Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 118

Sun, 20 May 2007

• 1. Re: shemitta (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. SoVar VeKibbel (Meir Rabi)
• 3. shmitta (Ilana Sober)
• 4. shmitta (Ilana Sober)
• 5. Re: shmitta (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Z"L in English (Zvi Lampel)
• 7. Re: shemitta (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: SoVar VeKibbel (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: shelo osani (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: shemitta (A & C Walters)
• 11. Re: Z"L in English (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: shemitta (Samuel Svarc)
• 13. Re: shemitta (Moshe Feldman)
• 14. Going up to Har HaBayis (Dov Bloom)

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Who says we're dealing with tevel?  We have no idea where the
> produce comes from, or what if anything's been taken from it.
> It's demai, not tevel.

What you are describing is not demai. It is safek tevel. There's a 
very big difference.

Throughout halacha, there are many kulos which apply to demai, but 
this is due to the conditions which existed back then. These 
conditions do not exist now, and so the leniencies to not apply 
today. Specifically: Most people did take all the terumos and maasros 
properly, and technically this could be relied upon. However, a 
significant minority of people did *not* take trumos and maasros from 
their produce, and so Chazal instituted some restrictions. On the 
other hand, virtually everyone *did* properly take Teruma Gedolah, 
which is the most serious of the separations, and this allowed Chazal 
to include leniencies together with their chumros.

But none of that applies today. Either all the separations were done, 
or none of them were. This is a whole 'nother cheftza than "demai", 
and the proper term for it is "safek tevel".

According to my notes, a source for this is Chazon Ish, Maasros 7:17, 
but I cannot find my Chazon Ish right now to verify that.

Akiva Miller

 

 

I believe Rabbenu Tam suggests that those chaps who engage in jousting
matches as a form of entertaining the groom and bride, are not able to claim
financial compensation for damages suffered in those duels, since they have
understood the dangers and agreed to them. SoVar VeKibbel.

Is this not an argument that should equally apply to the game of throwing a
stone against a wall where the players try to catch and throw the stone back
or something like that? See Rashi Sanhedrin 77b. However in this case, if
someone gets killed, there may be a Golus sentence imposed or possibly it
may be more than a Shogeg in which case Golus will not grant immunity and he
must employ his own protection. 

 

meir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070521/6f9ad1ed/attachment.htm 

RZS: Who says we're dealing with tevel?  We have no idea where the produce
comes from, or what if anything's been taken from it.  It's demai, not
tevel.

I think demai is where we know they took terumah, which they take seriously,
but suspect they did not take ma'asrot?
- Ilana

RRK: ...whatever is planted before shmitta doesn't have a problem of
s'fichim.

oops - I guess my recollections of the end and aftermath of shmitta are
clearer than my memory of the beginning of shmitta before issur s'fichin
becomes relevant. So, l'maaseh, are there OBD vegetables available at the
beginning of shmitta, and later OBD becomes just fruits? Or am I putting my
foot in my mouth again?

- Ilana

Ilana Sober wrote:
> RZS: Who says we're dealing with tevel?  We have no idea where the produce
> comes from, or what if anything's been taken from it.  It's demai, not
> tevel.
> 
> I think demai is where we know they took terumah, which they take seriously,
> but suspect they did not take ma'asrot?

The amei haaretz in the time that masechet Demai is discussing were
trusted to take terumah gedolah, but not terumat maaser (because they
didn't realise they had to).  The result, though, is the same as if they
weren't trusted to take anything; the produce has to be treated as
safek tevel.  The only difference is that nowadays we have to take not
just 1% for terumat maaser (and 9% for maaser sheni/ani to be redeemed),
but a tiny bit more for terumah gedolah.  (In those days, of course,
terumah gedolah was approximately 2%, but nowadays we only take a
mashehu.)

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

From: "Rich, Joel" JRich@sibson.com Wed, 16 May 2007:

> See kiddushin 31b [8 lines from the bottom] and the maharsha there last one] referring to bereshit 18:18
(and Rashi there) implying it's the "source of blessing" approach. <



This is how I see it: Meharsha is pointing out that "zichrono l'bracha" is said  for live people as well as dead, but with dead, the phrase "l'chayay ha-olom ha-ba"  is added. Pashtus, the first phrase means the same in both cases. Maharsha cites the posuk (Breishis 18:17-18) about Avraham. He's referring to the understanding of the Gemora (Yuma 38b) and Midrash Rabba (on the posuk) which points out that upon mentioning (Rashi: ha-mazkir) a tsaddik, one should interrupt to give him a blessing, just as once Hashem mentioned Avraham, he interrupted to give him the bracha "may he become a great nation..."), in accordance with the posuk in Mishlei (10:7) "Zecher Tsaddik L'bracha." This is also said regarding Noach: These are the generations of Noach--Noach was a righteous man, etc." (the bracha in this case being a compliment).When a person already passed away (and after 12 months can be considered a tsaddik), the appropriate blessing is that he will gain the pleasure of olom ha-bah.

My chavrusa tells me he heard of someone who long ago would write to others with the salutation "Zecher Tsaddik L'vracha." This practice would no doubt raise eyebrows now, and mislead historians about individual's lifespans..

However, the Ibn Ezra on Mishlei understands Hashem to be the "zocheir," which probably means, "May He remember, (consider) this person worthy of a beracha.

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070520/c36969b8/attachment.html 

On 5/19/07, A & C Walters <acwalters@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
> Also, those who say that by avoiding the "difficulties" of the mitzvah, it
> should be fakert, a person should look for them, and enjoy them, let's not
> forget shitas Tos; (beshem R' Chaim) Kesub. 110b that because of the
> difficulties of shmitta etc, one is potur from yishuv E"Y. There is, also,
> no mitsvah to find mitsvahs; we have enough that are hard enough; I am
> struggling with what I am mechayiv, and probably not doing that properly -
> why look for more! (Of course, if someone is capable of doing them all
> properly, then why not add on a bunch more; it is more schar, but I speak
> for myself, that I have enough)
>
Do you take this approach with other mitzvos?  Can you *really* say that
you keep NO chumras at all, and take on *nothing* beyond your absolute
obligation?

KT,
Michael

Meir Rabi wrote:

> I believe Rabbenu Tam suggests that those chaps who engage in jousting 
> matches as a form of entertaining the groom and bride, are not able to 
> claim financial compensation for damages suffered in those duels, since 
> they have understood the dangers and agreed to them. SoVar VeKibbel.
> 
> Is this not an argument that should equally apply to the game of 
> throwing a stone against a wall where the players try to catch and throw 
> the stone back or something like that? See Rashi Sanhedrin 77b. However 
> in this case, if someone gets killed, there may be a Golus sentence 
> imposed or possibly it may be more than a Shogeg in which case Golus 
> will not grant immunity and he must employ his own protection.

Savar vekibbel is a legitimate consideration in dinei mamonot, where
the plaintiff is seeking financial compensation for his injury; if he
willingly accepted the risk, then he consented to the injury and is
not entitled to be paid for it.  The same would presumably apply if
he was killed and his estate sued for financial compensation for his
death.  But in the second case we are not dealing with dinei mamonot;
nobody is asking for financial compensation.  Instead we're dealing
with the crime of manslaughter, and for that purpose the victim's
assumption of risk is irrelevant: even if a person explicitly consents
to be killed, that does not excuse the killer from criminal culpability.

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

In reference to R' Micha Berger's post that:
> BTW, the MB reads "shelo asani aku"m
I had written:
> Can anyone else think of a similar example? I have vague
> recollections of abbreviations in tefilos, but a *bracha*
> is another matter entirely.

Here are some examples for comparison:

-- In the Mi Sheberach for Iyar and Cheshvan, I've heard both "Bahab" 
and "Sheni Chamishi v'Sheni".

-- In the Mi Sheberach for the Israeli Army, I've heard both "Tzahal" 
and "Tz'va Hagana L'Yisrael".

-- Towards the end of the Kesuba, I've heard it read both as "Chazal" 
and "Chachameinu Zichronam Livracha". It is written as "Chazal" both 
in my wife's kesuba and my daughter-in-law's, but perhaps others have 
it spelled out.

(If anyone can find an example of an abbreviation which appears in a 
zemer or piyut, where the number of syllables is significant, that 
would be machria towards that pronunciation.)

On the other hand, there are tefilos which include gematria-style 
numbers, and I suspect that everyone reads them as written, and not 
as numbers:

-- In the Mi Sheberach for male cholim, it is "Ramach Evarav v'Shisah 
Gidav", not (the Hebrew of) "Two Hundred and etc etc". (Sorry, my 
dikduk is fading, and didn't want to risk getting the forms wrong.)

-- Many people say a certain tefila prior to certain mitzvos. Many of 
them reference the above 248 and 365, and also mention the "Taryag 
Mitzvos", leaving the 613 as a single abbreviated word.

Akiva Miller

<mkopinsky@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c1b3e2ee0705201015m38a234fbgd75b5343f8d14a6e@mail.gmail.com>...
> On 5/19/07, A & C Walters <acwalters@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Also, those who say that by avoiding the "difficulties" of the 
> > mitzvah, it should be fakert, a person should look for them, and 
> > enjoy them, let's not forget shitas Tos; (beshem R' Chaim) Kesub. 
> > 110b that because of the difficulties of shmitta etc, one is potur 
> > from yishuv E"Y. There is, also, no mitsvah to find mitsvahs; we 
> > have enough that are hard enough; I am struggling with what I am 
> > mechayiv, and probably not doing that properly - why look for more! 
> > (Of course, if someone is capable of doing them all properly, then 
> > why not add on a bunch more; it is more schar, but I speak for 
> > myself, that I have enough)
> >
> Do you take this approach with other mitzvos?  Can you *really* say 
> that you keep NO chumras at all, and take on *nothing* beyond your 
> absolute obligation?

You missed my point. I did not say that I do not have any chumras (I learnt
in Brisk, and in Brisk it is said that one doesn't have any chumras; just
try to be yoitzeh me'ikur hadin according to all the shitas - this is
actually untrue; in Brisk one is not trying to be yoitseh all the shitas;
the Brisker Rov was many times meikel) All I said was there is no inyan to
shaf new mitzvehs. Of course there is an inyan to be machmir on the mitsvahs
that exist. For example, is there a mitzvah to make nedorim? To be a nozir?
It is discouraged!!! Why?!? Because one doesn't need to find more mitsvahs
and issurim. Of course if one IS a nozir, he should be machmir on all the
shitas of what he can eat, when to take a haircut etc.. But why jump into
hot water...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally - A spam blocker that actually works.
http://www.bluebottle.com

On Wed, May 16, 2007 9:05 am, mkopinsky@gmail.com wrote:
: According to the Nefesh Hachaim, even when we say G-d is blessed
: ("Blessed art Thou..."), we are saying that he is a source of
: blessing.
...

(Tangent: Does anyone know what the word "bless" means any better than
"barukh"? The English word has little meaning, and probably
connotations that are counterproductive.)

That is specific when speaking of "barukh atah Hashem". The problem is
that berakhah is a lashon ribui, and there is no ribui shayah when
speaking of HQBH.

But in the usual case, there would be no motivation to take the word
from its simple sense of ribui. Otherwise, would you insist that when
someone gives someone else a berakhah, they are declaring them a
source for others rather than an intended recipient?

On Wed, May 16, 2007 2:29 pm, R Zvi Lampel brings our attention to his
other initial:
: Another (if not the only real, in this context) translation of
: "zecher"? is "mention"...

The whole think about repeating a pasuq of parashas Zachor arises from
this issue. The Gra made a distinction between "zecher" and "zeicher",
that one is a memory, and the other a memorial, a reminder, or a
mention. Since the parashah begins "zechor" and ends "al tishqach",
the duty must be to obliterate all mention (verbal and physical) of
Amaleiq, not all memory. His talmidim were mesupaqim which means
which, leaving them debating as to which the Gaon was maqpid on
saying.

We might have a similar problem here too. Trusting ben Asher, it's
"zeikher tzadiq livrakhah" in Mishlei 10:7. Now just tell me which one
"zeikher" means... According to R' Chaim Volozhoner (since he is
already on this thread), it would mean "memorial", with the more
rounded vowels being the more causative conjugation. Much like RZL's
conclusion.

But if we were trusting Ben Asher or taking sides on that machloqes,
most of us wouldn't be repeating the pasuq in parashas Zachor...

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

>From: Moshe Feldman [mailto:moshe.feldman@gmail.com]
>
>On 5/19/07, Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >First, I noted that Rav Kook's understanding is the pashut pshat in
>> > >the Ramban.
>
>On 5/18/07, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:
>> > In R' Kook's opinion. The CI disagreed with this.
>
>See Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Shu"t Har Tzvi OC 2:68 who understands
>the Ramban that there is a mitzvah to eat peiros sheviis and quotes
>some others who understood the Ramban that way.  He does not mention
>that this understanding of the Ramban is a subject of dispute.

I fail to follow the logic here. His failing to mention the CI's position
causes it not to exist?

>However, the Sridei Aish 2:90 believes that the Ramban does not
>believe that there is a mitzvah to eat peiros sheviis, as nowhere in
>Shas is there a hint that there is such a mitzvah.  (Counterargument:
>couldn't the same argument be used to argue that there is no mitzvah
>of yishuv EY, yet the Ramban learns such a mitzvah from the psukim?)

Aren't we forced to say that the real poshut p'shat in the Ramban is that
the Ramban doesn't hold there's a mitzvah do eat peiros sheviis? This would
explain, both the Seridie Aish as well as the CI. Furthermore, in a previous
post you agreed, after reading the Ramban inside, that "poshut pshat" is not
so poshut after all. I.E. You were able to see both interpretations as
fitting with the words.

KT,
MSS 

I originally wrote:
>Rav Matanya Ben-Shachar (rav of Neve Daniel) pointed out that as shemitta
>nowadays is drabbanan, such a view avoids a drabbanan but . . .
>undermines the mitzva of yishuv haaretz (deoraisa according to Ramban), as
>Jewish farmers flounder financially and may abandon farming (and there is
>less and less farming in Israel today).

I then wrote:
> >> > And Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that according to the Rambam it's a
> >> >mitzvah kiyumis.
> >if it's a mitzvah kiyumis, it's a value
> >that we all share, just that some prefer doing other mitzvos (just as
> >some people are better suited to fulfilling certain mitzvos than
> >others).  But clearly it's an important value, as all sefer Devarim
> >talks about that.  If so, we should not do things which undermine the
> >ability of others to fulfill that mitzvah.

On 5/20/07, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:
> No one is undermining, they are simply not facilitating. And since according
> to R' Moshe it's a mitzvah kiyumis, I don't understand how one can require
> someone else to facilitate their own mitzvah kiyumis, as you are arguing.

Causing Jewish farmers to stop farming is not merely not facilitating
their mitzvah but undermining their kiyum ha'mitzva.

For example: if I don't help fund someone's aliyah, I am simply not
facilitating his kiyum ha'mitzva.  However, if someone is living in
Israel and I organize a boycott of his products so that he is forced
to leave Israel, that is undermining his mitzvah.

> >> >First, I noted that Rav Kook's understanding is the pashut pshat in
> >> >the Ramban.
> >>
> >> In R' Kook's opinion. The CI disagreed with this.
> >
> >In looking at the Ramban in shi'chi'chas ha'asin 3, it looks like it
> >could be read both ways.
>
> Are you now conceding that it's plausible that the CI held his version was
> pashut p'shat in the Ramban?

Yes.  After I looked inside (rather than on reporting on the reports
of others).  :-)

> > Interestingly, the way the Megillas Esther
> >quotes the Ramban, he adds language which makes it clear that it's a
> >mitzvah to eat.
>
> Since when can't the CI argue with Megillas Esther (we are referring to the
> commentary on the Ramban's critiques, not the sefer of K'suvim)?

Of course he can.  I'm just saying that this is not merely a machlokes
of Rav Kook (a tziyoni who many charedim are not go'res) and CI.  BTW,
according to the notes in the Frankel Sefer haMitzvos, the Rit Algazi
Hilchos Challah (end of siman 2) agrees with RK, and there is a long
discussion of this machlokes in Lechem Yehudah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

The subject of going up to Har Habayit nowadays has been written about in dozens if not hundreds of tshuvot and articles over the last 40 years since 1967, as well as a number of monographs, books and scholarly articles and lectures. The main effort is to determine the exact location of the "mekom hamikdash" and therby identify the parts of "har habayit" - the area enclosed in the inner walls of the Temple Mount - that Jews should be permitted to enter. 

The recent efforts to have Jews ascend in tahara are led by such diverse figures as R Shear Yashuv Cohen, Chief Rabbi of Haifa and son of the famous Nazir of Jerusalem;  R Shlomo Riskin Chief R of Efrat; and R Meidan now one of the Rashei Yeshiva of Har Etzion. Those opposed include such RZ leaders as R Avraham Shapira RY of Mercaz Harav and former Chief Rabbi, R Shlomo Aviner of Ateret Cohanim and R A Lichtenstein , RY of Har Etzion (however the Rosh Kollel of Har Etzion  R Levi gives classes and leads groups ascending to har habayit).

Those in favor of such ascents feel that it is a kiyum of the mitzva of "mora mikdash" that we can do nowadays after many centuries of not having this opportunity. Many seem to feel it is important geo-politically as the Arabs say that the Jews have no connection to Har Habayit, ve-ho-ra'aya they just daven at the kotel while the Arabs have free run of the Mount. My guess is that many proponents feel that it is also eschatologically important as a sign of "it-orruta de-la-tata".

The mishna in Midot says that the "halachic" har habayit is ' ta"k ama al ta"k amah '  500x500 amot, or less tan 200 by 200 yards (i'm not being exact and there are plenty of machlokot about the exact length of an amah).  The present kotel Western wall is nearly half a kilometer so the present enclosed space included a lot of areas that are not halachicly "har habayit" in terms of the issurim involved. 

Har habayit is considered machane leviah, and forbidden to a zav, zava, nidah, yoledet and baal keri. That is why those who ascend to har habayit all go to the mikve immediately before, and women are not part of these groups.  There are 4 hour and 16 hour "courses" preparing people before they ascend, where they learn the relevant dinnim.

An important question is to delineate the exact areas that are mutar. Those who go up on har habayit after going to the mikve, and while not wearing leather shoes , basicly follow what is know as the Radbaz's shita. This allows them to make a circuit keeping relatively close to the walls, see ad be close to the makom hamikdash, while staying away from the area near "the dome above the rock" which many shitot hold is "even hashtiya". 

See the Meiri Shavuot 15b where he says "vehaminhag hapashut lehikaneis sham lefi ma sheshamanu".

See Igrot Moshe OC V2 siman 113, RMF's tshuva to R Efraim Greenblatt in the last paragraph where he metions agav urcha that there are places on har habayit where tmei meit are allowed and other tumot you can tovel.

The question of the machloket rishonim about kedushat har habayit and the exact location of the mikdash seemed to be a subject of discussion between two Gedolim at the beginning of the 20th century who were both "before their time" as they forsaw many issues which became important after the establishment of the State of Israel. I refer to Rav Kook and R Chaim Hirshenson of Hoboken, in chelek 4 of RCH shut Malki Bakodesh p 4 ff. 

A series of articles with halachic sources as well as maps, and physical and archeological arguments can be found in Tchumin, put out by Machon Tzomet, V 9 p 461-511.

Rav Goren wrote a whole "kuntres" on the location of the makom hamikdash using in addition to poskim, maps and photographs of Har HaBayit belonging to the IDF, when he was Chief Chaplain after 1967.

A Hebrew shiur of R Shear Yashuv Cohen given at KBY can be found at http://kby.org.il/article_details.asp?pid=1895&;itemid=8430. He claims that "rov haPoskim" agree that Jews did/or could bring korbanot even without a Mikdosh, so this implies that you could go up on Har HaBAyit, Ayein sham. He also mentions the machloket between RCH in Malki Bakodesh who was matir to ascend on Har Habayit and Rav Kook who was opposed. 

There are some Hebrew internet "popular" explanations like Machon Hamikdash's site http://www.temple.org.il/show.asp?id=6524 and a very brief English map and "ikarei halachot" for those who are interested in going up to har Habayit on http://www.geocities.com/mikdash-build/ascent.html



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 118
***************************************

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..."