Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 8

Wed, 24 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Alan Rubin)
• 2. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Micha Berger)
• 3. Navi and Physical Defects (Ari Shapiro)
• 4. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 5. onaa (Eli Turkel)
• 6. paying in advance (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Pronunciation (dfinch847@aol.com)
• 8. Talmid Torah (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Michael Kopinsky)
• 10. VeHaGita - Proof....sources and quotes (Gershon Dubin)
• 11. Re: Talmid Torah (A & C Walters)
• 12. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 14. Talmud Torah (Chana Luntz)

I haeard the following idea from Clive Lawton. I do not know what his
sources were.

He suggested that Moshe's problem with speech was specifically with
regard to the Bnei Yisroel and not Pharoah. Since Moshe had been
brought up at court he had no problem communicating with the
Egyptians. He spoke their language and was unique in his ability to
speak with Pharoah. On the other hand he had been brought up apart
from the Bnei Yisroel and was worried about relating to them.

Alan Rubin

On Sat, January 20, 2007 11:29 pm, R Marty Bluke wrote:
: How could the adon haneviim stutter? The Rambam (Mamrim 7:2) writes that a
: Navi has to be shalem b'gufu, if Moshe had a phsyical defect he should have
: been unable to become a Navi at all.

It would seem, therefore, that the Rambam could not possibly take the medrash
about Moshe Rabbeinu AH burning his lip as a toddler when Par'oh offered him a
choice of jewels or glowing coals as historical.

That medrash is also based on the idea that the speech defect was not a stutter.

: To answer this I heard the following from R' CY Goldvicht. The Targum
: translates the words vayehi adam l'nefesh chaya, that Adam was a ruach
: memal'la. What distinguishes man from animal is the ability to speak. Speech
: is a chibur between the gashmiyus of the body and the ruchnius of the
: nefesh. Moshe Rabbenu stuttered because he was so ruchani that this
: connection was weak and therefore he could not speak well. He did not have a
: phsyical defect....

It is unclear to me which skill of speech distinguishes man from ape. I
therefore suggested that ru'ach memalela should be taken as "a will of
speech", ie that we're aware of our own thoughts, and therefore can maintain
an internal monologue. This gets me away from problems like explaining how
Chantak the orangutan could coin the idiom "tomato toothpaste" for ketchup.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/12/ruach-memalela.shtml> for my ramblings
on human consciousness.

That said, this would suggest that his speech problem was stammering
(struggling to get the mouth to form the next word) more likely than
stuttering (repetition of syllables). The typical stammerer is thinking far
faster than his mouth could move, and therefore the two get out of sync.
Sounds much like saying his ruchius outpaced his ability for his gashmi to
keep up.


On Tue, January 23, 2007 7:34 am, R Alan Rubin wrote:
: I haeard the following idea from Clive Lawton. I do not know what his
: sources were.
:
: He suggested that Moshe's problem with speech was specifically with
: regard to the Bnei Yisroel and not Pharoah. Since Moshe had been
: brought up at court he ... spoke their language and was unique in his
: ability to speak with Pharoah. On the other hand he had been brought up apart
: from the Bnei Yisroel and was worried about relating to them.

If I understand the Sefas Emes (Va'era 659) correctly, he says something
similar, and therefore may be RCL's source.

The SE explains that it's not that BY wouldn't listen to Moshe because he was
an aral sefasayim. Rather, his label "aral sefasayim" referred to the fact
that he couldn't speak in a way that BY would listen to.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

R' David Finch wrote:
<I had always read Rambam as saying that a navi needs moral and spiritual
perfection. Did Rambam actually say that a navi cannot have a physical
defect?

The Rambam (Yesodei Hatorah 7:1) writes that a Navi needs to be shalem
b'gufo, which would seem to mean that he has no physical defects.

R'  Goldvicht was actually quoting a Maharal in Gevuros Hashem Hashem perek
28 who explained that Moshe was so ruchni that he couldn't speak well
because speech is a chibur between the ruchni and the gashmi.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070123/af1a1a4f/attachment-0001.htm 

Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On 1/21/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

>> ...The sun comes closest to rising at noon (which
>> is a known number of minutes before or after 12:00, depending on the date
>> but not ones location).

> What? The amount before/after noon will certainly depend on longitude
> aka position within the time zone.

Time zones are an artificial creation, which must of course be taken
into account.  But the natural time of chatzot on a given date is the
same all over the world.


> The fluctuation will depend on latitude, since I imagine that at the
> equator chatzos does not fluctuate, since there is no summer/winter.

No.  The fluctuation of noon/midnight (AKA the Equation of Time) does
not depend on the season but on the position of the earth in its
elliptical orbit, and is therefore the same everywhere.  Yes, this
means that days at the equator are not exactly 24 hours long.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

>In one supermarket (davka not in the charedi sector) there was a
sign in the baked goods department explaining that the weight of the
package was actored into the pricing of the goods.  Isn't this an
easier way around this problem? >>

<<If they are selling something by the
kilo, then the package weight is fixed while the weight of the
goods changes depending on how much I buy.  So even if they
discount the per kilo weight, if two people buy different amounts
of baked goods but are given the same size box, then the one who
buys less effectively pays more per kilo.>>

Again the example of the speaker was putting two sets of baked goods
into the box with different prices for the baked goods.
The result is that the same box has a different price depending on the
contents. So factoring in the price doesnt mean very much.

-- 
Eli Turkel

<Immediately after I sent this, I realized what must be the reason why
you're not chayav if you pay in advance. R' Bodner doesn't say it, but
it must be that you're not chayav to pay for work until the work is
actually done (because there's still the possibility of the work being
cancelled or postponed to another day).>

This is what R. Zilberstein said. My question was on the rationale not
the "bare" halacha. Everyone agrees that one is not required to pay in
advance.
The "purpose" of the halacha is so that the worker need not wait for
his payment. As the pasuk says he is anxiously waiting for his payment
for his livelihood. If so it sounds strange that one loses the "aseh"
by paying in advance which is even better for the worker. Agreed this
might be a bad deal for the employer but if he volunteers to do
"lifnin mi-shurat hadin"" why should he lose his aseh?

Are there other cases where doing "lifnin mi-shurat hadin" costs a
person in terms of mitzvot?

-- 
Eli Turkel

Arie Folger writes:

"I would like to an told me 'men say choilom, while women say choulom'. 
This Brooklyn phenomenon obviously comes from the different educational 
philosophies of boys' and girls' schools."

Possibly, but not obviously. Men from Brooklyn also say "goil" for 
girl, "thoid" for third, and "bwol" for ball. Brooklyn girls are more 
refined.

David Finch
dfinch847@aol.com


________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

I sent the post below to areivim, having finally caught up on my
areivim's but not my avodahs - and having now caught up on avodah as
well, I see that it has transferred to avodah.  While the avodah
discussion has gone off in a slightly different direction, I think the
point below remains valid

RSBA wrote:

> From: "Avi Burstein" <aburstein@gmail.com>
> >> Shouldn't young men also be required to be involved with chesed?
> --
> > As we say every morning...'vetalmud Torah keneged kulom..." Girls
> > don't have such a chiyuv.
> ---
> This is so wrong I am stunned someone would actually propose it.
> ----
> 
> You should've been around 2000 years ago - when it was written..
>

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anybody on here articulate
precisely why "this is so wrong I am stunned someone should actually
propose it" and I think it is important that somebody does so.  The
quote comes from the Mishna in Peah which we recite every morning, and
indeed, it commences by describing various mitzvos that could be
classified under the heading of chessed "peah, bikurim" as well as
gimilus chassadim and ends vetalmud torah keneged kulom.  However, it
also includes in the list, "iyun tephila" (as well as haknasas kala and
halvias hameis). 

The reason I think it is important to articulate this is because there
has always been a tendency for those engaged in Torah to be tempted to
say "oh well, that means I don't need to daven" or "Oh well, that means
I don't need to engage in chessed mitzvos such as being mesameach chatan
v'kala or accompanying a meis" because I am engaged in talmid torah.
After all, talmid torah keneged kulom.  But, as I hope you all know,
this is not the way we pasken (do I need to bring all the sources for
this?, the gemora deals with these points explictly.)  Hence I would
second the statement that "this is so wrong" before anybody gets any
ideas.

So once we have established that there are various mitzvos that fall
under the rubric of gimilus chassadim that require men to be doche
talmid torah, and we are dealing more with the grey area as to what
mitzvos a man should choose to seek out with what might perhaps be
called his discretionary time - we can further see the value of a man
engaging in gimilus chassadim from eg Rosh Hashana 18a - where there is
a discussion about the men of the house of Eli, where Hashem swore an
oath that they would die at a young age, and this sin could not be
atoned for by the bringing of korbanos.  And Rava says while the pasuk
states that the sin cannot be atoned for by way of korbanos, it can be
atoned for b'torah, and Abaye explains the pasuk, that while the sin of
the house of Eli cannot be atoned for by way of korbanos, it can be
atoned for b'tora v'gimilus chassadim.  And then the gemora goes on to
explain that both Rava and Abaye were from the house of Eli, and that
Rava engaged in Torah only, and lived until 40 and Abaye engaged in both
torah and gimilus chassadim and lived until 60.  Now the next piece in
the gemora describes another family from the house of Eli whose sons
were all dying at the age of 18 (until they followed R' Yochanan's
advice to engage in Torah) so it would seem that Rava bought himself an
extra 22 years via Torah only, and that Abaye bought himself a further
20 years over and above that 22 years by way of the gimilus chassadim.

And since it must be uncontestable that when it says that Abaye engaged
in gimilus chassadim and Rava did not, it did not mean that Rava went
against the halachas regarding being mesameach chatan v'kala or going to
a levaya over and above torah study.  So Abaye must have been using some
of his other time, time that Rava was using to engage in talmid torah,
to do what might be considered discretionary gilimus chassadim.  Hence
it would seem, despite the general rules about poskening like Rava over
Abaye ((except in limited circumstances) one rather has to conclude that
Hashem poskened like Abaye in this case and that the gemora brought the
story and the ages until which they lived to make that clear (despite
any lo b'shamayim he objections).
 
> >> But it does explain a lot.
> 
> BH for that. That's what I was trying to do, Ie, explain why
> girls are more involved in Chesed projects than boys. 
> Girls do not have a chiyuv of 'vehogiso bo yomom volaylo', 
> while boys do.
> 
> (I am NOT, repeat NOT, saying that boys may not or should not
> be doing chesed.)
> 
> SBA


Regards

Chana

On 1/23/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> > The fluctuation will depend on latitude, since I imagine that at the
> > equator chatzos does not fluctuate, since there is no summer/winter.
>
> No.  The fluctuation of noon/midnight (AKA the Equation of Time) does
> not depend on the season but on the position of the earth in its
> elliptical orbit, and is therefore the same everywhere.  Yes, this
> means that days at the equator are not exactly 24 hours long.

Do you mean 12 hours (ie that there isn't a perpetual equinox, as I had
thought), or 24 (that the *rotation* of the earth isn't constant)?

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>

<<But I do think that bachurim - when enrolled in a yeshiva should
concentrate
on their studies rather than join social welfare programs - as per Sherut
Leumi girls.>>

Apparently Rabi Avahu agreed (Yerushalmi Pesachim 3:7)

He sent his son to Teverya to learn, and found out that  "gamal hu
chesed"

He sent to his son "Hamibli ein kevarim beKisrin shelachticha leTeverya?"

Ayen sham one other similar ma'aseh;  when a bachur is supposed to be
learning in yeshiva, that's exactly what he's supposed to be doing.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> The reason I think it is important to articulate this is because there
> has always been a tendency for those engaged in Torah to be tempted to
> say "oh well, that means I don't need to daven" or "Oh well, that means
> I don't need to engage in chessed mitzvos such as being mesameach chatan
> v'kala or accompanying a meis" because I am engaged in talmid torah.
> After all, talmid torah keneged kulom.  But, as I hope you all know,
> this is not the way we pasken (do I need to bring all the sources for
> this?, the gemora deals with these points explictly.)  Hence I would
> second the statement that "this is so wrong" before anybody gets any
> ideas.

It is paskened explicitly that someone who is "toyroso umnoso" is poter even 
from davening. (From a practical view it is not relevant these days, as the 
geder of to"um is that of RSBY, but theoretically we see that TT kneged 
kulum, only we don't have enough TT)

The binyan Oylom brings much valuable information on the subject; see then 
from perek 1.

The Rambam (hil. TT 3:4) paskens if you have if front of you either to do a 
mitzveh or TT, if someone else could do the mitzveh, it's better to carry on 
learning, only if no-one else could do that mitzveh, then you can interupt 
the learning, do the mitzveh, then resume the learning.

See also the Kesef mishneh that brings the source: (also brought by Rosh in 
Kusubos perek 2 siman 5)  from a yerushalmi pesochim 3:7 that says: "R' 
Avohu sent his son to learn Torah in Tiveria. [whilst there, the son did the 
mitzeh of] koyve'es meis, [his father asked him sarcastically] are there no 
kevorim locally that I had to send you to Tiveria [to do this mitzveh]. 
Therefore we see that TT koydem lemayseh, but this is only if there is 
someone else available to do the mitzveh, but if not, one could interupt 
learning for the mayseh"

The reason is brought bishnoys eliyohu perek 1 peah "...every word that a 
person learns is a mitzveh...one blat is many hundreds of 
mitzvehs...obviously 100 mitzeves is better that just one"

The Taz YD 251:6 brings down RSh"L that asks the question, that how can it 
it be that the ShOr paskens that one can interupt learning for hatzolos 
nefoshos, for it says "TT is bigger that Hatz"Nef" and on this the RSh"L 
bleibs shver. The Taz answers that obviously "nothing comes before Pik"Nef", 
but when it says "TT is bigger" is is referering to the schar. Someone who 
is lucky enough to be able to learn and not have to get involved with 
Hat"Nef gets more schar than one who does the Hat"Nef (obviously one who has 
in fromt of him both, has no choice but to do the Hat"Nef, but he gets less 
schar than if the situation would never have occured.


Avrohom Yitszkhok Walters
Beis Shemesh

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Mailing List Price Quotes
Compare mailing list rates from multiple providers & save!
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/MhtYWUjFT6WD4ZwPDf9Hq1IOKLFkUESvijB3a/

Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>> Michael Kopinsky wrote:

>>> The fluctuation will depend on latitude, since I imagine that at the
>>> equator chatzos does not fluctuate, since there is no summer/winter.

>> No.  The fluctuation of noon/midnight (AKA the Equation of Time) does
>> not depend on the season but on the position of the earth in its
>> elliptical orbit, and is therefore the same everywhere.  Yes, this
>> means that days at the equator are not exactly 24 hours long.

> Do you mean 12 hours (ie that there isn't a perpetual equinox, as I had
> thought), or 24 (that the *rotation* of the earth isn't constant)?

24.  The rotation is constant enough, but noon/midnight moves, so the
length of the day (measured noon-to-noon, or midnight-to-midnight) is
usually a bit shorter or longer than 24 hours.  And is the same all over
the planet.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Wed, January 24, 2007 7:44 am, R Zev Sero wrote:
: 24.  The rotation is constant enough, but noon/midnight moves, so the
: length of the day (measured noon-to-noon, or midnight-to-midnight) is
: usually a bit shorter or longer than 24 hours.  And is the same all over
: the planet.

To elaborate....

Ever see on a globe, usually somewhere in the Atlantic, a figure 8 with dates
and numbers on it? That graph shows the shift of noon during the course of the
year. It's called the analemma.

I recommend checking out the web site http://www.analemma.com which explains
the equation of time and its causes quite well, with lots of graphics and
animations.

This effect is also why the earliest Shabbosos in Y-m this year in were Dec 1
and 8th, not the ones straddling the shortest day of the year, Dec 21st.
Because even though the later Fridays were shorter, the days as a whole were
later so that they ended later anyway.

In NYC, the shortest Shabbasos were the 8th and 15th in NYC. Even though the
shift of the whole day in Y-m and NY is the same, since the day shrinks at a
different rate, the crossover points were on different dates.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

I have sent this to avodah, because after I sent my original response to
you, I discovered that the topic had moved to avodah:
> 
> From: "Chana Luntz" <> ..the gemora goes on to..
> > Rava engaged in Torah only, and lived until 40 and Abaye engaged in 
> > both torah and gimilus chassadim and lived until 60.  ..
>  ...Abaye must have been using some
> > of his other time, time that Rava was using to engage in 
> talmid torah, 
> > to do what might be considered discretionary gilimus chassadim. ..
>  one rather has to conclude that 
> > Hashem poskened like Abaye in this case and that the gemora brought 
> > the story and the ages until which they lived to make that clear ..
> 
> So how do you learn pshat in 'vetalmud torah keneged kulom"?

Well the halachic sources when quoting the reference phrase it slightly
differently and add a critical word "shikul", which does rather suggest
we are talking about heavenly scales rather than earthly doings - eg the
language of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 246 si'if 18) "talmud
torah shikul kneged kol hamitzvos" .    The longer form in the Tur is
"v'ain lecha mitzvah b'kol hamitzvos kulan shehi shkula kneged talmid
torah ele talmud torah keneged kol hamitzvos kulan shehatalmud mevi
l'yade ma'aseh".  And the nose keliim, as well as referring to your
mishna, also refer back to the gemora in kiddushin 40b in which they
were asked which is greater talmud torah or ma'asim and while Rabbi
Tarfon said ma'asim, rabbi Akiva said talmud torah because talmud torah
brings lyade ma'asim.  Note also that from Megila 3a that in order to
hear the megila, the cohanim etc are mevatel from the avodah, and in
order to do the avodah, one is mevatel from talmud torah so as kal
vchomer one is mevatel talmud torah.  On the other hand, the Shulchan
Aruch does bring l'halacha (as does the Tur) that one is only to be
mevatel from talmud torah for mitzvos that cannot be done by way of
others. 

And various of the meforshim grapple with the question: - what do you
mean that talmud torah is greater if all it does is bring you to ma'asim
and it keeps being pushed off for various mitzvos.  One answer (see
Tosphos there) is that we are dealing with am ha'aratzim who have never
learnt, and come to ask which they should do first - and since an am
ha'aretz cannot be a chassid, he should clearly learn first so that he
knows what to do.  However this rather seems to imply that we are
considering all the bochrim in yeshiva who are not doing any chessed
because of the need to do talmud torah am ha'aretzim.  Another answer is
brought in the Bach (inter alia) which is that the reason one has has to
drop the talmud torah for a while is because one can always come back to
his talmud torah after he had done the mitzvah such as listen to megila,
but if the time for listening to megila passes, then that mitzvah has
been completely lost.  It is almost as though the very fact that the
mitzvah of Talmud Torah is so weighty and can be done at any time of the
day and night means that so long as one does some talmud torah then if
you do the other mitzvos as well you end up getting the reward of talmud
torah plus the other mitzvos, whereas if you just do talmud torah the
other mitzvos, being less weighty, are liable to fly out of your hands
and get more easily lost.  Ie no matter how important the one is, talmud
torah plus other mitzvos is better than talmud torah and the other
mitzvos being lost.

The Drisha there has an explanation that is probably more to your taste,
which is that if you were actually mekayim all 613 mitzvos, yes that
would outweigh talmud torah, but that talmud torah outweighs one or two
mitzvos because it will end up bringing you to perform many many mitzvos
(ie he seems to be saying that while we have a concept of one mitzvah
causing another, this is not as strong for a standard mitzvah as for
talmud torah).  That still seems to presuppose, however, that the ideal
is to get to many mitzva performance, not to be in talmud torah
indefinitely and never reach the next stage.

One thought I had - which was suggested to me by the reference in the
shach siman 246 si'if katan 18 that one should go look at Yoreh Deah
siman 240 si'if 12.  If you go there, you discover that the reference is
to the halachos of kibud av v'aim.  And the si'if contains very similar
language to that regarding talmud torah in a circumstance where the
father says to the son, bring me some water, and the son also has in
front of him other mitzvos that need doing or they will be lost - if
those other mitzvos can be done by others, then he should let the others
do the mitzvah and attend to his father, but if there aren't others
there to attend to the mitzva, he should do the mitzvah first, and only
then return to performing kibud av.  Now why do we say that one should
do the mitzvah first, - because when it comes to a question of whose
kavod should come first, rav or talmid, the rav comes first, and
therefore kavod shamayim comes first.  So can we say that (and this is
where I am going off on my own a bit here I think) that while there are
various mitzvos associated with talmud torah (as I think RDE has
suggested in the name of RMF) that one can understand the requirement
not merely to say Shema twice daily but to learn day and night as in a
way being about kavod hatorah and being the fundamental way of giving
kavod hatorah  (and perhaps giving kavod to talmidei chachamim, which is
derived from kavod hatorah, is really a secondary derivation since they
are those who spend their lives giving the primary kavod).  And that
while you are supposed to, like with one's father, drop doing the acts
of kavod in order to do other mitzvos.  If your father asked you for a
glass of water but you had to do something else first, you would still
spend the whole time thinking and worrying about getting your father
that water and it would certainly weigh on your mind (ie kind of like
RMF's reference to focus of your life). But you are still supposed to go
off and do the other mitzvos and all the other things you have to do.
Anyhow, I haven't seen this anywhere, I was just struck by the
similarity of language and it seemed to fit. 
> 
> SBA

Regards

Chana



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 8
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."