,
Japanese, African, and most importantly, Moslem sources. Who influenced
whom literarily, or whether they were both influenced by a third source,
and indeed the historicity of the account in general, is a matter of
speculation.

be-nehemat Tsiyon vi-Yerushalayim
Yisrael Dubitsky

>> In the Israeli system, the prime minister is not sovereign, the
>> government is. (This is unlike the US, where the president has clearly
>> delineated powers which are separate from those of Congress.) Therefore,
>> in Israel, the prime minister is not the melech; the government is.
>> Moreover, as Israel is a democracy, the system of government includes
>> participation by the citizenry.

>I find this to be faulty reasoning and intellectually dishonest in its
>approach. You're saying that there is a malchus but no melech. There is
>no such thing as a kingdom without a king/queen. But even if there were
>such a thing, you are going back and forth and bending logic to reach
>your conclusion. If there is a malchus then democracy is irrelevant
>because (correct me if I'm wrong but..) a melech cannot be mochel his
>kavod, so the fact that the democratic system allows for descent, a
>malchus, according to the Torah does not allow for that. Either it's
>one or the other.

My understanding of the position is that, when Malchus Beis David fails
(as at present) the malchus reverts to the people. I had a feeling the
Ran said this explicitly somewhere in his chiddushim (but I can't seem
to find a secondary reference to it now, and I don't have his chiddushim
in my library).

A primary source though where you can see this concept somewhat discussed,
is the Ramban on Shevuos 30a - where in discussing the case of Devorah
he notes that "the people acted with one another in regard to her k'din
malka, and even though it says in the Sifri upon the pasuk you will surely
place upon yourself a king, melech v'lo malka - nohagin hayu k'din malka,
i' nami mekablin hayu d'vreya b'rozonum."

Many have understood this and similar sentiments in the Rishonim to mean
that if the people (ie democracy) are mekabel a particular person upon
themselves as a melech - that person then has the status of melech,
even if such person were intrinsically to be posul to be a melech
(as Devorah was by virtue of her sex). And that if an individual
were to go against the community and reject that person as a melech,
then they would be mored b'malchus. BUT, that status of melech of
the person would only last for as long as the people in general were
mekabel, if they stopped being mekabel then that person would stop being
melech, meaning that an individual would not longer be mored b'malchus.
(This is s opposed to a melech beis David, where it does not matter what
the people in general or in particular are mekabel.)

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

RZL
>position of a pulpit rabbi as a livelihood. One may entertain a new shitta
>that pits accepting money for educational and pastoral duties together
>with other forms of "work" against accepting money for academic Torah
>research, but one may not ascribe this distinction to the Rambam.

This distinction does not occur in the rambam. However, if you look
at later poskim, they argue that while lecatchila the rambam is right,
given the issue of public need for talmide chachamim, we allow it - and
therefore the issue of public need becomes the basis for not following
the rambam - even if the rambam is accepted lecatchila.

>Butwhy the outcry when the subject of study is Torah, and the admiration
>when the subject of non-economic value is not Torah?

Because part of the problem (according to the rambam ) is precisely
the notion of accepting money puts torah study on the same level as
all other occupations - and therefore denigrates torah study. It is
precisely because torah study is on a higher level than the study of
Shakespeare that one should not financially support it - and it is only
that we have become so accustomed to supporting torah study financially
that we are not shocked by the casual equating of the two.

Yeshaya Lebovitz z"l recounts a conversation he had with Shai Agnon, where
Shai Agnon asked why the torah, which had been accepted and supported
by am yisrael for thousands of years, is now being abandoned - and RYL
said that the problem was that torah become talmud torah - an occupation
just like any other. While this oversimplifies,it has much truth.

>One should distinguish between public support and family support. It
>is worth remembering that the Rambam himself attained his Torah greatness
>through his brother's financial support for his full-time learning.

I think that this statement misrepresents the halachic issues involved.
The rambam codifies certain ways in which it is permissible to support
torah study. One way is to help in investments -someone may take
equity from a scholar and invest it and not charge for the labor - or,
as in the rambam's case, take equity, invest it in merchandise, sell it,
and not give the scholar the profits without charging.

The rambam's brother ran the family business - and therefore invested
the equity of the rambam for him in the business and gave him his return.
When his ship went down, the rambam lost not only his brother, but also
his business agent and the equity invested - and therefore had to work.
There is nothing to suggest that the rambam would agree that the family
should support an adult torah student - except in helping him invest
his share in the family wealth.

>Again, one must properly understand the Rambam's shitta, and understand
>it in proper context. We must remember that his paradigm was that of
>one who devotes but three hours a day to parnassa, and nine hours to
>Torah study (Hilchos Talmud Torah, 1:11). Ascribing to the Rambam the
>recommendation of "part-time learning," accompanied by a full-time job,
>is most inaccurate. 

This is, I think, inaccurate. The rambam recommended that part of
being a talmid chacham was the ability to be satisfied with little -
and devoting as much time to study as possible. He also recognized that
this was not possible for the broader community. However, the issue
of how much time one has to devote to parnasa depends on many factors -
and therefore no one rule applies - except that it is preferable to work
full time with no study rather than to take charity.

>The Kessef Mishnah, author of the Shulchan Aruch, gave a point-by-point
>rebuttal of the Rambam's arguments against accepting public money for
>Torah activities. This rejection of the Rambam's strongly expressed shitta
>was the normative, mainstream attitude which, in opposition to the Rambam,
>saw no objection to Torah educators and rabbis accepting salaries and,
>in theory if not in practice, Torah scholars accepting stipends.

Again, I think a misstatement.  
There are several different ways one can view supporting rabbis.
1. It is part of kavod hatora for the community to support the torah.
2. It is something that we would rather not do, but because of communal
necessity we do it.
3.  It is something that is completely assur.

The Kesef Mishne, after several attempted rebuttals, ends up conceding
that the rambam is right lecatchila - but that the torah community
would not survive and not have leaders if there wasn't support - and
therefore this was allowed bdieved. This position - that the rambam was
right lecatchila, but bdieved we allow the support, was the real norm (
at work don't have - but look in yore dea and the rama and nose kelim)
- the preferred mode was for the torah scholar to be independent - the
question was if that was not possible, what type and modes of support
was permissible - and the majority opinion was that it was actually quite
limited (eg, schar batala and related ideas) . there are a few acharonim
who go the other way, and believe that the honor of torah is manifested
in the support given by the community, but most view the rambam as right
lecatchila - the question is what to do given social realities.

Therefore, there are many discussions about the nature of support,
that the support has to be voluntary, etc etc..

Even such stalwarts of the kollel community such as the hazon ish and
the chofetz chaim held halacha lema'ase that one should avoid public
support if possible - as evidenced by their own refusal of such support
and attempts to live through their own labor.

 What has happened more recently that the kollel movement has changed
 this normal priority - and (especially in Israel) developed a communal
 model based on the entire community not working - something that is
 very much against mainstream halacha.

Meir Shinnar

R Zvi Lampel wrote:
> I've heard 2 understandings of hefker... The seemingly more common
> approach is that... it is now truly ownerless...The other approach is
> my being mafkir it just makes it available for you to take ownership
> but until you do, it's still mine.... Has anyone heard this 2nd approach.

K'tzot Ha'choshen 273 seif 1, discusses these two possibilities. The
background is the Rambam & SA ruling that a person is forbidden to go
back on hefker from the din of Neder. The Ktzot asks: if it's not his
anymore why is it assur only because of nedder? The only thing he could
do is do a kinyan again to get it back.

It seems that the source of the two different understandings are in a
Rashi tosafot dispute in B"M 12. See all the details in the ktzot there

Avi Mansura

Fri, 5 Aug 2005 (Avodah 15:66) "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com> wrote:
> I've heard 2 understandings of hefker... The seemingly more common
> approach is that... it is now truly ownerless...The other approach is
> my being mafkir it just makes it available for you to take ownership
> but until you do, it's still mine.... Has anyone heard this 2nd approach.

I responded:
> I haven't (FWIW). But off the cuff, according to the second approach, how
> would be making my chometz hefker help me on Pesach, if it's still mine?

Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:29:22 +0000 R. Avrohom Weidberg responded:
> Perhaps you mean the shitta of R' Yosi who, according to one explanation,
> holds that hefker is like matana. See TB Nedarim 43a.

And others on list and off have pointed out that this shitta requires a
bittul, not just a hefker, as is indeed formulated in the kol chamira. RMB
further pointed out the unusual situation of chometa ownership on Pesach
in the first place, and linked us to an involved discussion on the
matter by YGB. So I guess my as-stated "off the cuff" observation was not
really worth much (as far as the stated FWIW is concerned) but as usual,
Avodah provided a very informative discussion thanks to R. Joel Rich's
question. Y'yashar Ko'chachah, Avodah!

The only thing left is the RJR had also asked for philisophical
explanations of the second approach to hefker (=s that of R. Yossi in
Nedarim 43a?).

Zvi Lampel  

A gentleman of my acquaintance came to me most agitated this morning
because he had seen people saying kiddush levana last night (i.e.,
in the nine days, so as not to lose the opportunity).

I told him I had seen this practice done by choshuveh rabbanim, but to
his request for a printed source, I had no answer.

Anyone?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The chart at www.zemanim.org <www.zemanim.org> reflects the time on
the ground at the same coordinates as the plane (interestingly they
say this is for simplicity and practical purposes) but notes it's
a machloket haposkim as whether the time is based on an airborne or
grounded observation. R' Moshe (O"C 3:96) doesn't seem to address
this. Does anyone know marei mkomot on this issue?

KT
Joel Rich

Tzitz Eliezer vol. 10 siman 25 ch. 16 seif 2 discusses this. He brings
the M"B in Beur Halacha (O"Ch 554) that says one should eat less than
ka'shiur on Tisha b'av. On the other hand the SA implies that there is
no need for this and so rules A"H.

Our Ashkenazi posek in Alon Shevut (R. Y"Z Rimon) told my wife when she
was pregnant a few years ago to drink less than shiur, but I heard ROY's
Motzei Shabbat shiur in which he explicitly said that on Tisha B'av there
is no need to eat less than shiur. Maybe this is a sefardi/Ashkenazi
difference.

Avi Mansura

R' Yisrael Medad wrote: <<< ... Rav Yehiel Michel Tuchachinsky wrote,
... that in this pre-Ben Davidic period, we will be able to build
synagogues on the Har Habayit ... >>>

R' Micha Berger commented <<< In contrast to RYBS, who recommended that
if you really want to put a kvitl into the kotel (not that he saw the
point), to do it using a pen. That kedushas Har haBayis extended ad ve'ad
bikhlal to the walls. Even within 1,500 feet of the southern corner. >>>

Are these two arguing on each other? Isn't the simplest interpretation
that they are both talking about portions of Har Habayis which are
outside of the Beis Hamikdash? That Rav Tukachinsky limits those shuls
to people who are tahor except for tumas mes, and that Rav Soloveitchik
is speaking about people who have all sorts of tumah?

Akiva Miller

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:12:30AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger commented <<< In contrast to RYBS, who recommended that
: if you really want to put a kvitl into the kotel (not that he saw the
: point), to do it using a pen. That kedushas Har haBayis extended ad ve'ad
: bikhlal to the walls. Even within 1,500 feet of the southern corner. >>>

: Are these two arguing on each other? Isn't the simplest interpretation
: that they are both talking about portions of Har Habayis which are
: outside of the Beis Hamikdash? ...

I didn't think that included the kotel plaza and the room on the side of
the kotel -- event as it existed when RYBS was speaking He was speaking
pragmatically. Where else would RYBS have assumed his talmidim would
try to stick kvitlach?

-mi

<<On a well known blog there was discussion of a post mashiach world
including chaverim and amei haaretz. Does anyone know how this actually
worked in the past?>>

<I don't know about the past. I was jarred by the idea it would exist
in the future. With everyone sitting under their fig trees or by their
grape vines learning Torah, who would be an am ha'aretz?>

In the context of chaverim, "am ha'aretz" does not mean ignorant. It
refers to one who has not accepted the way of life of chaveirim (care in
ma'asros and in tahorah). After all, if an am ha'aretz accepts chaveirus,
he doesn't thereby suddenly become knowledgable, yet he is no longer an
am ha'aretz.

EMT

As per Reb Gershon Seif's request, here is my attempt at incorporating
TIDE into the table:

<http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/08/chassidus-misnagdus-mussar-and-now.html>

I realise most people will not get to see the post to which you are
responding, because the moderators have rejected it from Areivim on the
grounds that they want it posted to Avodah, and it is not easy for me
to access it to resend, so, like a number of my posts in recent times
it will end up nowhere.

I notice you too have responded to areivim, but given that I can't seem
to get anything posted there, I will try responding on avodah (and then
people wonder why I prefer to spend time on mail-jewish!)

Quoting Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>:
> Chana Luntz wrote:

>> The primary argument why dina d'malchusa dina does not apply in 
>> Eretz Yisroel is predicated on goyishe kings either not having 
>> rights in the land of Eretz Yisroel (like they have rights in the 
>> land of their own countries) and/or not being entitled to din melech 
>> in Eretz Yisroel in the same way they are permitted to rule in other 
>> places.

> No.  The primary argument why "dina demalchuta" isn't enforceable in EY
> is that it's based on the premise that the king owns the land (based on
> kibbush milchama), and has the right to evict anyone whom he doesn't
> want there, and so he has the right to impose whatever laws he likes,
> just as any property owner may make house rules.  If you don't like his
> rules, get off his property.

That, as I thought I made clear even in the exerpt quoted above, is
just one of the reasons given in the rishonim for dina d'malchusa dina.
RHS in his article lists, I believe, five different bases (although it
has been a while since I read it). You can argue about whether there
are more, but it is a brave man who states that this is "the" reason,
and ignores other rishonic opinion.

> Since nobody - not even David Hamelech
> himself - has the right to evict a Jew from EY, it follows that "dina
> demalchuta" has no force in EY, no matter who the king is.  (I'd never
> heard of this shita that it applies to Jewish kings in EY, but not to
> goyishe ones, until just now.)

The thing is, the right for a Jewish king to take land to build his
highways is explicit in the posuk where Shmuel warns the people of the
consequences of having a king. So it is, at least in some form, a part
of din melech.

If you hold that dina d'malchusa dina is based on the reason you cite
above, ie the ownership of the land, then you have to hold that the right
of a goyishe king to take land outside of Eretz Yisroel and the right of
a Jewish king to take land are independent, based on two seperate dinim.

On the other hand if you hold that dina demalchusa dina is not
fundamentally based on the ownership rights of the non Jewish king,
but based on the Torah given right for non Jews to have kings (remember
the Jews appoint kings "like the other nations" according to the pasuk)
then in fact the powers of the non Jewish king vis a vis his subjects
can be argued to be linked to the powers as a Jewish king vis a vis his
subjects (as enumerated in Shmuel) ie the source of authority is the same.

> Nowadays, at least in Western countries, governments do not have the
> power to expel their own citizens.  The dominant principle is that the
> land belongs, not to the government, but to the citizens, and no citizen
> may be expelled from his own country - exactly the principle that the
> halacha has always held WRT Jews and EY.  It follows, therefore, that
> according to this shita DMD doesn't apply anywhere any more.

Even according to the position that dina d'malchusa dina is based on
the non-Jewish king's ownership rights, I do not see that the ability to
expell from the country was ever the issue. The government does have the
right to take away your house if it wants to use that land for something
else (and it may not be something that you or the Torah deems important).
It may, constitutionally (in most Western Countries) have the obligation
to compensate you with money - but that is a different matter. I as a
private individual do not have the right to ever get you off your land
without your consent, no matter how much money I am willing to pay, the
government does, and that it because it, on behalf of it's citizens (at
least in the US - in England in fact it is technically on behalf of the
Crown, but the Crown only acts, by dint of the unwritten constitution,
for the benefit of its citizens) can be viewed as ultimately having the
ownership rights of every piece of land.

In fact the theory that it is based on expulsion rights would seem to
be a bit strange - if the king in question was a king of a completely
isolated island, so that expulsion was in fact physically impossible -
does that mean dina d'malchusa dina would not apply?

In contrast, in Eretz Yisroel, there are Torah given rights of inheritance
that can, up to a point, be argued even with a king, even where that king
is offering money (as Achav was, don't forget, he was pressuring for
a sale not a gift). How that fits in with din melech is of course the
question, but if you hold that dina d'malchusa dina is independent of
din melech, and is based on absolute rights to confiscate land (albeit
with compensation) then you can get to a position that dina d'malchusa
dina does not necessarily apply in Eretz Yisroel.

Regards
Chana

>Forget about ... as he is nothing more than a puppet fulfilling Hashem's
>will and has hardened his heart and blocked his ears as well.

Should that have read? -
"He is nothing more than a puppet fulfilling Hashem's will and [Hashem]
has hardened his heart and blocked his ears as well."

If so, may we conclude that the act, if it succeeds, is Hashem's will? If
so, may we then say "Gam zu l'tovah?"

YGB

In a message dated 8/11/05 5:58:27pm EDT,  gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> A gentleman of my acquaintance came to me most agitated this morning
> because he had seen people saying kiddush levana last night (i.e.,
> in the nine days, so as not to lose the opportunity).

The Piskei Tshuvos 551 footnote # 163 brings that the Maaseh Rav of the
GR"A and the Oruch Hashulchan 551:22 are Mifakfeik in the ruling of the
Rama since Mitzva Haba Lyadcha Al Tachmitzena and he concludes that none
the less in a place that there are a lot of clouds and there is Chashash
that they won't be able to be M'kadeish not to wait.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> This is also a potential difference between TIDE and TuM. TuM's more
> academicly oriented "mada" leads one to ivory towers, not grass roots
> humanism.

While I agree that TIDE is more utilitarian I do not concede that the
ivory tower of Mada precludes humanism when it is combined with the
necessary component of Torah as is the very concept of TuM. In this
context (at least theoretically) it surpasses TIDE because it has the
best and the brightest of both Torah and Mada to develop a moral and
practical guide to human activity incorporating all of human knowledge.

Mada by itself has no inherent ethos. It is merely a discipline to be
studied for its own sake... simply to attain knowledge. But in the
context of Torah uMadda it becomes the best of all possible worlds.
The ivory tower becomes the "laboratory" of human activity. It is the
ivory tower wherein theories of behavior are developed and models of
behavior are created. With Torah as the quintessential guide, Mada is
perforce eminently humanistic. Of course, without a moral foundation
of which the Torah is the penultimate guide, Mada can be abused and
perverted as it was by the Nazis.

HM

R' Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer:
>>Forget about ... as he is nothing more than a puppet fulfilling Hashem's
>>will and has hardened his heart and blocked his ears as well.

>Should that have read? -
>"He is nothing more than a puppet fulfilling Hashem's will and [Hashem]
>has hardened his heart and blocked his ears as well."

Yes.

>If so, may we conclude that the act, if it succeeds, is Hashem's will? If
>so, may we then say "Gam zu l'tovah?"

Yes, if it succeeds, it must be Hashem's will that it do so. I don't
know whether we would say gam zu l'tovah -- maybe it is more accurate
to say Baruch Dayan haEmes? What did those who lived through the churban
say when they saw the Temple burning?

 --Rena

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


[ 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         ]