Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 078

Monday, September 12 2005

• Rabbi Shalom Gold's Response
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Mitzvah L'Kayem Divrei Hames
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• An Age Old Issue
• torat erertz yisrael
• Re: Dina D'Malchusa Dina
• Torah & Evolution
• Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Re: Reb Yehuda ben Billom!!
• Parpisa
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• Re: cheating on taxes
• Re: Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• Shiur of Rav Motti Elon on the churban of Gush Katif
• Destroying shuls
• Re: Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel

Dear Yisrael:

First some brief words of clarification for those who were not happy
with my remarks.
I did not act with disrespect to anyone. In fact I didn't even deal with
the substsnce of Rav Aaron's letter at all.
He asked what R Shapiro would say to a talmid of the Rav etc.etc.
What I wrote was how " I " would respond to any talmid of the Rav. 
I wasn't being polemic . 
I was simply saying to that talmid that one had to be very careful before
ascribing positions to a Torah giant without absolute certainty that
that would indeed be his position under " today's " circumstances. This
to me is reason enough to be passionate.
I did not learn in YU ( as did my 2 older brothers R. Yosef a'h and y'blch
R. Shmuel Gold of Petah Tikva ) but I consider myself a talmid of the Rav.
This was the first time I had read a quote of the Rav's position that
was "authentic" --from the most reliable source: RAL. I took this as
an opportunity to analyze this quotation of the Rav's position , by asking
his talmidim if this position was indeed applicable to today's situation.
Many talmidim who were close to the Rav responded saying that they could
imagine the Rav saying what I expressed in my letter.
This to me is proof that I have touched an important chord.

To all
K"tiva V"chatima Tova
Sholom Gold

--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Israel

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> the Rambam
> states, "And in his hand was a vast amount of money for me, for him, and
> for others (u-b'yado mammon rav li, v'lo, u-l'acheirim)."
>  <snip>
> Sheilat (p. 228) misunderstands the Rambam's Hebrew, for he takes it as
> if the Rambam wrote "mammon rav shelli, shello, v'shel acheirim (a vast
> amount of money of mine, of his, and of others),"

I think Rabbi Sheilat is correct here.  Several points:

1. Earlier in the same letter the Rambam mentions that he had lost
capital ("hefsed mamon"), not merely foregone income.

2. Later in the same letter the Rambam implies that he had assumed
financial support of his brother's widow and daughter, thus implying that 
his brother's estate had been devastated.

3. In the final paragraph of PHM Avoth 4:6 (ed. Sheilat p. 70) the
Rambam lists trading with a scholar's capital as a permissible means of
supporting a scholar. As far as I know the Rambam never mentions being
supported by a family member as permissible.

4. The Rambam several times mentions that Hebrew grammar changes with
time (e.g. PHM Terumoth 1:1, ed. Kafih, p. 167, introduction to SHM,
ed. Frankel, p. 10). I'm not sure that Rabbi Lampel is correct in his
assertion that "li" means "intended for me", but I suspect that in
Medieval Hebrew (especially in Arab lands) the writing of "li" for
"sheli" was not a cause for raised eyebrows.

David Riceman 

OK, my first attempt came out as gibberish, so here is attempt no. 2:

The gemara in Gittin (14b) discusses the concept of "mitzvah l'kayem
divrei hames" in the context of whether an agent is required to carry out
the wishes of the principal after the death of the principal. However,
I was unable to find any source for this "mitzvah" brought anywhere
in the rishonim or acharonim. I would think that the word "mitzvah"
is not being used here in the classical sense as a Torah commandment,
but in either case, does anyone have a source for this concept? Thanks.

RZL rwrote
> I had noted in my post that the Rambam's objection to accepting public
> monies for Torah pursuits referred not only to those learning Torah, but
> to university professors of Talmud and pulpit rabbis as well. Therefore,
> I stated, one cannot use the Rambam's shittah to place professors and
> rabbis together with those who "work for a living," and contrast them
> to those who "just sit and learn." I further called attention to the
> fact that people tend to look down on those who accept public monies to
> "just sit and learn," while they look up to people who are paid by public
> funds for purely non-Torah oriented academic work and "occupy themselves
> in research." I asked, "Why the outcry when the subject of study is Torah,
> and the admiration when the subject of non-economic value is not Torah?"

(For some reason, I am not getting avodah regularly, so this is delayed)

1. I don't know any source in the rambam or any other rishon/acharon that
would forbid getting monies for studying shakespeare, math, economics,
medicine, history (for those who would permit such studies..). The issue
is studying torah (and even though the rambam might include some of these
subjects under torah, I don' think it would qualify under his issur).

2. Very few people are paid to sit and learn any subject (graduate school
is limited - and even there, competition for fellowships is strong).
People are paid for teaching others, and for doing work that increases
the knowledge - and the quality of their work is judged by others in a
competitive fashion. That has been discussed by others previously.

<Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> 10 Aug 2005
>> 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."

>His response ignores my argument. My question clearly was not on the
>Rambam's shittah, but on people's attitude today. I cannot believe that
>anyone would seriously suggest that today the reason people object to
>the idea of kollel stipends is because they hold a higher respect for
>Torah than for other scholarly pursuits. (The idea of "parasites" more
>readily comes to mind.) The proof: they don't have the same objection
> to pulpit rabbis being paid by their congregations.

I think that this shows a misunderstanding. If torah is important, then
people should study it for its own - and asking money to do what one
should do one one's own denigrates torah - (or at the least, shows that
the people asking money don't have respect for torah) - and puts it at
the same level as any other undertaking. That is quite a common attitude.

The issue of the communal rabbi is again a misunderstanding. Communal
rabbis aren't being paid to learn. They are being paid to be available
for their communities - to function in multiple roles, primary one of
a chaplain, but also as posek, perhaps as teacher. Payment is being
made for their being available to the community - not because they are
sitting and learning - the notion of schar batala is operative (even if
many in the community may not formulate it as such). People understand
the need for people who serve the community. It is the perception that
anyone who sits and learns performs such a service that is resisted.

>My point was that people tend to fudge the Rambam's words with their own
>objections and attitudes. RMS sort of admits that the distinction people
>make is not the Rambam's. (Actually, he puts it, "this distinction does
>not occur in the Rambam." But it's not that the Rambam failed to state
>it; he explicitly holds a different distinction altogether.) Yet he too
>does not escape from slipping back into that groove of thinking that

>the Rambam would distinguish between kollel men and pulpit rabbis.

There is a misunderstanding (perhaps viewed to my phrasing). In viewing
support of torah studies, we have two polar opposite positions in the
sources.

1. against kardom lachpor bah - that anyone deriving any material benefit
from the torah or his status as scholar (with very limited exceptions)
is mechallel hashem, mevaze hatora, umechabe or hadat - the rambam

2. Yissachar zevulun - it is ideal for torah scholars to be supported by
those who work, and those who work and fund torah scholars participate
in the merit of torah study.

The normative position is (or was) (IMHO) as follows. It accepts the
fundamental principle of the rambam that it is problematic to derive
benefit from torah study or status as a scholar, except for limited
exceptions, rather than viewing it as an ideal that the community support
torah scholars. However, it dramatically expanded the list of possible
exceptions, especially the notion of schar batala - recognized by the
rambam as applying to a limited case. Schar batala was the cornerstone
(at least in ashkenaz) of communal rabbanut - as can be readily seen by
seeing the shtar rabbanut given to rabbanim through at least the 17th
century (many have been published). The cornerstone of the notion of schar
batala was that the payment was not for some ideal of torah study - but
for the fact that the rav needed to be available to serve the community
(and also, therefore, was also paid for continuing education so he could
continue to serve..)

The second expansion was that of allowing funding of students in their
early stages. This was actually quite limited - people had smicha by
the time they were 20 - and was again viewed as part of the process of
producing community rabbanim (as the kesef mishne says), or as part of
the ongoing "continuing education" of the rav was to have students.
However, the general expansion of this was viewed as problematic,
as the controversy over the Kovno Kollel introduced by Rav Salanter ,
one of the first in Eastern Europe to have support of married men, showed.

Therefore, do we pasken strictly like the rambam in what exceptions are
allowed for funding torah scholars? no. Do we pasken like the rambam that
torah study qua torah study is not something that should be funded? yes.

WRT to a discussion of the other halachic sources, I will rebut it when
I have time to access to the sources.

Meir Shinnar

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:56:30 +1000 "SBA" <sba@sba2.com> writes:
>> I had a few off-list replies to check Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz.
>> And, takeh, vol 1 page 396 has a piece on this where it more or less
>> confirms what I wrote. In fact according to his research the whole Mi
>> Shebeirach we say has no real source. Ayen Shom.

> I can't ayen sham as I don't have it.  Can you scan and send?

This happens to be one of the few sefarim I do have at home.

He says there wasn't a unified nusach, but each shul had its own.  Most
siddurim did not contain any nusach at all.

He also says that the minhag was to say the mi sheberach, not immediately
after the birth, but on the first shabbos when the woman came to shul,
by which time the bris was usually long past.  And since it was not at
all related to the woman being in need of healing, "Moshe Aharon David
uShlomo" were not invoked.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Reb Micha says:
> I see it more like a picture, where the middah keneged middah fits like
> a photo to its negative.

I very much agree with him, as well as with the rest of what he said
on this subject. I would only add that "middah keneged middah fits
like a photo to its negative," which in many cases is far beyond human
comprehension.

> The basic difference between Rav Shapiro's words and Rav Lichtenstein's
> question is that they are from 2 different sources. Rav Shapiro is
> Torat Eretz Yisrael and Rav L's is Torat Chutz La'aretz. This may seem
> simplistic, but it's a very deep and important difference. When 2 people
> are talking about the seemingly same topic, but yet they do not agree
> concerning the basic axioms on which the discussion is based, they are
> in essence talking at cross-purposes.

While I agree with much that Shoshana says I disagree strongly with
her terminology. What she calls "torat eretz yisrael" is really the
philosopht of R. Kook and his followers. I assume that members of the
yishuv hayashan would not agree with this opinion. In more is that
though R. Kook has conquered most of present RZ it was not the only RZ
philosiphy for many years.

As RAL makes clear he is a student of RYBS and not R. Kook. I debate that
makes him less pro-EY then the others. I personally stongly object to the
notion that EY people were against evacuation and those who would account
for outside forces are chutz le-aretz people. While R. Schach originated
from chutz la-aretz his position has been followed by R. Elyashiv who
has deep roots in EY.

As an aside I did not see the connection of this with R. Gold's remarks
who did not address this issue. he argued about what RYBS would hold
today and not that RYBS is a chutz la-aretz person.

--  
Eli Turkel

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (In Areivim)-- micah2@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
>> The Ran in Nedarim 28a says there is no dina demalchusa dina in Eretz 
>> Yisrael. Therefore, cheating on taxes there is ok.

> Thats' because in EY is supposed to be a Malchus Yisrael with the Dinei
> Shel Torah.

No, it's because he says the basis for DdMD is that the whole country is
the private property of the king, who, like any property owner, has the
right to expel anybody he wants to. So, like any property owner, he gets
to make the rules on his property, and abiding by them is a condition
for remaining there. Since every Jew has the right to live in EY, and
no king has the right to expel him, the whole rationale doesn't apply.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Rabosai,

One major question about reconciling ma'aseh vereishit with science is
what to do with the account of creation of man. Some want to say that
the humanoid homo sapiens sapiens came into existence by evolution but
wasn't yet an adam until HQBH vayifa'h beapav rua'h 'hayim. The question
is of course, what happened in human evolution that could be coupled
with the end of sheshet yemei vereishit.

While I personally (as I posted in the past on list) am not convinced
of such a mahalakh, I do want to provide the following data point, from
a recently published paper in Science, as described by the reporting
journalist:

"Dr Lahn has added to that evidence, and has shown that this evolution
continued even after Homo sapiens became a species in its own right, less
than 200,000 years ago. One variant of Microcephalin, now widespread,
came into existence only about 37,000 years ago, while a widespread
version of ASPM originated a mere 5,800 years agoג€”meaning that it
post-dates the beginning of civilisation."

This is about a specific gene that is extremely important for the
development of the brain qua human brain. Note the 5800 years.

While we shouldn't hang heavy coats on light hooks,
this is interesting. The full article can be read at
<http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4370156>.

Good Shabbos,
Arie Folger

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> : The basic difference between Rav Shapiro's words and Rav Lichtenstein's
> : question is that they are from 2 different sources...

> How is that relevent? RSG doesn't simply defend RAS's position. Rather, he
> engages RAL in a machloqes over what would RYBS say! It is he who makes
> this into a dispute over a single source.

I will try to respond to both the above and to Prof. Eli Turkel's words
in this single post.

First, I apologize, as I said in my original post, it's quite possible
I wasn't 100% clear. To start to answer, I would like to quote from
Prof. Eli Turke's post:

Prof. Eli Turkel:
> As an aside I did not see the connection of this with R. Gold's remarks
> who did not address this issue. he argued about what RYBS would hold today
> and not that RYBS is a chutz la-aretz person.

First, let me clarify. Torat Eretz Yisrael isn't dependant on where a
person lives but on other factors. Living in Yisrael is an important one,
but not the only issue. You can live in Israel and still not understand
or pasken according to Torat Eretz Yisrael.

Second, as to what both Micha and Prof. Eli state. One major difference
between Torat Eretz Yisrael (TEY) and Torat Chutz La'aretz (TCL) is that
in many issues, TCL is theory while TEY is Le'ma'aseh.

For example, the famous Rabbeinu Chaim which most state is a "Talmid
To'eh". What makes what he says so wrong in the eyes of so many poskim?
One of the reasons Rabbeinu Chaim gives for not going to Israel is b/c
you can't keep Mitzvot HaTeluyot Ba'aretz.

Now, to someone in Chutz La'aretz, who doesn't keep these mitzvot, they
seem distant and he has no problem believing that in Eeretz Yisrael
you CANNOT keep these mitzvot. He also has no problem giving this as
a reason not to make Aliyah, b/c he truly can't comprehend how to keep
these mitzvot. But, as we know this is a nice theory, when it comes to
actually living in Israel, those who wanted to keep Mitzvot HaTeluyot
Ba'artz -- found a way. Of the long list of such mitzvot only Shmitta
was truly problematic to keep.

Therefore, to pasken as Rabeinu Chaim would come under TCL, a theoretical
argument, while understanding that Lema'aseh those who live in Israel
do keep these mitzvot.

This is just one example, and why Torat Eretz Yisrael is not "Torat
Rav Kook". It is the difference between studying the theory for many
years and then facing true life situations and having to rule. Again,
this is a simplistic presentation of a very complex topic.

Back to the above:

R' Micha wrote:
> How is that relevent? RSG doesn't simply defend RAS's position. Rather, he
> engages RAL in a machloqes over what would RYBS say! It is he who makes
> this into a dispute over a single source.

RAL gives the theoretical considerations. RSG gives the practical
real life considerations. This has nothing to do with RYBS being a
"chutz La'aretz" person. It has to do with the question of studying
theory versus living life in Eretz Yisrael. When you have to pasken in
Eretz Yisrael Le'maaseh, a theory created X years ago is nice, but you
have to examine it to see how it impacts reality. RAL does not do this.
He stays in the relm of theory. RSG does do this strenously investigating
RYBS's words in light of other sources and the real life situation in
Eretz Yisrael.

Many here have connection to science. We can study and postulate and
create theories to our hearts content. But if what happens in the
Lab. does not match the theory -- the theory falls aside.

This is what RSG is claiming. While, when RYBS was alive, he
theoretically spoke of his opinion on an issue, now that we are facing
reality in Eretz Yisrael, we have to examine this reality and not the
theoretical issues. We are living life, not theory.

Therefore RAL's questions are great, but they are in the realm of the
Yeshiva hall of study, theory. Rav Shapiro was speaking (whether we
agree with his conclusions or not is another matter) from life in Eretz
Yisrael, which is the essence of Torat Eretz Yisrael.

As I noted in my original post, this is a vast and extremely complex
issue. In his letter in the Igrot, Rav Kook does list the differences in
the knowledge base between those paskening for the Diaspora versus those
paskening in Eretz Yisrael. He was not the first. Rambam also has some
interesting comments on the differences between keeping mitzvot in Israel
and in Chutz La'aretz. IIRC, he calls keeping mitzvot in Chutz La'aretz
"practice" for the real thing in Eretz Yisrael.

It is common to say that a great rabbi paskens from the "Shulchan
Aruch Chamishi". Torat Eretz Yisrael goes a step further and states
that Eretz Yisrael itself is a factor in psika, specifically by chaning
the philosophical world view behind the psika.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Caftor voFreach ch. 58 quotes sefer Tagnis written by Rebbi Yehuda
ben Billom.

In Masekhet Shabbat 81b there is a word Parpisa. Rashi explains it based
upon a teshoubah of the Geonim as a basket of sprouts which was thrown
into the river, like a type of kapparot.

Do we know anymore about this Parpisa?

Which Geonim discuss it?

Are there any other references or explanations of it elsewhere?

Thanks,
Joseph Mosseri

From: "Arie Folger" <afolger@aishdas.org>
> Some want to say that
> the humanoid homo sapiens sapiens came into existence by evolution but
> wasn't yet an adam until HQBH vayifa'h beapav rua'h 'hayim.

It's slightly off topic, but see Tshuvoth HaRamban, ed. Chavel,
pp. 160-163.

David Riceman 

RDR wrote:
> It's slightly off topic, but see Tshuvoth HaRamban, ed. Chavel, pp.
> 160-163.

I don't own it. Care to summerize or scan and send?

Thanks,
Arie Folger

Mike W wrote on Areivim:
> The Ran in Nedarim 28a says there is no dina demalchusa dina in Eretz 
> Yisrael. 

Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote on Areivim:
> the Ran is a shitas yachid. 

The Ran is quoting Tosafos. And the same statement is made by the Rashba
and Shita Mikubbetzes. Nimukei Yosef quotes this in the name of "the
majority of mefarshim." ROY in Yechave Da'as chelek 5 siman 64 cites
this view in the name of R. Eliezer of Metz and the Or Zarua.

The Meiri disagrees. Also, Rambam Hil. Gzeilah 5:11 clearly states that
it makes no difference whether the king is a gentile or a Jew. And SA
Choshen Mishpat 369:6 paskens like the Rambam.

The Tzitz Eliezer chelek 16 siman 49 suggests that the Rashbam would
argue on the Ran, based on the reasoning of the Rashbam Bav Basra 54
that the reason for DDD is that all people living in a kingdom accept
upon themselves the laws of the kingdom.

However, the Tzitz Eliezer notes that it is possible to reconcile the
Rambam/SA with the Ran/Rashba by saying that the former are talking about
a Jewish king outside of EY, as the reasoning of the Ran/Rashba applies
strictly to EY (in fact, the Shu"t HaRasha 1:638 explicitly distinguishes
between a Jewish king in EY and a Jewish king outside EY). (IMHO the Bais
Yosef probably disagrees with this suggestion.) OTOH, the TE cites the
Chasam Sofer that the Ran's view is limited to a case where the king
imposes a rule on the populace against their will; but if it is done
willingly (and presumably, this is the case where there is a democracy),
then even in EY DDD applies.

The Yechave Daas says that because the Rambam and SA pasken against the
Ran, one cannot even say "kim li" like the Ran.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 9/9/05, Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> Second, as to what both Micha and Prof. Eli state. One major difference 
> between Torat Eretz Yisrael (TEY) and Torat Chutz La'aretz (TCL) is that in 
> many issues, TCL is theory while TEY is Le'ma'aseh.

Now I am even more confused. The difference between TEY and TCL seems
to be whether it is practical or theoretical.
This has nothing to do with EY but exists in all areas of halacha between
RY and poskim. In terms of RAL personally he paskens halacha le-maaseh
for the students in his hesder yeshiva. I think he very conciensely did
not want to make this into a Le'maseh dispute.
He very insistently wanted this to be a basic theoretical discussion on
the issues. he is then dismissed for being theoretical.

-- 
Eli Turkel

From: "Arie Folger" <afolger@aishdas.org>
> RDR wrote:
>> It's slightly off topic, but see Tshuvoth HaRamban, ed. Chavel, pp.
>> 160-163.

> I don't own it. Care to summerize or scan and send?

It's taken from Tshuvoth HaRashba Hameyhasoth l'haRamban #284 (the second
part of the tshuva). He says there's a machloketh in Hazal whether human
souls were created on yom rishon or yom shishi, but everyone agrees that
both human and animal souls were created before human and animal bodies.

David Riceman 

The thought of Rav Motti Elon on the churban of Gush Katif, in one of
his best Shiurim (in Hebrew).

Video or Audio.
<http://www.kerenyishai.org/archives/shoftim_h.php>

> The defense minister expanded, saying that the Palestinians would be
> asked to secure the synagogues; even though they refused the request,
> it would still be preferable that the destruction of synagogues in the
> Gaza Strip be conducted by Palestinians than by IDF soldiers.

Any halachik sources on this issue (If it is a given that a shul will
be destroyed, who should do it?)

KT
Joel Rich

From: Eli Turkel 
> In terms of RAL personally he paskens halacha le-maaseh for the students
> in his hesder yeshiva. I think he very conciensely did not want to make
> this into a Le'maseh dispute.
> He very insistently wanted this to be a basic theoretical discussion on
> the issues. he is then dismissed for being theoretical.

That's very nice that he wanted it to be a theoretical discussion,
but unfortunately, this was about a very very practical issue.

So, while Rav Shapiro was talking Le'ma'aseh, using specific terminology
with specific meaning, RAL was talking theory and questioning his psika
le'ma'aseh.

Rav Gold's response was to show that with all due respect, this WAS a
Le'ma'aseh issue and should be treated as such.

The issue of TEY vs. TCL as regards to theory and Le'ma'seh has to do
with that aspect of psika that is influenced by the addition of Eretz
Yisrael to the equation.

There are many more issues influenced by this question than many of
us notice. I remember a shi'ur once on Eiruv and how the question of
Karmelit is impacted by various definitions of Eretz Yisrael and Malchut.

Shoshana L. Boublil

[To restate my position: The Rambam's prohibition against accepting
a salary or stipend for Torah pursuits applies to rabbanus as well as
kollel; The Shuchan Aruch and its commentators disagree with the Rambam
on both counts, as well as did his contemporaries and those in his recent
past; The Rambam, however, permits family support, as is evidenced by
his own acceptance of support from his brother.--ZL]

R. David Riceman[mailto:driceman@worldnet.att.net] wrote on 9/8/2005:
>From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
>> the Rambam
>> states, "And in his hand was a vast amount of money for me, for him, and
>> for others (u-b'yado mammon rav li, v'lo, u-l'acheirim)."
...
>> Sheilat (p. 228) misunderstands the Rambam's Hebrew, for he takes it as
>> if the Rambam wrote "mammon rav shelli, shello, v'shel acheirim (a vast
>> amount of money of mine, of his, and of others),"

RDR:
>I think Rabbi Sheilat is correct here. Several points:
>1. Earlier in the same letter the Rambam mentions that he had lost capital 
>("hefsed mamon"), not merely foregone income.

This is clearly referring to a previous occurence, unconnected to his
brother's tragedy. The Rambam's words are:

"Many manifest troubles occurred to me in Egypt, from illnesses and
financial losses (hefsed mammon) and denunciators rising up against me to
kill me; and the greatest evil that came to me at the end (l'acharona),
which is the evil of all evil that transpired since the day of my
coming into being until this day--the passing away of the tsaddik,
zecher tsadik l'vracha, who drowned in the Indian Ocean. And he held in
his hand much money for me, for himself and for others...He grew up on
my lap, and was the brother, and he was the talmid, and he would conduct
business in the marketplace and prosper, while I was sitting in security,
studying Talmud and Scripture, and studying grammar....

RDR:
>2. Later in the same letter the Rambam implies that he had assumed 
>financial support of his brother's widow and daughter, thus implying that 
>his brother's estate had been devastated.

I don't see how this bears on this issue of whether the Rambam's brother
supported him without the Rambam providing capital.

RDR:
>3. In the final paragraph of PHM Avoth 4:6 (ed. Sheilat p. 70) the Rambam 
>lists trading with a scholar's capital as a permissible means of supporting 
>a scholar. As far as I know the Rambam never mentions being supported by a 
>family member as permissible.

A Re-examination of the post to which RDR originally replied by citing
this iggerress will show that the Rambam not only permits, but praises
as a "tzedakka gedolah," family support of their adult sons' learning
(See Mahari Kurkos ["gedolim mammash...there is not even any genai
involved"] and Be'er Avraham [and this is clearly referring to gedolim
over thirteen]).

(One may argue that the sense of this halacha is keeping one's children
"out of risk," and that it does not apply to the Rambam's situation, but
IMHO it at any rate points more in the direction of approval of financial
support of research by one's family member than impermissability.)

Furthermore, as I pointed out in the post to which RDR is now replying,
Sheilat himself sees the incongruity of saying that Jews should not
support their own family members' learning, and concludes that it was not
halachah, but middas chassidus, that would have motivated the Rambam to
accept family support only if he himself invested in the business. (He
even proposes that the Rambam's objection is only against the scholar
personally going door-to-door for support, but in PHM on Ahvos, the
Rambam rules out public fundings of Yeshovos as well.)

Regardless, the Rambam's objections to accepting parnassa from public
tsedakah for Torah-based activities--such as research and rabbanus--do
not apply to family suppport. Family support would not produce "a chillul
Hashem in the eyes of the masses because they would [then] consider a
Torah pursuit [such as research and rabbanus--ZL] a job like any job by
which a person earns a living, and it [thereby] will become disparaged
in their eyes." Why--according to the Rambam's reasoning, not one's own
shittos--should one who has a rich brother (or a rich father or wife)
who recognizes the zechus of letting the brother, son or husband delve
in Torah research or practice rabbanus undistracted by monetary matters,
be prohibitted from doing so?

The Rambam in Mishneh Torah does not mention the praised Yissachar and
Zevulon (Breishis Rabbah 72:5; 99:9) or Shimon and Azariah (Vayikra
Rabbah 25:2; Sota 21b and Rashi) arrangement, wherein one brother freely
(without accepting monetary investment) supports another in learning--and
without waiting for the learner to gain prominence, for which Hillel's
brother, Shavna, is criticized (Sota 21b and Rashi). However, given these
sources it makes sense to say that Rambam is mechaleik between brothers
and non-relatives. (The last case of Shavna is illustrative of this,
for Rambam on Ahvos cites Hillel as an example of one who because of
the prohibition did not gain from "anshei doro.")

RDR:
>4. The Rambam several times mentions that Hebrew grammar changes with time 
>(e.g. PHM Terumoth 1:1, ed. Kafih, p. 167, introduction to SHM, ed. Frankel, 
>p. 10). I'm not sure that Rabbi Lampel is correct in his assertion that 
>"li" means "intended for me", but I suspect that in Medieval Hebrew 
>(especially in Arab lands) the writing of "li" for "sheli" was not a cause 
>for raised eyebrows.

This possibilty crossed my mind as well. I did a cd-search of Mishneh
Torah and found no example of Rambam using "li" (which appears 1,151
times) for "shelli" etc. The only passage I found where it is even
/possible/ to translate "li" as "mine" would be Hilchos Geneivah 9:4,
where he writes, "And likewise, if one kidnapped a woman and sold the use
of her embryo alone, by stipulating with the buyer that this shifcha is
"li," and you have nothing but (v'ain l'cha ella) the offspring..." But
here too, there is no reason to suggest that the Rambam is neglecting
standard dikduk. "Li" here too means "for me," not "mine." As a matter
of fact, I doubt any Hebrew writer ever used "li" to mean "mine."

I also perused all the writings of the Rambam in Sheilat's work that
the Rambam wrote in Hebrew (too bad I don't have a search engine for
the Igros, but my birthday is Sivan 27th...), and could not find one
instance where the Rambam uses an adjectivial prepositional phrase
as a possessive adjective. (He invariably uses the contracted form:
e.g., in the letter under discussion, he writes "yaddo" rather than
"yad shello.") I was impressed by how standard the Rambam's grammar is
in all these letters as well as in the Mishneh Torah.

(I also explored the possibility that "li v'lo u'l'acheirim" or the like
is some biblical or tannaitic quote or poetic form, but came up with no
such passage.)

It seems very docheik to ascribe a shitta to the Rambam proscribing the
practice of family support (1) based upon a sevara, regarding another
case, that does not apply, and (2) ignoring the Rambam's explicit
endorsement of the practice in question, (3) hinged only upon a proposal
that the Rambam followed in this one letter some form of dikduk not used
by him anywhere else and unknown to have ever been used by anyone.

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]