Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 092

Thursday, January 19 2006

• Moshe Rabbeynu
• Re: Timtum halev
• Re: Tomb of the Matriarchs
• RE: Bal tashchis and burning Chometz
• Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays
• Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays
• Re: MBP
• Re: citations & g'neivas da'as
• Re: Tomb of the Matriarchs
• Everyone on same level
• Israeli Army and Charedim
• Re: Timtum Halev
• Re: Timtum Halev
• Question on parshat Shmot
• Re: Bal tashchis and burning Chometz
• Re: Timtum Halev - Tie in to "Shelo asani..."

Rashi quotes the midrashim that HKBH didn't allow Moshe to nurse from an
Egyptian. Yet, after being weaned, he grew up in an Egyptian household,
and presumably, ate their food. This question would be especially relevant
to the Ramban who states (2:11) that Moshe was already a teenager
or older when he was told of his true heritage. Perhaps the issue is
particular to the nursing years, as opposed to later? This might be the
point of the midrash which ties Moshe's refuasl to nurse to a pasuk in
Yeshaya to the effect that a yoreh deah must be yonek chalav properly,
emphasizing those initial formative years. Does anyone have any sources
for an answer to this question or the general facts of Moshe's being
raised as an Egyptian prince? [I'm aware of the chazal that just as
Moshe was raised among 'them', so too Moshiach who will come to upend
Edom will have been raised among 'them'.]

Thanks, GL

RGD gershon.dubin@juno.com wrote:
> Does anyone have a mekor for the idea that timtum halev is caused
> only by devarim teme'im such as shekatzim uremasim or behemos teme'ios
> and not by such things as nevela uterefa?

The Ramban Shmot 22:30 distinguishes between shratzim and treifa. The
former are sheketz v'toeva, and cause "ovi v'gasut b'nefesh". Treifa,
on the other hand "ein bo shikutz, aval yesh b'shmira mimena k'dusha."
Ayen sham.

Saul Mashbaum

R' Dov Kramer wrote:
>I have found no other references to Zilpah though. My father said he
>did a google search on Zilpah, and found that she was buried in the
>"Tomb of the Matriarchs" in Tiberias....

_HaMekomos HaKedoshim_  by R' Yechiel Michel Stern, has a short entry on
Kever Ha-Imahos.   He says that the source for its identity is in Seder
HaDoros, in the name of Gelilos Eretz Yisroel, and that it is located off
(at the end?) of Rechov HaShomeir, beyond the King Solomon hotel.

- Joshua Meisner

[RMPoppers:]
> Why should fulfilling "tashbisu" violate bal tashchis any more than
> a soldier fulfilling the dictates of a milchemes mitzva or a gowail
> hadam or a homeowner dealing with habaw bamachteres would violate the
> lav of r'tzichah?...

IMHO the issue is similar to hutrah vs. Dchuya with a little bit of
midot thrown in. I don't think anyone would say burning chametz is bal
tashchit (especially since at least according to 1 shitah ( I forget who
says what on this issue) we specifically save some chametz to burn to
be mekayem tashbisu). The question is should you be yotzeh the mitzvah
in an "efshar" derech. In addition will it cultivate bad midot if you
"waste" lots of chametz (think pachim ketanim)

KT
Joel Rich

My understanding is that ThD is said bimqom qorban todah, which in turn
was brought in two situations: (1) primarily after living through one
of the four yeshu'os listed in the description of yetzi'as mitzrayim in
Tehillim 107; (2) secondarily after surviving significant risk.

The first criterion includes: crossing a wilderness, being in jail,
dangerous illness and crossing the sea (the Mediterranian qualifies,
Utah's Great Salt Lake is the topic of machloqes).

Thus, in a normal car trip (while b"H healthy and not in a Corrections
Dept vehicle), there are two different reasons that may come into play:
Am I crossing a wilderness? Is it a maqom saqanah?

R Marty Bluke wrote:
> Given the above R' Shachter (in Nefesh Harav) says that R' Soloveitchik
> did not say tefilas haderech when he commuted from Boston to NY to
> give his shiurim. He felt that because it is a tefila b'es tzara (it is
> pretty clear from the context of the gemara in berachos on 29b and 30a
> which discusses the din of tefilas haderech, that tefilas haderech is
> a tefila b'es tzara.

The din as I understood it is different than this formulation. I do
not know if this means RYBS didn't hold of the Tehillim 107 criterion,
or if there is something missing in the third-hand description of his
position. Perhaps a more precise reference in NhR would help. However,
I believe that if RYBS only holds of the maqom sakanah criterion, his
pesaq is not that of rov acharonim.

> RSZA did not say tefilas haderech when he traveled from Yerushayim to
> Bnei Brak. He explained his reasoning (in Halichos Shlomo) as follows:

> 1. In many places it is not considered as if you left the yishuv for
> the following reasons:
> 2. Traveling by car/bus is a normal activity....

These would obviate the first criterion.

> 3. There is little or no danger of robbers and wild animals....

Which would eliminate the second.

Therefore, ein sham ra'ayah that:
> RSZA reasoning is very similar to RYBS....

As you present his shitah, RYBS doesn't hold of the "relived an aspect
of yetzi'as Mitzrayim" criterion, whereas RSZA could very well have held
of it. The pesaq is "very similar", but I'm not sure about the reasoning.

> The gemara states that you only say tefilas haderech if the trip is 4 mil
> outside the city. Is this a measure of time or distance? ...
>       R' Ovadia Yosef holds that it is a measure of time.....

Makes sense, as it would define a wilderness in a manner that changes
as the metzi'us of travel does.

> However,
> this is not so simple either. How do you measure the time? Is it how
> long this trip is going to take, or is it the average time? ....

IF the sevarah I offer is correct, one is not giving a shiur on the
trip, but on the distance traveled. So, it would be the average. IOW,
"4 mil" means -- a trip across a distance that is usually spanned in 4
mil of time.

> Bottom line, I would like to know what people's minhag is when they
> commute to work, go to a simcha, etc. do they say tefials haderech or not?

I do not say tefillas haderekh when traveling to/from suburbia, and
do when traveling to the Borscht belt. That happens to roughly fit my
version of ROY's pesaq.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Steg Belsky wrote:
> I generally judge whether I've left the metropolitan area by
> when I pass the first major rest stop on the highway. This is
> a lot easier on interstates; on minor state highways where
> there's a string of little towns all along it I find it a bit
> harder to judge the proper distance.

I remember it being said - even 30 years ago - that one could go
from Boston to Washington DC without Tefilas Haderech, as there is no
uninhabited gap of sufficient size. (I think a minimum of 4 mil is the
defining criterion.) But I've never had an easy way of verifying whether
or not this is accurate.

But it just now hit me that the plethora of on-line maps which combine
street maps with aerial photography (try maps.google.com) might be the
perfect way of researching this question. I'm almost ready to do it
myself, but first let me ask --- Has anyone already tried this?

Akiva Miller

R Shaya Potter wrote in reply to RZS:
>> To what purpose? The person is not an orel, and there has already been
>> dam bris shed. Taking another drop of blood won't make up for the lack
>> of metzitzah - nobody does metzitza at a hatofas dam. So what would
>> the hatofas dam achieve?

> so what exactly is a bris?
> I always thought "hatofas dam bris" was the bris, i.e. even if the
> person was circumcised before, he didn't have a bris, and hence since we
> can't recircumcise someone, we do the bris through hatofas dam bris.

I would say there are tzvei dinim in beris: hachnasah leberiso shel
avraham avinu, and removing the arlah. Hatafah is a way of hachnasah
when there is no arlah. And therefore, bemaqom she'i efshar to fulfill
both dinim, it's done.

Such a sevarah, combined with the belief that metzitzah is a din milah
rather than a minhag or din bepiqu'ach nefesh, would end up requiring
hatafas dam beris after a milah with an invalid metzitzah. Not to make
up the metzitzah (which, as noted, isn't required for hatafah) but to
make up the hachnasah laberis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>So, getting back to the point, we still see that RYS chose not quoting
>>the source if it meant the idea would be more accepted.

> Rav Bulman told me that the removal of Franklin's name was relatively
> recent.- perhaps in the last 50 years. That would mean that R' Yisroel
> Salanter did not remove the name.

There are three major editions: the author's, RYS's and the Vaad
haTalmidim of Slabodka, under the auspices of (and with a long
introduction by) R' YI Sherr (RY of Slabodka in Bnei Braq).

Once you rule out the original author, one is dealing with someone whose
willingness to hide a source should be taken seriously either way.

>>Does he also mention the probable origins of REED's advice on ma'avir
>>al midosav being a Reader's Digest condensation of Dale Carnegie's
>>"How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

> No. But he does show that Cheshbon HaNefesh is not simply a translation
> of Franklin but rather that he applied Franklin's psychological techniques
> to Jewish categories of midos.

That's muchrach. Just comparing the list of
traits in the diary (see post by R' Danny Schoemann in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n013.shtml#17> and subsequent
discussion) to the list of middos in cheshbon hanefesh is glaring.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

It says on the kever in Tverya. Bilha, Zilpa, Avigayil, Miriam, Yocheved,
Elisheva and Dina

menucha

[From Areivim. -mi]

On 1/18/06, Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not so sure that RSZA ate outside of his home, though he did eat
> in Kol Torah.

To repeat myself: On page 86 of the second vol. of V'aleihu Lo Yibol,
it records that RSZA noted that at a wedding he would eat chicken with
a hechsher that he would not admit into his own house, and that R. Chaim
Sonnenfeld would eat meat at Sephardic families [even though he presumably
did not bring such meat into his own home].

R' Yitzchok Levine <llevine@stevens.edu> wrote:
> I do think that people should keep in mind that how RSZA
> conducted himself was not followed universally by others. I know, for
> a fact, that Rav Avigdor Miller, ZT"L, never ate anything outside of
> his home except for some herring and matzo that he ate on Shabbos in
> his shul for Seudah Shlishis.  Rav Manis Mandel of the Yeshiva of
> Brooklyn also does not eat anywhere except in his own home. There are
> others, I am sure.

On 1/18/06, Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com> responded:
> I'm also not so sure RAM or RMM would suggest we adopt their midas
> haPrishus. I don't recall RAM ever suggesting we don't eat out; and he
> wasn't shy to express his opinions loudly and clearly.

> I'm also sure RSZA would not discourage a person *on the correct
> level* to adopt such a chumra.

I'm not so sure (esp. in light what I wrote above). Perhaps only a major
rav could adopt such a chumra, as people might not feel slighted by his
not eating. A regular ba'al ha'bayis, even one who is a tzaddik nistar,
might be ill-advised to adopt such a chumra, as (1) this would impact
on de'orasos of bein adam l'chaveiro, and (2) people might interpret
this as yu'hara.

Also, IMHO just about all these issues are at best safek d'rabbanans. 
I wrote the following on Avodah in late July 2005:
<<
R. Shimon Shkop in Shaarei Yosher 1:7 (s.v. u'v'ha d'hiksha ha'Ramban;
see also 1:2 and 1:3) argues that the reason that safek de'oraisa is
l'chumra while safek drabbanan is l'kulah—despite the existence of the
Torah prohibition of lo sasur—is that if there is a de'oraisa issur and
you are violate it b'safek, you did an act which is assur (therefore,
eating treif damages you even if you didn't realize it was treif).
But if there is a safek issur d'rabbanan and you violate it, you did
not do anything which is intrinsically assur; you also didn't violate lo
sasur because that is violated only when you deliberately disregard the
chachamim's commands, not when you do so unknowingly. In other words,
an issur de'oraisa creates a chefzah of issur which damages a person
even if he violates the issur unknowingly, but an issur d'rabbanan is an
issur gavra—forbidding a person to knowingly act against the chachamim's
commands, but the act is not intrinsically assur. R. SS notes that this
works well if we assume that if one does an issur d'rabbanan b'shogeg
there is no need for kapparah and it's as if one had not violated the
issur at all.

People often assume that it is proper to be machmir with respect to all
kashrus issues because eating issurim is metamtem es ha'lev. However,
based on the above, this should not be true of a safek d'rabbanan.

If refusing food offered by a yirei shmayim & medakdek b'mitzvos could
possibly cause the latter any ill feelings (and believe me, as one who
is treated this way by some of my charedi relatives, I can tell you that
I do feel somewhat slighted when that happens), IMHO you should think
twice about refusing.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Transfer from Areivim

> On 1/16/06, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
>> From: Marty Bluke <>
>>> The Torah command us to wage various wars, and ayn somchin al hanes.
>>> How are we supposed to fight a milchemes mitzva or even a milchemes 
>>> hareshus if we don't have an army and people who know how to fight?

> What about "Ish hayorei - meho'aveiros shebeyodoy.." who is sent back 
> home...

> It distinctly does not say that one has to be sinless to go out to
> war, but rather that one cannot be "yarei mei-ha'aveiros she-b'yado".
> The simplest understanding of this phrase would, counterintutively,
> eliminate all of the tzaddikim, as they are usually more fearful of
> the minute deficiencies that they see in their own avodas Hashem than
> other people are of their own more significant sins. I don't know how
> to understand this medrash, but to say that the intent of the medrash
> is to eliminate anyone who has yir'as cheit from army service doesn't
> make sense.

> - Joshua

See mishna on 44a in sotah plus discussion that follows. Rule does not
apply by milchemet mitzvah, there's a machloket as to whether haaveiros
is the reason Rambam Melachim 7:15 understands it kmashmao - it's kdai
to see it inside as the Rambam describes what the mindset of a Jewish
soldier in battle should be.

KT
Joel Rich (who cringes at the responsibility he did not step up to)

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> In Nefesh haChaim vol I, RCV ...
>         So, is there a spiritual force other than the impact of a ma'aseh
> on the self? (Not so much a question for food being metamteim haleiv,
> more about the mezuzah that was hung and maintained kedin but kelapei
> Shemaya galia that inside that roll, it's flawed.)

Or the mikveh that was filled and maintained kedin, but turned out later
to have become passul since its last inspection, in a manner which could
have been discovered had it been reinspected immediately before use.

Or the kohen who believed himself -- in good faith and as permitted by
the Torah -- to be physically fit for service, but who later turned out
to have a hidden blemish, which could have been discovered by a more
careful -- but halachically unnecessary -- inspection.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Or the mikveh that was filled and maintained kedin...
: Or the kohen who believed himself -- in good faith and as permitted by
: the Torah -- to be physically fit for service, but who later turned out
: to have a hidden blemish...

Already discussed in vol 14, num 80 onward, no? We could just skip
to RSZA on getting sechar for wearing pasul tefillin, asei vs lav,
lechat-chilah vs bedi'eved, etc...

But we'd still end up at the same place. Saying that someone who bedi'eved
finds a rei'usa in a chazaqah he relied upon must redo it does not imply
a metaphysical force associated with the cheftzah.

-mi

There is a certain non-symmetry, which I find interesting, in the three
signs Moshe was given to show the Jews . In the first two signs, the
thing transformed (the staff, Moshe's hand) is restored to its original
state. In the third sign, the water transformed to blood is not restored
to its original state. I wonder if this has been noted by anyone, and
if anyone explains the significance of this difference between the signs.

Saul Mashbaum

> There seems to be a feeling that it's better to sell or give away
> chometz rather than burn it, so as to prevent Bal Tashchis.

How ironic... The lamentable result of an unclear understanding of the
mitzvos... Those who refuse to acknowledge the difference between the
Divine directive of Bedikas Chometz and the practical value of spring
cleaning, will ultimately fail to see the difference between the Divine
directive of Bal Tashchis and the practical value of thrift and recycling.

(Translation: Spring cleaning is a great idea, but not a chiyuv, and it
is sad that people sometimes confuse it with bedikas chometz. So too,
alternatives to burning the chometz are also a great idea, but not
a chiyuv, and again, it is sad that some would think to raise it to
that level.)

Biur Chometz has no more to do with Bal Tashchis than Hafrashas Challah
does. Has anyone suggested that we be careful to take only a minimal
mashehu as Challah?

Can anyone find a sefer, from any century, which says anything similar to
"In the last days before Pesach, be sure to bake no more bread than you
expect to eat, so as to prevent any violation of Bal Tashchis on Erev
Pesach." (I doubt such will be found, but my ears are open.)

Akiva Miller

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Timtum Halev

[Coming up for air...]

I would like to tie in this aspect of the thread on Timtum Halev (below)
with an old thread called "Re: Girls" or "Shelo Asani Isha". If I'm not
mistaken R' MB was fine with the fact that we say "Shelo Asani..." and
did not share my friend's, R' HM, questions. RMB explained the brocha
according to Rashi that men have more mitzvos and therefore make a brocha
about it.

Which is why this aspect of "Timtum Halev" has me puzzled:

>Why are there chuqei hateva? They enable bechirah chofshi in two ways
>(1) by allowing hesteir Panim, and (2) by enabling us to decide on an
>action based upon its likely outcomes. Chuqim that are lam'alah min
>hateva do not fit either role.

>We need significant reason for the existence of forces that get in the
>way of sechar va'onesh or hatavah.

And the fact that men have more mitzvos then women (thus "forces" that
get in the way of sechar...) doesn't bother you? And if you answer that
a women can reach the same level of sechar with her (fewer) mitzvos
then what are men making a berocha about? You don't see them making
berochas that they were created with beards (to give another irrelevant
difference). If more mitzvos has no effect then what's it about?

>Third, when is the person supposed to get his fair sechar va'onesh
>if there are effects of ones chata'im that follow him into the olam
>ha'emes that can cause him loss even without a cheit, or benefit without
>a mitzvah?

>Taking one of the metaphor approaches to qabalah, I would say that when
>we speak of the power of itzumo shel yom, the cheftzeh of the mezuzah,
>or lehavdil of tarfus, we're speaking of the kind of improvement and
>thereby sechar or r"l damage and therefore onesh caused by experiencing
>various things (or neglecting to). And thus NOT a factor WRT tinoqos,
>shotim, or lehavdil Eliayahu hanavi obeying HQBH. Or the mezuzah that
>was checked kelahakhah but happened to crack a letter the next day.

And why would Hashem make a neshoma that will be (as a woman) inherently
unable to reach the level of sechar of another neshoma (man)? And if
the sechar is the same then what is the berocha about, in the context
(l'fi Rashi) that it's based on the more mitzvos men have (which makes
no difference).

[Captain, batten the hatches! We will dive back to lurking level!]

KT,
MSS

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


[ 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         ]