Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 199

Wed, 19 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: Shmittah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Those who act according to the stricter opinion are to be blessed (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Time and Emunah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Is it better to have one person do a vadai mitzvah or a number do a safek mitzvah? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Lifnei Iver/Kanaus (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Is it better to have one person do a vadai mitzva... (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Mi SheBerach for a Non-Jew (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Teshuva - postive or negative? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Rabmam's psak (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Rabmam's psak (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Shehecheyanu for shmitta (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Davening for one's enemy (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Shmittah (Zev Sero)

Rabbi Arie Folger told a story, and wrote:
> ... clearly that sale was a real sale. That story, however,
> should illustrate one aspect of a real sale, that the price
> is realistic. Selling the land without the slightest appraisal,
> for a peruttah, seems like an asmachta. I hope and expect that
> the Chief Rabbinate of Israel conducts at least some crude
> appraisal.

The point of your story, it seems, was to illustrate that one should not sell something for a token amount, but rather for its true value. If so, then I have to ask: Do you sell require an appraisal of the chometz that is sold before Pesach? If not, I don't understand why you are making a distinction between karka and m'taltelin.

Akiva Miller

On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 (Yes, I'm a bit behind...) at 10:29:48AM -0700,
Meir Rabi wrote:
: Where and what is the earliest source for, BaAl NeFesh YachMir Al AtzMo or
: VeHaMachMir ToVo O'Lov BeRacha?
: How many variations are there to these expressions and is there a
: difference?

In one of the aforementioned threads at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=B#BAAL%20NEFESH>
I took an informal survey. In particular, go to
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n078.shtml#07> by RYGB, and the
ensuing onversation through to v03n082 on ba'al nefesh yachmir vs advice
for the yarei Shamayim. Whereas in v04n004-n006 I explored ba'al nefesh
vs anavah.

It seems like ba'al nefesh yachmir is used in particular when the chumrah
is to keep gashmiyus in check. Whereas those aimed at the yarei Shamayim
are made to enhance one's connection to ruchniyus. OTOH, an anav wouldn't
pursue chumros in kashrus at the expense of being meiqil in bein adam
lachaveiro. Thus, as R' Avaham Allwang posted:
: The Chasam Sofer in YD 39 ...  says that the peeling of adhesions, if done
: by an expert and G-d fearing shochet, then Yochlu anavim vyisbau - (which
: seems to mean no problem). Then his next words are "however, Shomer nafsho
: yirchak" (one who cares about his soul will stay away) from anything like
: this.

The anav would bow to the expertise of the shocheit, trying to avoid
the gaavah effects. The baal nefesh would consider the need to be in
control of what he eats to be the greater priority. Someone trying to
pursue both archetypes has a difficult decision.

GCT!
-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 Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:57:51PM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:> IOW, it's not important whether our bodies experience time as we
:> perceive it. What the Torah discusses is the perception, time as part
:> of a soul's existence.

: In support of what small amount of Micha's thoughts I can bend my mind
: over: can we not infer from Ma'aseh B'reishis that time preceded that which
: is part of this world, even as it's a way (similar to anthropomorphism) in
: which this-worldly creations can comprehend what essentially is beyond
: comprehension?

That first sentence bothered me, so let me summarize my point without
the heavy physics and philosophy references.

Scientifically, it's hard to explain why time seems to different than
space, why processes evolve through time in a way they don't when you
follow them off to the right.

Philosphically, it's hard to explain why science works at all. Why the
universe makes sense in a way our brains analyze things. Kant, Mach,
and Einstein conclude that this is because we can't know or study the
world as it really is -- we can only know how it seems to us given the
structure human perception puts on things. Thus the world makes sense
because the world we're studying is already through human concepts of
"sense".

Last, REED writes that the flow time is a perception created by the
change in psyche caused by the eitz hada'as. And the minhagim about the
length of aveilus etc... presume some sort of connection beetween the
deceased and time even though no physics involved.

It would seem that time is something the soul imposes on its perceptions,
with a guf, and even without (under at least some conditions).

GCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Back in v176, on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:11:52 +0100, Rt Chana Luntz
<chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote (long quote because of the post's
age):
:> 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.

: This is all true, but why does this not make matters worse, rather than
: better?  Given that everyone will have done a mitzvah, either chalitza
: or yibum, why not have one person who knows he has done the vadai
: mitzvah of yibum, and four who know they have done the vadai mitzvah of
: chalitza.  Instead, everybody will have done a safek mitzvah of yibum
: and a safek mitzvah of chalitza - ie two sfekos.  Now agreed that one of
: those sfekos has to come up trumps, ie if one has done yibum one has not
: done chalitza, but if one has not done yibum, one has indeed done
: chalitza, meaning everybody gets a mitzvah apiece, but it is equally
: true that everybody gets a mitzvah apiece if you go the other way - and
: at least that way, everybody knows which mitzvah he has performed.  

Doesn't this presume issues like the validity of sefeiq sefeiqah she'einah
mis-hapeches and whether one can combine two unrelated sefeiqos?

GCT!
-mi

In Avodah v23n178, on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:08:25 +0300, Rt Shoshana L. Boublil
<toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote:
: As to the heretical material, again, this is one sided, based on a single 
: witness proclaiming them heretical, and based on these examples, it's 
: possible that one person's heretical material is actually another person's 
: history book, or mathematics book or a volume of Shakespeare.

It famously has happened before not that many years ago, not that we
reallly want to go back to that conversation.

: To pasken in such a way that without witnesses, without warning, without any 
: Jewish judicial process, you can invade and harm another person's things, 
: and not fear for Gezeila is extremely worrisome.  It also explains where 
: people get the idea that throwing stones at cars for any reason they 
: consider legitimate is okay, or starting fires in garbage cans is fine, 
: despite the sakanat Nefashot involved.

Qana'us means acting w/out a beis din -- Pinechas is the exemplar, no? So,
if one believes kana'us is appropriate, than one should be taking the
law into their own hands.

However, it also requires a complete lack of personal negi'os. In my
bar mitzvah derashah, written by R' Matis Blum, he made the distinction
between Shim'on and Levi's attack on Chamor and maaseh Pinechas. Yaaqov
didn't condemn his sons' actions beshe'as ma'aseh, only at the end
of his life he says "ki ve'apam hargu ish, uvirtzonam iqru shor. Arur
apam..." (Ber 49:6-7) It wasn't until Yaaqov learned about them trying
to uproot Yosef (shor) that he realized that the incident at Chamor
included an element of personal anger. And that made it condemnable.

So, unless someone has the purity of soul of Pinechas, I would think
qana'us is a non-option.

Which makes me wonder if the advice was given lemaaseh, or if the
statement was one of halachic theory.

GCT!
-mi

PS: Speaking of RMBlum, may his wife, Chayah Ita Sarah bas Devorah, have
refu'ah sheleimah.

-- 
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 Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:57:52AM +0300, saul mashbaum wrote:
: I believe that this is not to be taken entirely literally. "Eino
: mitzva" be "eino mitzva kol kach"; yibum is preferable to chalitza. The
: monei hamitzvot count chalitza as one of the taryag mitzvot, and I am
: unaware that there is a qualification "*only* if mitzvat yibum for some
: reason yibum cannot be done".

Yibum is a mitzvah chiyuvis, chalitzah is qiyumis / materes.

When yibum isn't an option -- either because she is his wife's sister,
cheirem deR' Gershom, or because we are chosheshim like Abba Shaul
of desires that make it ke'ein arayos -- that materes is a major
chessed. Chalitzah is thus mandatory today (even though yibum qodemes),
either an asei of chessed and/or a lav of hezeq.

...
: I do not think that we can deduce from asei doche lo taaseh by yibum
: that chalitza is not considered a mitzva if yibum could possibly be
: done. Asei doche lo taaseh even if one could somehow both do a mitzva
: and avoid the lo taaseh. Tzitzit is doche k'laim, and wollen tzitzit
: can be put on a linen garment, even if linen tzitzit (without t'chelet)
: could possibly be used, both performing a mitzva (in perhaps a lesser way)
: and avoiding the lav. Despite the wording of the principle, I think it's
: fair to say that the lo taaseh is hutra, not merely d'chuya, by the asei.

Here, there is nothing to matir if yibum is performed.

It's not asei docheh lav, a materes isn't a lav. Shechitah is counted
as an asei, and separate from the lav of tereifah. Similarly gittin and
eishes ish. It's a different mechanism for a chiyuv to eliminate the
existence of the issur and thus the need of a matir.

GCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In v23n185, on Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:04:50 EDT, R' Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>
wrote:
:> We are  entitled to ask hashem.  We don't have the right to expect  
:> that  our requests be granted

: I would underscore and bold this comment. "Shomea Tefilah" means
: that HaShem always hears Tefilah....

Except when it means "is listening to tefillah" or "the Listener to
tefillah". I agree He always does, but it isn't inherent in the
words.

GCT!
-mi

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:13:21PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: If Harata is remorse  -  an emotion such as depression would be the natural
: consequence.

In Shaarei Yosher, shaar 1, fourth principle, Rabbeinu Yonah literally
links the effectiveness of teshucah to the amount of distress one has
in charatah.

GCT!
-mi

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:59:04PM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I contend that it goes way beyond hilchot yesodei haTorah. One example
: is that Rambam outlaws "magic shows" as kishuf while others define kishuf
: as being "real black magic" as opposed to sleight of hand. However, Rambam
: could not hold this shita since on philosophical grounds he denies
: the existence of real magic....

Which came first -- the chicken or the egg? Perhaps the Rambam's
willingness to believe that all kishuf is trickery was because he had
to explain why it would be assur otherwise.

After all, believing in actual magic would even have been proper
Aristotilianism. Magic, astrology and alchemy weren't excluded from the
realm of rationalism until enturies after the Rambam.

Similarly, the example of women and sherarah. One can theorize which
came first, but to think the acceptance of the cultural artifact was
the *cause* of the pesaq is simply conjecture. (Most likely, both
are products of common cause.)

GCT!
-mi

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:59:04PM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I contend that it goes way beyond hilchot yesodei haTorah. One example
: is that Rambam outlaws "magic shows" as kishuf while others define kishuf
: as being "real black magic" as opposed to sleight of hand. However, Rambam
: could not hold this shita since on philosophical grounds he denies
: the existence of real magic....

Which came first -- the chicken or the egg? Perhaps the Rambam's
willingness to believe that all kishuf is trickery was because he had
to explain why it would be assur otherwise.

After all, believing in actual magic would even have been proper
Aristotilianism. Magic, astrology and alchemy weren't excluded from the
realm of rationalism until enturies after the Rambam.

Similarly, the example of women and sherarah. One can theorize which
came first, but to think the acceptance of the cultural artifact was
the *cause* of the pesaq is simply conjecture. (Most likely, both
are products of common cause.)

GCT!
-mi

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:06:30PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: It is not b'feirush (see Halichos Shlomo Moadim Rosh Hashana - Purim
: chapter 1 sif 16 devar halacha 22 footnote 65). He writes that the
: beracha is because we are zoche to be mekayem many mitzvos related to
: shemitta, we have the shabbas haaretz, kedushas peiros, etc. People in
: chutz laaretz are not mekayem these mitzvos, don't eat peiros with
: kedushas sheviis, etc.  and therefore I thought that the beracha would
: not apply to them

To narrow the search, wouldn't the mitzvah have to be both an asei, and
the qiyum bequm va'asei in order to warrant a berakah?

Regardless of where we go with shemittas kesafim at the end of the year,
what ma'aseh is necessary for it?

GCT!
-mi

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 08:35:09PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: RYK asks if the Sifrei Mussar talk about davening for one's enemy. Orchos
: Tzaddikim in the beginning of Shaar HaSimchah does mention davening for
: one's enemy, though not necessarily as an Eitzah for overcoming  negative
: feelings.

R' Dov Katz in Tenu'as haMussar tells this story about RYS:

One time Rav Yisrael was riding by train from Kovno to Vilna. He was
sitting in a smoking car, smoking a cigar. (This was the 19th century,
smoking wasn't known to be a dangerous vice.) A young fellow boarded and
sat near him. The man complained, yelling at him about the smell of the
cigar and the thickness of the smoke. Bystanders tried to quiet him,
pointing out that if he didn't want the smoke, the man could move to
a non-smoking car. Rav Yisrael Salanter put out the cigar, and opened
the window to clear the air. A minute later, the man slammed the window
closed, screaming at Rav Yisrael for letting the cold air in. Rav Yisrael
apologized to the young man, and turned his attention to a seifer.

When they reached Vilna, crowds of people had come to the train to
greet the elderly sage, the great Rav Yisrael Salanter. The man was
mortified when he realized who it was he had offended through the entire
train ride. He went to the home where Rav Yisrael was staying to beg
forgivenes. Rav Yisrael was gracious in granting it. A trip, after all,
can make you edgy. He asked the man why he came to Vilna. It turns
out he was looking for a letter from a rav to help him get started as
a shocheit. Rav Yisrael made a connection for the man, contacting his
son-in-law, Rav Elya Lazer, asking him to give the man the test.

He failed it, badly. For the next several weeks, Rav Yisrael taught him
the laws himself, and arranged teachers and tutors for the more hands-on
skills of shechitah. After retaking the test, he earned Rav Elya Lazer's
letter of approbation. Then, Rav Yisrael Salanter continued to help,
contacting communities until he could find the man a job.

The shocheit was ready to leave Vilna. He came to Rav Yisrael with a
question. He could understand how Rav Yisrael, the founder of a movement
that teaches a focus on middos, was able to forive him. But why did you
then commit your next few weeks to helping me so much?

Rav Yisrael explained. It's easy to say "I'm sorry." However, how do
you know that deep down you really forgive the person, that you're not
bearing a deep-seated grudge? Deep down in his heart, Rav Yisrael was
not so sure. Therefore he had to help the aspiring When you help another
person, you develop a love for them.

(Story cut-n-pasted from a devar Torah at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/love-part-i.shtml>.)

Whether that applies where ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha doesn't, ie when
the enemy is not rei'akha, is left as an excercise to the reader.

GCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:37:23PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: What DOES make sense to me is that if you removed ALL Qabblistic sources
: there is AFAIK zero Halachic considerations for not saying Selichos earlier
: than Midnight.
: 
: And possibly this is what is meant by Yekkishe...

I once wondered on list whether Yekkes lack the minhag to say Berikh
Shemei, or whether they explicitly removed it -- whether because of
"ana avda", post-Sabbatean fears of Qabbalah, or some other reason.

The difference would be whether a yekke in a Berikh Shemei reciting minyan
should say it with the tzibbur because he has no reason to be poreish,
or whether he has an explicit minhag mandating he miss it.

FWIW, I do not understand RYS's point about "ana avda", since I assume
he didn't omit "ani avdekha ben amasekha".

Last, don't Yekkes wash neigl vasr or before bread in their respective
distinctive right-left patterns? I know Bal'adi Teimanim just pour the
cup over each hand any which way. But I thought Yekkes do follow this
qabbalistic practice.

GCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

With these replies to posts in v23n196, I caught up on my 5 week backlog.
Didn't read 197 yet, but at least this ends the current Micha Marathon.
(And lets me go to bed at 12:14, a mere 2:37 after I started.) Now all
I have is a major email for <chevrah@aishdas.org>, but I think that will
have to wait for tomorrow.



On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:04:41 -0400, RJR <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:
: I always understood it as the usual dialectic - constant
: struggle yet realization that  (after the fact) we strive to be happy
: with where we are(were) - along the lines of R'YBS explanation of
: choshed bkshairim/kapdeihu vchashdeihu

To translate my later comment, made 12:57:33 -0400 (EDT) the same day:
: It's one who is happy with their challenges, their tafqid, their path
: to sheleimus and deveiqus.

: Not contentment with what one has, but with one's lot in life. And
: that includes what I personally am set on the path to strive for...

I would need to shift it from phrasing the path in terms of meeting and
overcoming challenges, and take it into RJR's space -- RYBS's model of
the dynamic of dialectics.

I would say "samei'ach chelqo" is not one side of a dialectic, it's
both. I have a lot of conflicting values and worldviews, dialectics to 
face. I have both sides and the task of navigating their tension; all
three are my cheileq.

R Simon Montagu <simon.montagu@gmail.com> replied to RETurkel's orignal
question on Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:25:41 +0200:
: On the linguistic level, I suppose what I am saying here is that  "sameach
: bechelko" doesn't mean "happy with, one's chelek" in the sense of not
: wanting to improve one's position or to have an easier time finding tuition
: fees, but "happy, with one's chelek", and I think this fits better the
: Mishna's proof text from Tehillim "Yegia` kapeicha ki tochel, ashreicha
: vetov lakh".

But "be-" means "with" in the sense of "via" or "through the aegis of".
Not "together with".

And I think the proof text is exactly my thesis -- simchah with one's
particular version of the task of continual growth.

GCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> Rabbi Arie Folger told a story, and wrote:

I have not yet received this post, but...

>> ... clearly that sale was a real sale. That story, however,
>> should illustrate one aspect of a real sale, that the price
>> is realistic. Selling the land without the slightest appraisal,
>> for a peruttah, seems like an asmachta. I hope and expect that
>> the Chief Rabbinate of Israel conducts at least some crude
>> appraisal.

According to the press story that was quoted here earlier, the value
is stated at 71.5 billion shekel.  I don't know how they arrived at
that figure, but it's hardly a prutah.


> 
> The point of your story, it seems, was to illustrate that one should
> not sell something for a token amount, but rather for its true value.
> If so, then I have to ask: Do you sell require an appraisal of the
> chometz that is sold before Pesach?

Absolutely.  But the appraisal doesn't have to be done immediately.
The contract says that goy agrees to buy the chametz at its market
value, to be determined by an appraiser who will be hired after yomtov.
Once the appraiser determines the price, the goy will pay it within a
reasonable time.  After Pesach we agree to buy it back for market value,
as would be assessed by an independent appraiser, plus some fixed
amount of profit.  Since the two market values cancel each other out,
there's no need to actually engage the appraiser, and we just give the
goy his profit.   If the goy decides not to sell the chametz back, then
ein hochi nami, we have to hire an appraiser to tell him how much to
pay.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 199
***************************************

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..."