Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 123

Sun, 27 May 2007

• 1. Re: Torah study vs/ other contributions to society (Micha Berger)
• 2. yishuv EY (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Wording of Kaddish (D&E-H Bannett)
• 4. Ascending to the Har Habayit (Yisrael Medad)
• 5. Re: Torah Lishmah (reuven koss)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] shelo osani ... (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 7. Re: yishuv EY (SBA)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] shelo osani ... (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: SoVar VeKibbel (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] shelo osani ... (Mike Miller)
• 11. Eidem zomemim (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] shelo osani ... (Micha Berger)

I blogged my impressions of RYHutner's concept that I called the
preference of living a "broad life". See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/05/a-broad-life.shtml>. This touches
both on talmud Torah vs other mitzvos as well as mitzvos vs persuing a
career.

I am befuddled by the amount of attention we're giving Megillah 16b.
After all, Mordechai himself, the subject of the discussion, chose
hatzalas hefashos. "Im la'eis kazos", even though he was sure that
others were available. "Rov echav", most of Anshei Keneses haGedolah
approved to the point of not thinking less of him.

Well, the SA (YD 251:14) says it's mutar to take money from learning
Torah to pay off the gov't, since that's hatzalas nefashos. The Ta"z
(6) answers how this is not soseir our gemara, which places TT first.
It's not about what he ought to do, but about being better off being
the kelaf upon which TSBP is written than needing to answer the call
of hatzalas nefashos.

Clearly, the Taz holds our gemara is not prescriptive.

The Chasam Sofer (parashas Zachor, pg 193) writes that Mordechai got
the job of hatzalas nefashos because HQBH valued his learning less.
That's why Hashem put him in a place where his Torah study was
interrupted, rather than doing the same to theirs. And when Anshei
Kenesses haGedolah saw this, they demoted him one level.


On Wed, May 16, 2007 7:28 pm, R Doron Beckerman wrote:
:>> What of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his group, who are granted
:>> Toraso Umanuso exemptions from Mitzvos Ma'asiyos?
:>> ... and whose talmidim didn't succeed and we are told not to follow?

: We are told not to follow his Derech for *the multitudes* (*Harbeh*
: Assu etc.), but the Biur Halachah (156) says that there are
: individuals who can...

Nu, so that answers the BH's opinion of the Gra or what he would think
of the CI, if either really did live "ivory tower Torah" lives. It
says little about what anyone else should be doing. (For that matter,
it could mean that any negative statement about Mordechai might be
because he personally should have been a RSbY, and also not
generalizable.)

...
:>> So I reiterate my question -- how does this notion of focussing on
:>> one mitzvah not violate the mishnah of havi zahir, which seems to
:>> me to advocate as broad of a focus on mitzvos as possible?

: I think the Mishnah means not to be Mezalzel in any Mitzvah. Not to
: fulfill the Middas HaZehirus -rather one must be particular to keep
: it with all the Dikdukim etc. that one keeps the others....
...
: IOW, this Mishnah is LaAfukei a person who might ignore the obligation
: to stop learning to shake the Lulav because he is learning and racking
: up a million points a second instead of the thousand points for Lulav,
: Al Derech Mashal. But the Mishnah is not advocating anything beyond
: that.

But "that" is exactly nidon didan!

Advocating not ignoring lulav is at least the same as advocating not
ignoring Zaka.

The mishnah says that one shouldn't ignore lulav for learning (the
reisha) because (as the seifa continues) you're simply wrong if you
think you can know that one is "a million points a second" and the
other a thousand -- i ata yodei'ah secharan!

Similarly you can't know that working Zaka is fewer brownie points per
second than learning. Or do you mean something other than "sechar"
when speaking of "points"?

As it is, I'm convinced that since Mordechai did the right thing, even
if it was the lesser choice, there are at least two axis of value. I
did not put much thought to how one maps them to sechar. From a causal
perspective, the one with greater self-refinement, that changes the
person's "ba'asher hu sham" (to quote the leining for RH), would be
the one for which he is judged and thus associated with sechar.

What then of a case where Mordechai is told not to do the more
refining act? Is he to give up sechar because he followed halakhah?
How is that tzedeq?

This line of reasoning is the same one by which I concluded that
Mordechai was lessened in one way but refined in another -- just
coming to it from the opposite direction.

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

For a start you could try studying the Vayoel Moshe, 'Maamar Yishuv EY'
where it is thoroughly discussed and explained (in just under 200 pages)
quoting 100s of sources from Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim.>>

In spite of SBA Satmar is not mainstream psak. Try R. Tzvi Yehuda Kook for
a different perspective.

On a different topic a son of my friend learns in Yeshivat Har Hamor which
is
considered a very right wing DL yeshiva. He said that though very strict in
halacha
that were insistent on using heter mechira because that was the psak of R.
Kook.
Of course Vayoel Moshe would not agree -)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070526/456e1b56/attachment-0001.htm 

Re: <<How do we know what is correct nikkud for Aramaic? 
Are there old
manuscripts with nikkud written in?>>

There certainly are old mss of Aramaic with nikkud.  Targum 
Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi and Yb"U.  The Yemenite 
targums are usually considered to be more accurate on 
nikkud.

  Re: << According to Artscroll Gemaras, "yes" in Aramaic is 
technically "Ein", not "een" as is commonly used. (R. Frank 
in "Practical Talmud Dictionary" has "een", and Jastrow has 
both.)>>

As Aramaic yes is similar to the Hebrew equivalent "hein" it 
might have had the same nikkud.  All it lost is its "h". 
But, then, modern Israeli Hebrew also seems to have lost its 
"h" after losing a few other letters in previous 
generations.

D.

Shoshana wrote that:

*you can't even move your
lips in prayer on the Temple Mount -- without getting thrown in jail.*
Actually, you just get very unceremoniously removed.  But the point is well
taken, the Waqf controls the Temple Mount as a religious/holy site and
despite the fact that Jews consider it sacred to be treated according to
religious instructions, like putting up signs where one can enter and where
one can't, for example, a Jew is "identity-less" there.  He is but a tourist
but as someone with claims - nada.  Even the Ministry of Religious Affairs
does not define the Temple Mount as a *Jewish* holy site.

Micha wrote:

*This may explain why RALichtenstein would be opposed to going up to Har
haBayis. Even if he thought the science was theoretically correct, it
carries no halachic weight.*
My guess is that he opposes ascending to the Har Habayit mainly because he
feels that it is an improper act that might encourage "Messianic" theology
as I am sure that with a PhD in English literature, he respects science and
its contribution to Halachic resolutions of problems.  Even he would admit
that a little archeological digging, measurements, etc. would probably
reveal to us, at the very least, where the 500 cubit square wasn't within
today's Temple Mount compound even if to exactly locate each and every
particular including the Altar would be perhaps too difficult.  But if we do
have that information, that would would mean we could ascend to certain
portions, which would lead to heightened Mikdash cognizance which would lead
to further Mikdash studies, which would not sit well with RAL's outlook of
the political world.

But maybe someone on this list could simply ask him.


-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070527/2cd88ed4/attachment-0001.html 

> To what degree does Torah study "lishmah" mean one or more of these?
>
> 1.? Study to understand the subject matter as deeply as possible
> 2.? Study to become closer to HaShem
> 3.? Study for the sake of HaShem's glory
> 4.? Study to be able to practice mitzvot properly (or at least to know 
> how, in the case of mitzvot that?the Jew?can't personally do because the 
> Beit HaMikdash isn't operating, or?he's not a Kohen, etc.)
> 5.? Study for any other reason (give details)
>
> Thanks!
>

There  is a "teffila" that some say before they learn, it reads like this: 
hareinee rotzeh lilmod k'dei sheyvi-aynee hatalmud leeday maaseh vleeday 
midos yesharos vleeday yedios hatorah.

So -1.? "Study to understand the subject matter as deeply as possible " is 
included in yedios hatorah.
"2.? Study to become closer to HaShem" is an outcome of learning lishmah.
"3.? Study for the sake of HaShem's glory"  I would include it with midos 
yesharos - when one has good midos then he can make a lot of "kiddush 
hashems" with what ever he does.  also this is an outcome of ones learning
"4.? Study to be able to practice mitzvot properly (or at least to know how, 
in the case of mitzvot that?the Jew?can't personally do because the Beit 
HaMikdash isn't operating, or?he's not a Kohen, etc.)" is included in leeday 
maaseh.
reuven

R' MB on Areivim:
*I asked my LOR about it after seeing the grammatically correct form
*suggested for women in Rinat Yisrael. For the curious, after getting
*his pesaq, I taught my daughter "Modah ani". Fortunately, it's the
*same number of syllables as the masculine version, so I didn't have to
*think of a new sing-song for it.

If one can change the Nusach Hatefillah to suit his/her state of being,
shouldn't there be many, many changes to be made? Every Tefillah in Lashon
Rabim will have to be changed to Lashon Yachid, when davening alone, and the
opposite when davening with a Tzibbur. Every Lashon Zachor will have to be
changed to Lashon Nekeivah for women. I don't have Mareh Mekomos, but I
highly doubt that the Meyasdei Nusach Hatefillah had this in mind. Why
should Modeh/Modah Ani be different (going with the assumption that the
reader agrees with me)?

KT,
MYG

P.S. Haneiros Hallalu would have to be Haneir Hazeh (or is it Zos?) on the
first night of Chanukah, or for someone lighting only one candle...

From: Eli Turkel

SBA:
For a start you could try studying the Vayoel Moshe, 'Maamar Yishuv EY'
where it is thoroughly discussed and explained (in just under 200 pages)
quoting 100s of sources from Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim.>>
---


>>

Mainstream, shmainstream, looking inside the Vayoel Moshe
(pages 236-242) it is quite obvious that this has nothing to do with the
Rebbe's personal psak.

Amongst others it cites the Ramban (one of the main sources for of Mitzvas
Yishuv EY bizman hazeh) on 'Vatitma Haaretz" (end of Parshas Achrei) and in
Parshas Vayera on 'Vaneida osom', that sinning in EY is far, far worse than
doing so in Chu'L.

The VM here (and elsewhere) also discusses (amidst some pilpul on the views
of the Avnei Nezer) the words of Rav Zeira (Brochos 57) who said that he
would not move to EY until he is shown a sign from heaven (via a dream) that
he is free of sin.

Another source, the Kolbo - beshem Teshuvas Maharam - after highly praising
going to EY, adds "...ubilvad sheyeh porush venizhar mikol avon, umekayem
kol hamitzvos...she'im yechto ye'onesh yoser me'im yechteh
beChu''L...ve'eino
domeh mored bemalchus bepaltin lemored chutz lepaltin, vehu eretz ocheles
yoshveho.....Ve'oson..hanohagim..kalus rosh..koreh ani aleihem vatovo'u
vetetamu es artzi mi bikesh zos miyedchem remos chatzeray..  Avol mi
sheholech lehisnaheg bikedusha uvetahara ein ketz lis'choroy..."

Sefer Charedim (going by the Ramban's shitta that every minute that one is
in EY, he is being mekayem a mitzva): "..haboim l'EY...umordim uposhim
umarbim bemishta'os shel seudos mereus..aleihem hakosuv omer vatovou
vetetamu es artzi venachlosi samtem leto'evah...acharei mosom yegorshum
chutza kak'lovim.. (Ayen Pirkei deR'Elozor 34) ...

The VM adds to this that the Charedim is not even referring to serious
aveiros eg. Chilul Shabbos or Ochlei Treifos, but  of people out to have a
'good time' (seudos mereus) - something which VM shows can at times be
considered a good thing (ayen shom rayosov). But obviously overdoing it
and/or when it brings to bitul Torah and 'bederech s'chok vekalos rosh' is
enough for the Chareidim to call it an aveirah and describe it as 'mordim
uposhim beheichal haMelech'.

Further the VM cites the Sheloh and Maharit (both of whom hold as per the
Ramban) having similar views re sinning in EY.

There is more there for those interested - from additional 'mainstream'
poskim.

>>Try R. Tzvi Yehuda Kook for a different perspective.

Huh?
He has sources saying that baalei aveireh SHOULD be oleh to EY?

>>On a different topic a son of my friend learns in Yeshivat Har Hamor which
is considered a very right wing DL yeshiva. He said that though very strict
in halacha that were insistent on using heter mechira because that
was the psak of R. Kook.  Of course Vayoel Moshe would not agree -)
>>

Of course.  And AFAIK, neither would R. Kook.
(And I doubt that up there, in the Olom HaEmes, he appreciates such 'kavod'.
Aderaba, I would think he would like to say to them that he is 'moychel
tovos'..)

His hetter was never a lekatchilah but rather because of the situation in EY
at that time (and as the Rabbanut harashit actually mention in their
advertisements before each Shemitta. They - who mostly do not personally
touch HM produce - add the claim that the Israeli economic situation this
shemitta is still not good enough..)

But I have no doubt that R. Kook (at least senior) would have long ago
discarded the HM after, a)  the existence of his yearned-for 'aschalta
degeula' state for over half a century,  and
b) having seen how thousands of Jews are these days quite comfortably
surviving Shemita after Shemita without resorting to the HM.

SBA

On 5/27/07, Moshe Yehuda Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
> R' MB on Areivim:
> *I asked my LOR about it after seeing the grammatically correct form
> *suggested for women in Rinat Yisrael. For the curious, after getting
> *his pesaq, I taught my daughter "Modah ani". Fortunately, it's the
> *same number of syllables as the masculine version, so I didn't have to
> *think of a new sing-song for it.
> 
> If one can change the Nusach Hatefillah to suit his/her state of being,
> shouldn't there be many, many changes to be made? Every Tefillah in Lashon
> Rabim will have to be changed to Lashon Yachid, when davening alone, and the
> opposite when davening with a Tzibbur. Every Lashon Zachor will have to be
> changed to Lashon Nekeivah for women. I don't have Mareh Mekomos, but I
> highly doubt that the Meyasdei Nusach Hatefillah had this in mind. Why
> should Modeh/Modah Ani be different (going with the assumption that the
> reader agrees with me)?

1. The number of places where the nusach hatefilla changes because of
masculine/feminine is very few.  (The only ones I'm aware of are in
modeh/modah ani and in Elokai Neshama.)  Where lashon yachid appears in
tefilla (for example, the yehi ratzon after birchos hashachar; elokai
netzor), the first person is usually used only as the object, not the
subject, of the sentence, and thus no male/female difference exists.  
(i.e., tatzileini is the same for masculine or feminine.)

2. Is it clear that the reason why we use lashon rabim is because we are 
davening *with* (i.e. physically together with) a tzibbur?  We are making 
general bakashos for klal yisrael.

3. Is Modeh Ani a tefilla?  Or is it just a statement that has become
minhag to say?  Is there anything wrong with changing the nusach of
statements?  Was it written by AKG?  Elokai neshama, as a bracha, would be
more difficult to change, but Rinat Yisrael changes both.

> P.S. Haneiros Hallalu would have to be Haneir Hazeh (or is it Zos?) on the
> first night of Chanukah, or for someone lighting only one candle...

To strengthen your question:

"She'anachnu madlikim..."  Who is lighting?  If the BHB is the only one 
lighting, should he say She'ani madlik?

I think there are two possibilities:
1) Ein Hachi nami.
2) anachnu=klal yisrael. neros=everyone's candles.

KT,
Michael

On 5/25/07, Meir Rabi <meirabi@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Michael responded:
>
> Sovar v'kibbel ("He thought and he accepted") can only be a halacha in daas,
> and thus can only work in an area where daas is relevant.  In dinei mamonus,
> I have the right to be mochel, so B"D understands that your participating
> implies a thought-out (savar) acceptance (kibel) of the risk.  For dinei
> nefashos, where mechila is irrelevant i.e. daas isn't a p'tur, assumptions
> about daas kol shekein will not generate a p'tur.
>>>>>>
>
>
> Is it not clear that in defining the types of activities that are
> "acceptable and not too risky" like bungee jumping etc., we use people of a
> particular society or culture to make that evaluation? Well, that's
> something to do with diney nefashos and yet we see the mindset of the people
> is critical in establishing the acceptable standards. Surely it is not too
> great a leap to argue that we determine the scales of Shoggeg and Mezzid by
> taking in to account the Sovar Vekibbel of the participants in this
> dangerous game. BTW I assume that Halacha did not forbid playing this game
> because it was, at least in those times, a fairly acceptable risk taking
> behaviour even though it offered no benefit and there was no need to engage
> in such activities.

Even if danger is determined by societal norms (an assertion that I am
entirely unsure of, and would like to see sources about), that is very
different from taking into account the daas of the participants
themselves.  For example, Russian roulette, according to whatever
standards, is not an acceptable risk.  If someone decides to play, his
stupid decision does not make the death be considered shogeg.  Conversely,
two participants in a NASCAR race do put their cars into what normal
people would consider an unacceptable risk.  Their decision does not make
damage to their car be considered oness, but it does get rid of their
right to claim any money, as they knew full well their car could be
totalled.

KT,
Michael

On 5/27/07, Moshe Yehuda Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
> If one can change the Nusach Hatefillah to suit his/her state of being,
> shouldn't there be many, many changes to be made? Every Tefillah in Lashon
> Rabim will have to be changed to Lashon Yachid, when davening alone, and the
> opposite when davening with a Tzibbur. Every Lashon Zachor will have to be
> changed to Lashon Nekeivah for women. I don't have Mareh Mekomos, but I
> highly doubt that the Meyasdei Nusach Hatefillah had this in mind. Why
> should Modeh/Modah Ani be different (going with the assumption that the
> reader agrees with me)?

Most tefillos are already written in Lashon Rabim, and it could be
argued that this is the proper form, even if one must daven
b'yichudus. OTOH, the brachos in question (and modeh ani) are
singular; shelo asani, and not shelo asanu, and thus, perhaps, are
intended to be individualistic.

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

the gemara in makot states that if the accused was put to death and then the witnesses were zomeimed, then the original witnesses are not put to death. 

the kesef mishneh in hilchot eidut gives 2 reasons. The first is ein onshin min hadin and here the crime is so heinous that the earthly court putting him to death would be insufficient punishment. The 2nd reason is that if HKBH allowed the individual to be put to death by bet di he must have deserved it (a la behemtan shell tzaddikim) and thus can't kill eidim.The meiri offers a 3rd reason that to put them to death would require a new judicial process which would shine a light on bet din's error and so as to avoid this we don't put them to death.Any thoughts on the underlying philosophical differences? I have some but would like to hear others opinions.Ktjoel rich


THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 12:01:28AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
: If one can change the Nusach Hatefillah to suit his/her state of being,
: shouldn't there be many, many changes to be made? Every Tefillah in Lashon
: Rabim will have to be changed to Lashon Yachid, when davening alone, and the
: opposite when davening with a Tzibbur...

As others already pointed out, we use the tzibbur form because we
daven *for* the tzibbur not necessarily *in* a tzibbur. And the number
of tefillos written for the yachid that actually involve gendered
conjugation are few. (E-lokai Neshamah and E-lokai Netzor don't have
the petitioner doing anything, so the issue doesn't arise.) As others
already demonstrated, the issue is rare.

I do not know when the "shelo asani goy/nachri" version of the berachah
was coined. Aku"m wouldn't have this issue, although the full oveid
kochavim umazalos would potentially need to be converted to ovedes.

Modeh Ani, though, is of late vintage. No rishon mentions it. We're not
talking about playing with Chazal's matebei'ah.

I would say the same about "Hamaqom yenakheim eskhem/eskha/eskhen/osakh".
Although there you get into questions of whether the soul of the niftar
is among those being comforted, which would influence the conjugation.

Speaking personally, I like the idea of reconjugation because it
promotes thinking about peirush hamilim.

Tir'u baTov!
-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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 123
***************************************

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..."