Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 124

Sun, 27 May 2007

• 1. Re: yishuv EY (torahmike@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: yishuv EY (Mike Miller)
• 3. Re: Torah study vs.Other contributions to society (Doron Beckerman)
• 4. har habayit (Eli Turkel)
• 5. What Does "Bless" Mean? (was Z"L in English) (Elliott Shevin)
• 6. News From Our Eruv Project (Elliott Shevin)
• 7. Re: shemitta (Moshe Feldman)
• 8. Re: shemitta (Moshe Feldman)
• 9. Re: News From Our Eruv Project (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: What Does "Bless" Mean? (was Z"L in English) (Rich, Joel)

>>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 -)

      Simply outrageous.  R' Kook himself in Shabbat Ha'aretz (introduction)
says that  Heter Mechira
should only be used as a sha'as hadchak last resort, and should it's should
be discarded as soon as possible.

                                                          Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070527/33985e63/attachment.htm 

On 5/27/07, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> 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.

By this logic, it would seem that one should be no less wary of
visiting E"Y (unless one wants to be mechalek between a short time,
where it's easier to be nizhar and a longer time where one settles
into a routine).

> >>Try R. Tzvi Yehuda Kook for a different perspective.
>
> Huh?
> He has sources saying that baalei aveireh SHOULD be oleh to EY?

One should not refrain from one mitzvah just because of other aveiros.
Should one who knows he may not be able to keep shabbos day perfectly
not make kiddush at night?

I don't know how many baalei aveira (in the sense that they are
willing and knowingly over aveiros with no attempts to improve
themselves) follow R' Kook, or any Rav. OTOH, if is someone who is
nichshal, even regularly, but tries to work on it, or holds "omer
mutar" -- can such a person really be called a baal aveirah?

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

RMB

>> 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. <<

But yet again you focus on that part of the Gemara and not on the one
immediately following where the Navi himself places Mordechai further down
the list! As I quoted, the "Rif' on the Ein Yaakov says that this Gemara is
to show that *Hashem Himself* agreed with those Miut Sanhedrin!



>> Clearly, the Taz holds our gemara is not prescriptive. <<

No, it is clear that he does, since he proves his reading from the fact that
Ezra did not go up until Baruch Ben Neriyah died, from which the Gemara
there proves, similar to our issue, that Ezra did the right thing, and
anyone in the same position should choose TT over Binyan BHM"K, and,
similarly, over Hatzalas Nefashos, if others will do it.

>> 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. <<

Sure, if Hashem PUTS you in a situation where you will have your Torah study
interrupted to be Matzil Nefesh, you have to do it!


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.) <<

It means that one who CAN do so, should! And its not just the BH, it is the
Nefesh HaChaim and the Brisker Rav who say the same. R' Nehorai said that he
will not teach his son any trade, only Torah, since he wanted his son to
follow the path of RSHB"Y.

...
:>> 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! <<

Not at all. The equivalent to being Mezalzel in Lulav and not taking it on
Succos is seeing someone dying when you have the wherewithal to help him and
you don't do it because you are earning more points (if you would know that
to be true) learning than saving the person. That he is obligated to do.


>> 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? <<

Could be he did. And you brought up the S'char for Mordechai, not me. The
Chafetz Chaim said that the person learning accomplishes more spiritual
benefit. Whether that is for himself, or for the world, or something else, I
don't know.

Someone who can learn but does not, rather chooses to become a Zaka worker,
is not following any Halachah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070527/02a9788e/attachment.html 

Shoshana writes

my brother said that Erev
Shavu'ot he spent over an  hour(!) on the Mount, walking around continuously
with 2 others who knew the exact boundaries.  So, there is apparently quite
a bit of territory to walk, even when going according to the Most Machmir
opinions on where you're not allowed to go! >>

I have no idea what the most machmir shitah is. The Steipler brings a proof
to the shiurim of CI that the width of har habayit (at it narrowest) is just
about
500 amot according to CI shiur. If one accepts this then there is absolutely
no room on the eastern or western sides outside the 500 amot.

Personally I find the CI shiur hard to accept and that the 500 amot is only
a
subset of the whole area. However those who accept CI cannot walk on the two
sides.
I have never put them together but there are articles in techumin that argue
for a southern or northern
position for the bet hamikdash. Hence I would suspect that if one really
took every shitah
into account that there is not much room left

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070527/298b15bc/attachment.htm 

> RMB (on Avodah):> >>>> 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.)
I have a more basic question. What is the nature of "brocha/blessing" that we 
do to or for Hashem and His works, and ask that He do to or for us?
 
We may be thanking Him when we are prosperous, healthy, productive, etc., 
but He is certainly not thanking us when He "blesses" us.
 
Conversely, He grants us our needs, but we definitely aren't doing the same 
for Him.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks, Elly"Striving to bring Torah Judaism into the 58th century"
_________________________________________________________________
Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&;ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070527/a4e43f2a/attachment.html 

We've just received a notice from our local eruv project, including details of an 
arrangement with a pharmacy which is located just outside the eruv to permit 
pickup of medicines on Shabbos and Yom Tov with payment to be made later.
 
What I thought odd was a statement that to use the service on Shabbos, one 
would have to get a non-Jewish employee to bring the medicine to within the 
eruv to the Jewish purchaser. 
 
I confirmed with my rav this morning: the pharmacy is in a carmelis.  (In fact, there are 
plans afoot to extend the eruv to include the pharmacy, so the eruv committee 
apparently agrees.) The concept of carmelis is a miderabannin. Carrying from the 
pharmacy into the eruv is therefore a miderabannin.
 
Now, why would you be acquiring medicine on Shabbos unless it were for 
someone who is at least a choleh she-ain bo sacana? And unless my memory 
fails me, in such a case, one may violate a miderabannin. So there's no reason 
the Jew can't take the medicine directly from the pharmacy to wherever 
it's needed, provided he doesn't traverse an actual reshus harabim.
 
I'm presuming that this won't usually apply for a choleh she-yaish bo sacana, 
as such a person would be heading for the hospital.  :-)
 
Any thoughts? Elly"Striving to bring Torah Judaism into the 58th century"
_________________________________________________________________
Add some color. Personalize your inbox with your favorite colors.
www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&;ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070527/9d8db5b4/attachment.htm 

On Mon, May 21, 2007 5:10 pm, R Samuel Groner wrote:
: I wouldn't know where to begin arguing with someone who believes that
: "someone who is not very very confident that his mitsvos outweigh his
: averiros should definitely avoid being in EY." ...

R' Micha Berger responded:
<<
RSBA already cited VaYo'el Mosheh. I believe the Minchaz Elazar (R'
Chaim Elazar Shapira, the Muncaczer Rebbe) also writes about this
danger, and does so in more vibrant language.
>>

Just pointing out that the Avnei Nezer YD 454 s"k 27 - 39 disagrees
with this.  He argues: (1) there is a mitzvah to live in E"Y, so one
has no right to question whether he is ra'ui to live there-- b'hadei
kavshei d'rachmana lama lach.  (2) The poskim pasken that a man can
force his wife to make aliyah.  From the fact that wife cannot argue
back that she is not sure whether her mitzvos exceed her aveiros, this
shows that it is not a valid argument.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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)

Your reliance on R. Chaim Cohen is misplaced.  First, the Pischei
Tshuva to Even HaEzer 75:3 cites the Maharit that these words were
written by a talmid to'eh.  Second, RCC states simply that in his day,
people could *not* fulfill the mitzvos ha'tluyos ba'aretz ("ein anu
yecholim l'hizaher"), and in mentioning the punishment for violating
those mitzvos, RCC implies that his point is that one shouldn't make
aliyah if that will lead one to *violate* aveiros which will cause one
to be punished.  He is not saying that we shouldn't look for more
mitzvos, just that we shouldn't put ourselves in a position where we
violate aveiros.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Elliott Shevin wrote:

> Now, why would you be acquiring medicine on Shabbos unless it were for
> someone who is at least a choleh she-ain bo sacana? And unless my memory
> fails me, in such a case, one may violate a miderabannin. So there's no 
> reason the Jew can't take the medicine directly from the pharmacy to
> wherever it's needed, provided he doesn't traverse an actual reshus
> harabim.

A "choleh" for whom it's OK to violate derabbanans is "chalah kol gufo",
to the extent that he's confined to bed and can't look after his own needs.
Someone who is in significant distress but is still up and about is not a
choleh, and may not violate a single derabbanan to alleviate his distress,
but he may violate a double-derabbanan ("shvut dishvut bimkom tzaar").

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

 

Conversely, He grants us our needs, but we definitely aren't doing the
same 
for Him.

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks, 
Elly
 ==============================================
Not that I know what it means but there is a strain of Jewish philosophy
that understands that HKB"H created the world/us because he is a giver
and needed something to give to
KT
Joel 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070527/7d4418bf/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 124
***************************************

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..."