Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 138

Wed, 13 Jun 2007

• 1. Tzitzit out (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. Re: zeicher/zecher (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: shemitta (Moshe Feldman)
• 4. Re: wearing tzitzit outside (D&E-H Bannett)
• 5. Re: wearing tzitzit outside (D&E-H Bannett)
• 6. Re: shemitta (Rich, Joel)
• 7. RET (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Lashon Hara about Eretz Yisrael (Moshe Feldman)
• 9. Re: Yotzei Mitzraim (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Lashon Hara about Eretz Yisrael (Goldmeier)
• 11. Re: RET (Daniel Israel)
• 12. Re: shemitta (Moshe Feldman)

    Weiner, Jason  	"Tzitzit" - in or out?  	Journal of Halacha and 
Contemporary Society 49 (2005) 81-104 	2005 	


This article has an extensive discussion of the subject and in 
particular how to understand the Mishna Berura in light of the fact that 
the Choftz Chaim wore his tzitzis inside.


Daniel Eidensohn

Reb Reuven Koss wrote:
> yes- but even R'CV says that it could be like the M"R. (ulai bziknuso
> chazar bo). The M"R was a ?talmid after R'CV. If this is what the Gra held
> later on, then this would lechora be the ikkar shitas hagaon.

For Rav Mordechai Breuer (source: personal conversation), RCV was merely 
softening his criticism of the MR, offering a limud zekhut.

One more point: I am less interested in the legitimacy of the MR's pposition 
than in the fact that neither the MR nor RCV knew of a theory of rereading 
the word zekher/zeikher.

Regarding your question of
> why would  only the Perushim be justified in following the M"R.

Let me stress that this was Rav Mordechai Breuer's statement, and his reason 
was that nobody was initially convinced by the MR. Only once the double 
reading habit spread did people begin to consider the MR, as well.

Kind regards,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

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." ...

I responded:
> 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.

R' SBA replied:
<<
But a 'grobber baal aveireh'? Man dechar shmei??     CV to even think
that that is what the AN 'b'hadei kavshei d'rachmana lama lach'.
>>

I wasn't talking about a "grobber baal aveireh."  I was talking about a
shomer torah umitzvos "who is not very very confident that his mitzvos
outweigh his aveiros."  Presumably, most of us are in that category.

R' SBA continued quoting the Avnei Nezer (in the AN's summary at the end of
the tshuva):
<<
2.  "...ein mitzvas Yishuv EY rak be'ish tzaddik she'im hoyu kol yisroel
kemoso hayu nigalim...oy beshe'al kol ponim sofek lo im ish tzaddik hu.
"Avol im shlosh eleh lo yaaseh, yetziosoy meChu'L leEY chinom ein kosef
venachas ruach beyetzi'osoy.."
>>

This is incorrect.  At the beginning of par. 2, the AN says that this was
his havei amina.  Then in par. 3 he says "aval ein kein mashma'us
ha'poskim."  And he then says that according to the majority of poskim, the
kedusha she'niya of EY was kidsha l'asid lavo, and therefore the mitzva of
making aliyah is de'oraisa.

You also neglected to quote the part of par. 4 (which is summarizing what he
wrote above in par. 56) which states that all this is during a situation
where the gov't doesn't give permission to make aliyah.  However, if the
gov't gives permission, then this is not considered going "b'choma" and then
one is *mechuyav* (par. 56) to make aliyah.  Presumably, once one is
mechuyav to make aliyah, one does not weigh the level of his tzidkus-see
par. 27, where he is mechalek (according to his havei amina) between bizman
hazeh (presumably when the issur of shelo ya'alu b'choma is in place) and
bizman ha'mikdash (when it is not).  The point of his havei amina is that
since am yisrael as a whole was warned shelo yaalu b'choma, yechidim must
act as part of the shunned tzibbur unless the yechidim are tzaddikim on the
level that if klal yisrael were like them the geula would come.  But when
there is no issur of choma (because of permission by the gov't), yechidim
revert back the basic chiyuv of yishuv EY.  (See also par. 34-35, where he
is mechalek between b'zman hazeh and bizman hamikdash:  bizman hazeh there's
just a "sevara" to live in EY, but that makes sense only when he is not
poge'a in the kedusha; but bizman ha'mikdash - "mitzvah gamur" to live in EY
and therefore one should not be medakdek whether or not he is a tzaddik
since he is mechuyav to live in EY.)  However, he does say (par. 56) that
even if the gov't gives permission, one should not live in EY among people
who are not k'sheirim, because otherwise yatza scharo b'hefseido.

In a separate email, R' SBA quotes the Kol Bo: "The primary Mitzvah of going
to EY, is... only if he will be Parush from here on."  First, the Kol Bo
(who lived in France and was expelled in 1306) is quoting the "R'M"-- is
that R. Meir of Rothenburg?  If so, this may be connected to the shitas R'
Chaim in Tosfos Kesubos that nowadays there is no mitzvah of aliyah and
therefore the din of the husband forcing the wife to make aliyah does not
apply nowadays.  Also, the Beis Yosef EhE 75 (s.v. "amar ha'ish") quotes Rav
Meir (presumably of Rothenburg, as this is a quote from the Rosh Kesubos
13:17) that the Mishna was b'zman ha'bayis and it is not applicable b'zman
hazeh.  However, the majority of poskim (Rambam Ishus 13:19, SA EhE 75:3)
disagreed and paskened this l'halacha even nowadays.  This ties into the AN
above-- if the prohibition to move to EY "b'choma" has been removed because
we have gov't (Balfour/ UN) permission, we do not ask people to move to EY
only if they guarantee that they will completely refrain from sin.

I do agree that it is problematic to encourage people who are porek 'ol to
make aliyah.  After all, the pasuk of "va'taki ha'aretz es yoshveyha" is
talking about complete goyim, as well as Jews.  Perhaps, there is a limud
z'chus for those who are tinokos she'nishbu, if their aveiros are not
considered aveiros.  Still, from the precedent of complete goyim who were
spat out of EY, these tinokos she'nishbu can't be encouraged to make aliyah
if they will do to'evos of arayos --as the pasuk is talking about goyim
doing such to'evos and the goyim at the time of Yehoshua may not have been
aware that this is forbidden (even though it is part of the 7 mitzvos benei
noach, and the Ramban on Vayikra 18:25, talking about the to'evos, says that
benei noach were muzhar about this and therefore they can be punished).
OTOH, maybe the Ramban's point is that because the goyim were muzhar, it was
common knowledge (using one's seichel) that these types of relationships are
forbidden, and maybe that same sevarah would apply WRT to those who do
to'evos of arayos today.

BTW, with regard to the fact that the AN was troubled by how to explain why
R. Zeira did not make aliyah until he had a dream about barley (indicating
that he was a tzaddik): the Tzitz Eliezer 10:32 (par. 7) has a different
explanation -- R. Zeira was afraid to make aliyah because R. Yehuda (Kesubos
110b) held that it was forbidden to move from Bavel (as the pasuk says
"Bavela yu'va'u).  Only after R. Zeira had the dream did he realize that he
was right to permit making aliyah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

IIRC, my source for the CC's remark to his son-in-law and 
grandson re: the misunderstanding of the MB statement re" 
tzitzit out is none other than our R' Seth.  He wrote a 
number of long postings on the subject some years ago.  See 
archives of Avodah.  It could be in the Mesorah archives, 
but I think it was before Mesorah was separated from the 
general Avodah postings.

BTW, it is not uncommon for talmidim to write up their 
rebbe's Torah for publication and misunderstanding sometimes 
occurs.

David 

ReR'SBA's <<It is hard to believe that the 'talmidim' - if 
indeed
they did the writing - could have misunderstood him so 
badly.>>

It is not "so badly".  The change is that tzitzit out is 
when the beged is out and does not apply when the beged is 
inside.

David

I strongly recommend that the participants in this shemitta discussion
listen to the following shiur:
 
Rabbi Michael Rosensweig -Halachic Minimalism or Maximalism? A
Conceptual Look at the Heter Mechira
 
http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/718620/Rabbi_Michael_Rosensweig/Hal
achic_Minimalism_or_Maximalism?_A_Conceptual_Look_at_the_Heter_Mechira
 
 
R' Rosensweig summarizes the specific sources of the protagonists and
outlines the conditions under which we allow various seeming
"workarounds" (e.g. mchirat chametz)
 
 
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.

Just a note to everyone that R. Elazar Teitz and myself (Eli Turkel) share
the same initials ET. However, I am not the rabbi of a community and do
not share his standing. In any case try and not confuse me with his
superior remarks

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070613/6c422d62/attachment-0001.htm 

Last year, I posed the question: 
> Is it an aveira to speak lashon hara (i.e., the truth) about Eretz
>Yisrael, or just to speak falsehood about EY? 
>Also, assuming that there is an issur of lashon hara about EY, to what
>extent does it apply to speaking negatively about Israeli society (as
>opposed to just the land)?

(See the discussion at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=L#LASHON%20HARA%20ABOUT%2
0ERETZ%20YISRAEL) 

R' SBA asked:
<<Would saying that summer in EY is unbearably humid or the buses
send up too much pollution be LH?
>>

In last week's Shabbat b'Shabbato
(http://www.moreshet.co.il/sedra/UploadFiles/shabat/1173.pdf p.10), R.
Mordechai Eliyahu wrote that one is not allowed to complain about the heat
in EY.  He brought a proof from R. Ami and R. Assi in Kesubos 112b, who made
sure to be in the shade during the summer and in the sun during the winter.
Rashi there explains that they did that in order to make sure that they
would not complain about living in EY.  I would add that similarly, R.
Chanina (112a) would smoothen out the roads in order that (according to
Rashi) there wouldn't be a shem ra about the roads in EY.

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5438 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070613/df2ef95b/attachment-0001.bin 

The Peirush that I liked is the one of the Tosafot. To my understanding here 
is the difference: 
If the Chaluka is to Yotzei Mitzraim (those who left Egypt themselves) , then 
only the "Not Tefelim" get a piece of land. "Not Tefelim" are those that are 
not women, or more than 20 years old. 
In this case, if Reuven is older than 20 years old, he will not get a share 
for his children. In reality, he himself gets nothing, because he was the one 
that left Mitzrayim, so he would die in the desert, and his childern will be 
the ones to inheret the land.  In this case, even if his children are "Tefelim", 
for example, even if they are less than 20, or women (such as the daughters 
of Tzalfachad..) 
If the Chaluka is to "Baei Haaretz" (those who came in to Eretz Israel), 
then, only the "Not Tefelim" will get piece of land. Indeed, the calculation will 
be as we dicussed, the shares will go to the fathers and then to the children, 
but only to those that are "Not Tefelim" , ie , older than 20, or men. 
In the example you gave on the Seuda Shelishit, the assumption is that both 
the 10 sons of Reuven and the one son of Shimon are over 20 years old. 
If they are all more than 20, it will be indeed the same ; however, if let's 
say 5 of the children are less than 20 years old, than according to the Tana 
that say that the land is to Yotzei Mitzraim, all 11 childen gets their pieces. 
 But according to the Tana that says that "Baei Haaretz" , then only 6 
children will get a piece. 
The relevancy to the issue of Benot Tzalfachad is, they got a land because we 
probably understand according to the first Tana (Yotzei Mitzraim) otherwise, 
if it is according to the second Tana, they are not deserve any piece, because 
they are "Tefelim" (as women). 
aaron galsaba



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070613/70c6d9de/attachment-0001.htm 

is this issur against speaking LH about Eretz Yisrael specifically EY or 
any inanimate object? What is the source of the issur (the meraglim or 
other?)? As far as I can remember, there is no mention of this in hichos 
lashon hara from the Chafetz Chaim - if it is really an issur of LH, why 
not?

Rafi

---------
Goldmeier
goldmeier@012.net.il

http://torahthoughts.blogspot.com
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com
http://parshaquestions.blogspot.com
http://yomtovthoughts.blogspot.com




Moshe Feldman wrote:
> In last week's Shabbat b'Shabbato
> (http://www.moreshet.co.il/sedra/UploadFiles/shabat/1173.pdf p.10), R.
> Mordechai Eliyahu wrote that one is not allowed to complain about the heat
> in EY.  He brought a proof from R. Ami and R. Assi in Kesubos 112b, who made
> sure to be in the shade during the summer and in the sun during the winter.
> Rashi there explains that they did that in order to make sure that they
> would not complain about living in EY.  I would add that similarly, R.
> Chanina (112a) would smoothen out the roads in order that (according to
> Rashi) there wouldn't be a shem ra about the roads in EY.
>
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe 
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
>   

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:59:58 -0600 Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> 
wrote:
>Just a note to everyone that R. Elazar Teitz and myself (Eli 
>Turkel) share the same initials ET. However, I am not the rabbi of 
a 
>community and do not share his standing. In any case try and not 
>confuse me with his superior remarks

For those who are newer to the list it may be worth clarifying that 
the "canonical" roshei teivos for Rav Teitz is REMT, whereas Rav 
Turkel's (and, IIANM, he does have smicha, although he doesn't work 
in rabbanus) are RET.

Personally I would add that REMT's stature is well known both on 
and off this list and members here quickly learn that RET's stature 
is greater than he would admit to (and I have met him in person).

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

As R' SBA and I were debating the correct way to read the Avnei Neizer
tshuva, I thought that the Avodah readership might wish to judge for itself.
R' Micha has kindly posted the tshuva at:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/Avnei_Neizer_YD_454.pdf

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070613/75d93f75/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 138
***************************************

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..."