Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 175

Fri, 24 Aug 2007

• 1. Re: What was actually written on the luchos, zachor or shamor? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Lifnei Iver/Kana'us (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. tachanun at Bris (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Sinas Hinam (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: tachanun at Bris (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: tachanun at Bris (Micha Berger)
• 7. Is it better to have one person do a vadai mitzvah or a number do a safek mitzvah? (saul mashbaum)
• 8. Re: Why is Milchemes Reshus allowed? (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 9. Rav Sternbuch's psak regarding kiruv of non-Jews (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. Re: Rav Sternbuch's psak regarding kiruv of non-Jews (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Standing for Vayivarech David (Rich, Joel)

On Tue, July 31, 2007 7:41 pm, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Regarding this question, I just happened to notice a relevant comment
: in Ohr Somayach's "Torah Weekly" e-mail on this week's parsha, from
: two years ago. The author there writes:
: "The first Tablets did not contain words, they contained speech."
:
: (I beleive that what he means is that the first luchos did not
: contain *written* words, spelled with specific letters.) The full
: article can be read at http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2293

I understood him differently. To quote the devar Torah:
> [I]n the case of the first Tablets this was not so. The first Tablets
> did not contain words, they contained speech. .... It means that when
> you saw the words, you saw in them G-d speaking at Sinai. Usually,
> when someone speaks, their words are present as long as they are still
> speaking them. When they stop speaking, the words vanish. The first
> Tablets perpetuated G-ds giving the Torah at Sinai, His speech at
> Sinai. That is what the Torah means when it says "all the people saw
> the voices" (Shmot 20:15)

The writing was a perpetuation of ro'im es haqolos. This visibility of
qol is then connected to the link between dibur and davar, that
"vayomer E-lokim 'yehi or!'" didn't cause light, but actually is that
davar we call light. This transparency through the devarim of the
world to the diburim of Hashem was true of the maamad har Sinai and
the luchos, but was lost with the eigel.

>In the future, we will clearly see the intention behind every thing in
> Creation, the dibbur behind every davar. This is what the prophet
> Yishayahu means when he writes, "the Glory of G-d will be revealed and
> all flesh together will see that the Mouth of G-d has spoken" (40:5)
...

The author isn't likely to be denying that the devar Hashem was
actually written in letters, as then one must radically reinterpret
"mem vesamech shebalukos" (or "ayin vetes") "beneis hayu omedim".
OTOH, such reinterpretation may eliminate the apparent machloqes
between the two versions of the ma'amar. After all, if they aren't
discussing literal letters, the two shasim could be making the same
point with different meshalim.

Perhaps informing that vertl is the Sefas Emes's notion (Bo 5631) that
the 10 ma'amaros of beri'ah were converted by the 10 makkos into the
10 diberos. Natural law becomes moral law via the notion of Divine
Justice. But it makes the author's assumed connection between creation
as dibur and the diberos more solid.

: The relevance for this thread is that this is another way that the
: first luchos could have both zachor *and* shamor. (The second set
: would need other solutions, such as those already posted.)

According to the Beis haLeivi (derush 18), the first luchos contained
kol haTorah kulah (limiting Shabbos 104a to the first luchos only),
and that until the 2nd luchos, there was no TSBP -- it was all
available in writing on the luchos. It was the eigel which
demonstrated the need for less knowledge but a more intimate
relationship with Torah. With the 2nd luchos we know less than if it
was all available to read, but are the actual klaf of TSBP.

This is why the 2nd Luchos were the luchos ha'eidus. They testified to
the intimate relationship, Yisrael ve'Oraisa veQBH, that an external
text one can point to outside oneself, does not.

The Yalkut Shimoni 405 writes that the role of TSBP is to keep the
Jewish people special. But had there been no eigel, there would have
been no shibud malkhios (Eruvin 54a) -- cheirus al haluchos. So the
BhL notes that before the eigel, when the first luchos were given,
this need for TSBP didn't exist.

There is much more there, the BhL should be seen inside.

So, leshitaso, we could suggest two possibilities:

1- The first luchos contained both sefarim Shemor and Devarim, and
thus might even have had both versions of the 10 devarim/diberos in
large.

Or perhaps
2- it contained only one version of the diberos, but (in a ro'im es
haqolos way?) that allowed people to see kol haTorah kulah in it.

Other ideas:

The Pesikta Rabasi (parashah 23, beginning) says that Yisro's version
was on the first luchos, vaEschanan's on the second. That "zachor" was
on the first luchos but "shamor" appeared on the second luchos to tell
us to have a shemirah lest they go the way of the first ones ch"v.
This is probably also peshat in BK 55a, the discussion of why only the
first luchos say "tov". It seems to say that only they had the words
in Yisro of "lema'an yitav lakh".

Ibn Ezra (Shemos 20:1) and the Ramban (ibid 8) say that Shemos's
account is historically authoritative. (see also Shevu'os 20b.) The
version in Devarim reflects the fact that it's Mishneh Torah and
therefore has Moshe Rabbeinu's explanations added. Which would seem to
imply it's an easier path to the diberos' intent.

The Penei Yehoshua says that one represents what was said at ma'amar
Har Sinai, the other what was written. He doesn't take sides which was
which.

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

> On Sun, August 12, 2007 3:11 pm, R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> : There is a discussion on Areivim now about the merits of a Rebbe who
> : supposedly ripped an indecent sign off the interior of a bus....
> [L]et
> : me reformulate the question: Your Jewish neighbor's mail is
> : inadvertently delivered to your home, and among the rest of the mail
> : is an obscene magazine. The assumption here is that he will never
> know
> : if you don't give it to him. Do you...

R' MB: 
> Are the cases comparable lehalakhah?
> 
> First, the issurim are on a different level. Indecent signs cause
> hirhurei aveira, not aveira itself.

I'm not sure why the obscene magazine is more Aveirah than the sign - they
both cause Hirhurei Aveirah. The consequences might differ in quantity (IOW,
one sign, vs. every page of a magazine), but not qualitatively. 

KT,
MYG

Yet in my current shul, every time the situation comes up, there is a
"shouting match" (of the friendly sort, of course) about what to do.
About half the time we end up saying tachanun, and about half the time
not.

I'm curious as to where this is coming from.  Is it minhag Eretz
Yisra'el to omit tachanun in this case?  Is it the Sefaradi minhag?
Does it make any difference if one of the "ba`alei bris" is present?>>

In my shul in EY we do say Tachanun in Mincha in such a case.
We only omit it in Shacharit for all the minyanim in the shul even those
that have nothing to do with the brit


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070823/1158ba21/attachment.htm 

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:26:03 -0700 I wrote to Areivim:
:> The Tzeduqim in the days of bayis sheini were bad. We know they sent
:> malshinim to the Romans, they sent people to lie to Sanhedrin about
:> qiddush hachodesh, they were anti-Yahadus and cost us lives. So how
:> is hating or one of the other movements "chinam"? It is because if
:> our hatred were fueled by ahavas Hashem, we would be investing more
:> effort in vilifying our own chata'im than in vilifying theirs, and
:> them for embracing those chata'im as positive values.

Sin'as chinam is usually taken to be causeless, meichinam. My post led
to a discussion here of whether sin'as chinam include sin'ah that has
a cause, but is lechinam, purposeless.

I tried to argue that the hatred today is meichinam, sin'as chinam in
the classical sense. Avoiding this whole question by saying that true
sin'ah lesheim Shamayim wouldn't be lopsidedly lechinam.

The sin'ah we have for anti-Torah movements is chin'am if it's not
really motivated by ahavas haTorah and happens to only post-facto be
covered up by claims of loftier goals.

I therefore suggested that had the sin'ah been truly based on wanting
a world more in line with the Torah and ratzon Hashem, then we would
be more vocal when coming to ourselves, who we can more readily
change, than we are when addressing others. Even if the sins are less,
they are more addressable and thus ought to be more addressed. If we
don't feel the same passion when looking at the flawed person in the
mirror, how can we claim our hatred of other ideologies is lesheim
Shamayim?

As for Yitzhak's citation of the Netziv (Meishiv Davar 1:44):
: Al kein mipnei sinas hinam she'bilibam zeh es zeh hashdu es mi sherau
: shenoheg shelo keda'atam be'yiras hashem shehu zeduki ve'apikorus

I see this as the same looking for the inferiority of yenem rather
than flaws in ones own avodah. Admittedly, the Netziv does not extend
the idea to a yenem who really is guilty, just distant from tokhachah.
But both involve wall-building motivations rather than avodas Hashem.

However, one example in the story of how sin'as chinam caused the
churban (Gitin 56a) is between the Chakhamim and the Baryanim.

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

In my shul in EY we do say Tachanun in Mincha in such a case.
We only omit it in Shacharit for all the minyanim in the shul even those
that have nothing to do with the brit


-- 
Eli Turkel  
=================================
IIRC from R' Sperber's minhagei Yisrael the original minhag was the
whole town didn't say tachanun.
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/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070823/fa1540b3/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, August 23, 2007 7:16 pm, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> In my shul in EY we do say Tachanun in Mincha in such a case.
:> We only omit it in Shacharit for all the minyanim in the shul even
:> those that have nothing to do with the brit

: IIRC from R' Sperber's minhagei Yisrael the original minhag was the
: whole town didn't say tachanun.

Perhaps to parallel the difference between the classic town and
today's norm where there are "multiple batei din in the city". Today,
each shul can have its own nusach and minhag. Implied is that
"kehillah" has taken on a more restricted scope.

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

RCLunz addressed the question in the subject line in the framework of he Mishna on Yevamos 98b, it which five brothers of uncertain parentage, each of whom definitely has a brother, die childless. Each of the 5 y'vamim give 4 chalitzot, and marry one y'vama. Thus for each yavam, there is a 20% chance that he did mitzvat yibum with his y'vama. If one yavam married all 5 y'vamot, although in that case he would vadai be doing mitzvat yibum, none of the other yvamim would be doing mitzvat yibum. So five safek yibubim, which of which real yibumim range from 0-5, are seen to be preferable to one, and only one, vadai yibum. 
It is pertinent to point out that in the mishna's case, each of the 5 brothers has with 100% certainty done a mitzva. This is because chalitza to one's yevama is a mitzvah min haTorah. Thus in the mishna's solution, each brother has with 80% probabilty  performed mitzvat yibum, and with 20% probability performed mitzvat yibum. In the alternate possibility, when one yavam marries all of the y'vamot after each of the other brothers have given chaliza to all of the y'vamot, each of the choltzim has with certainty done mitzvat chalitza, and the the fifth brother has with certainty done mitzvat yibum.
Thus although the presumtion of the g'mara is that yibum is a greater mitzva than chalitza, in any event everyone will have done, with certainty, either yibum or chalitza. Thus the mishna does not allow one to draw a conclusion for the general case of "one vadai vs many safeks", in which the many safeks may wind up doing no mitzva at all.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070824/36479ba2/attachment-0001.htm 

>From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>

>I wrote:
>: Even in a case where, Rachmana Litzlan, our countrymen 
are dying
>: of starvation, and that could be remedied by attacking 
another
>: country, I can't see any justification in killing those 
foreigners
>: unless they are actually responsible for our starvation. 
Pikuach
>: nefesh can justify stealing their food, but not killing 
their
>: people.
>
>R' Micha Berger questioned:
>> Is this so? Even an ubar can be a rodeif.

I believe that R' Akiva Miller has just managed to add 
Milchemet Reshut to a whole list of dinim that we learn but 
do not actually carry out -- like Ben Sorrer U'Moreh etc.

Until WWII, economic reasons, and not piku'ach nefesh type 
ones, were sufficient to start a war.   Just look through 
the Torah and then general history and you'll see plenty of 
occasions where kings led their people to war for economic 
reasons that included the possibility of future needs.

Actually, the arabs make that claim towards Israel all the 
time nowadays -- that we will attack them b/c as we are an 
country that encourages immigrants, we will need more 
resources and will therefore, for sure, attack them one day, 
so they have to be ready, and they have used this excuse to 
justify their attacks again and again.

Many of the current tribal wars in Africa nowadays are based 
on such claims (I'm not talking about truth in 
advertising...)

In any case, in a world where such behavior, expansion b/c 
the leadership considers it a necessity that warrants war, 
Hashem provided a mechanism for Jews to be able to do so as 
well. As usual, it limits; it demands deeper thought before 
going to war, but it does not actually prohibit it in a 
world that considers such wars valid.

>Here's an example which might be very comparable to the 
ubar: There is a river which flows through a neighboring 
country, and then into ours. It supplies plenty of water for 
both of us. The other country decides to divert the flow so 
that it stays in their area. They're not doing it to hurt 
us, but only for their own purposes. But the lack of a water 
source has become (or will become) a life-threatening 
emergency to us, and we attack them to restore the original 
flow of the river.
>
>That would seem, to me, to be a justifiable military 
action, and a milchemes mitzva. Am I mistaken? Is this the 
sort of "economic" reason which other posters would consider 
to be a milchemes reshus?
===

In this case, let's examine it realistically.
Milchemet Mitzva is only valid regarding Eretz Yisrael (or 
saving Jewish lives). Geographically, the sources of the 
Jordan river are actually within Jewish borders, so the only 
way another country could divert the source would be if, 
like today, areas of Eretz Yisrael were in foreign hands.  
In such a case, the reason for going to war would actually 
be under the heading of Kibbush HaAretz which is a basis for 
Milchemet Mitzva, and the issue of the water would have been 
a specific cause as to why to go to war "now".

So, this would not be a milchemt reshut at all.

Shoshana L. Boublil

I am raising an issue of great importance for the future of the Jewish 
people. There seems to have been a major revolution in the last few 
years in the approach to dealing with the both intermarriage and the 
non-Jewish children of intermarriage - and yet very few rabbonim seem 
aware of it. My purpose in writing the following is to provide 
intelligent discussion of these issues as well as to establish a 
literature that can be utilized by others. As Rav Sternbuch has noted - 
halacha depends upon accurate written discussions of issues that can be 
analyzed and debated. A statement by a rav - no matter how big - which 
doesn't provide the critical issue of context and sources is very 
problematic for use by others.

The issue  was raised one  Shabbos when I received some  guests sent by 
a  well known kiruv organization.  In the course of discussing how each 
one of our guests had come to be interested in this particular program - 
the guest who was most interested in Yiddishkeit stated. "I was raised 
as a Methodist because my mother is a Methodist - but I am Jewish 
because my father is Jewish." To put it mildly I was shocked - how could 
this obvious fact not have been checked prior to admitting this young 
man into the program. The program is involved in bringing Jews with no 
Jewish education to Israel where there have a great time - and also 
learn about Yiddishkeit. The expenses of the participants are heavily 
subsidized by wealthy benefactors. I said nothing but after Shabbos I 
called the director to inform him of the problem. His response was, "We 
know that he is not Jewish but we were told to accept him since he has a 
Jewish identity."

In the subsequent months I have mentioned this to various rabbonim - who 
have all expressed shock that this is officially sanctioned. No one knew 
any teshuvos written on the subject which justify this approach. However 
I have found that this is not simply a quirk with one kiruv organization 
- it represents a major conflict between different kiruv organizations. 
The big money seems to be going in the direction of kiruv for non-Jews 
(with some kind of Jewish identity) with the hope of converting them. A 
friend of mine told me that on three separate occasions he was sent 
guests for Shabbos from a Russian kiruv program here in Jerusalem and 
found out that they were all non-Jews. When he complained, the program 
simply stopped sending him guests.

Similarly there has been a major effort to actively pursue intermarried 
couples and using various techniques - representive of the best American 
marketing techniques - convince the non-Jewish spouse to convert. This 
latter approach is spearheaded by R' Leib Tropper of Yeshiva Kol Yaakov 
in Monsey. See his website [Eternal Jewish Family - Convert to Judaism, 
Jewish Conversion, Universally Accepted Halachic Conversions for 
Intermarried Couples <http://www.eternaljewishfamily.org/>] - especially 
the videos of testimonials from satisfied customers. It has the official 
backing of Rav Eliyashiv, Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Reuven Feinstein as 
well as many others important rabbis. I have not been able to locate any 
written teshuvos dealing with this either - even though it also 
represents  a major change in the traditional approach to this issue.

I mentioned this information to Rav Moshe Sternbuch who found my 
revelations disturbing and he wrote a letter which he asked me to 
translate and distribute. He personally read and approved the 
translation. The original letter and its translation can be found at the 
following links.

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/RSternbuch_KiruvNonJew_Aug07_heb.pdf
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/RSternbuch_KiruvNonJew_Aug07_eng.pdf

Some of the discussion aroused already can be found at the following link

http://rabbisedley.blogspot.com/2007/08/kiruv-for-non-jews.html
http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2007/08/patrilineal-descent-and-conversion.html

One of the assertions being made is that Rav Moshe Feinstein has 
approved kiruv for non-Jews who have a Jewish identify. This assertion 
has been made by one of America's most widely respected poskim who was a 
very close talmid of Rav Moshe who said it was an oral psak that he 
received. I have combed the Igros Moshe and there is no support for this 
in the Igros Moshe. However recently I was challenged by a certain rosh 
yeshiva who asserted that what the hetar for this type of kiruv is 
inherent in the clearly stated teshuva of Reb Moshe regarding the 
Falashas. I rechecked this teshuva and - contrary to my challenger - it 
seems clear that this teshuva not only does not support this  assertion 
but seems to directly contradict it. My translation of the teshuva is as 
follows:

       Igros Moshe Y.D. IV. #41 page 271

 After much investigation it appears that if the Falashas are not
 given a Jewish education they will deteriorate even more and will
 refuse to convert and this can possibly cause ? G?d forbid!
 ?intermarriage between Jews and the Falashas. Therefore l?maaseh
 they should be given a Jewish education and be influenced through
 this education to convert as they need to do - as I have written to
 your brother R? Mordechai Tendler. One should not be concerned by
 the fact that we are teaching Torah to people whose status as Jews
 is in doubt. Since it is actually possible that they are Jews and
 since there is a reason for this education - it would appear there
 is no prohibition to teach them Torah. But you should not teach them
 false halachos - an act which itself is prohibited. In other words,
 don?t tell them that we in fact view them as definitely Jewish.
 Instead tell them that while in fact there is a doubt about their
 status as Jews nevertheless we are prepared to educate them in G?d?s
 Torah and His mitzvos. Please note that until they are actually
 converted they are not to be considered as definitely Jewish even in
 regards to counting them as part of a minyan or to receive an aliya
 to the Torah. They are not to be shamed or embarrassed but on the
 other hand they should not be deceived with false flattery. On the
 other hand l?chumra they are required to keep all the mitzvos
 because maybe they are in fact genuine Jews.


Reb Moshe is acknowledging the danger of intermarriage from a non-Jew 
who views himself as Jewish. However he allows the teaching of Torah 
only because the person is a "questionable Jew". It follows that if the 
person is definitely not Jewish he would not have given this heter. 
Otherwise Reb Moshe would have simply said "any non-Jew who has a Jewish 
identity should be educated in Torah and converted".


Daniel Eidensohn

Reb Moshe is acknowledging the danger of intermarriage from a non-Jew
who views himself as Jewish. However he allows the teaching of Torah
only because the person is a "questionable Jew". It follows that if the
person is definitely not Jewish he would not have given this heter. 
Otherwise Reb Moshe would have simply said "any non-Jew who has a Jewish
identity should be educated in Torah and converted".


Daniel Eidensohn

====================================
Could be, but not compelling. Perhaps he was just responding to the
question at hand and not trying to show how far he would take the
argument.

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.

 
We've discussed this previously in regard to standing for the chatan
(here perhaps standing for the tzedaka collector). 
 
In the new R' YBS R"H machzor the following note appears:
 
"These verses are included because the earliest blessing, Blessed are
You Hashem the God Israel our Forefather is cited here.  The precedent
constitutes our own license to recite blessings.  Because blessings in
general are recited while standing, the congregation arises for the
recitation of these verses."
 
 
KVCT
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/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070824/13fdb78b/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 175
***************************************

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..."