Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 201

Fri, 21 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Lifnei Iver/Kanaus (Doron Beckerman)
• 3. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Doron Beckerman)
• 5. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Zvi Lampel)
• 6. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Micha Berger)
• 7. Yom Kippur Drasha - request for critique (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Shehecheyanu for shmitta (Michael Poppers)
• 9. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Michael Poppers)
• 10. Shofar and guf naki (Dov Kay)
• 11. Kanaus (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: Kanaus (Micha Berger)

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Rav Gelley has said many times that Breu'ers does not say
> X or Y because their minhag pre-dates the inclusion of X
> or Y into the Davening - IOW the minhag is older than Rema!

I'd like to know how this works. At what point did the kehilah say "Today is the cutoff. Things we've added until now are okay, but no more new stuff."

I ask this because it seems clear to me that they DO say some things which were added after Chasimas HaGemara. Like Slichos.

Akiva Miller

Igros Moshe EH vol. I: 38 concurs with R' Shlomo Heiman that the act of
Pinchas was only allowed for Kanaim, which is defined as when the action is
done by  a Kosher person who becomes incensed (or he gets himself angry) due
to the slight to the honor of Hashem, with no other ulterior motive. (He
goes on to a discussion about killing someone about to do an act of Pinchas
on an assumption that he is not a Kanai. The average Adam Kasher is presumed
to be acting in defense of HaShem's honor since that is the Matir)

The Igros that RDE quotes, IIUC, is talking about "kana'im" who would cancel
a Shidduch based on  the Chasan's elderly father, who was a Talmid Chacham,
mistakenly thinking he is allowed to kiss his (future?) daughter-in-law,
where  there is  some Kaf Zechus in considering that the error was because
of  applying a  Gemara about R' Tarfon and another one about Ulla, and the
presumption was that he would desist from doing this upon being shown
his error. This sort of Kanaus has no basis in Halachah, and so is certainly
Passul.

IOW, whether a case is a case where Kanaus is called for requires a Psak,
(like what R' Chaim Kanievsky was asked)  but a situation where Kanaus is
called for Al Pi Din, like Pinchas or Afrushei MeIssura, requires purity of
motives, not a Beis Din or a Moreh Horaah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070920/3b8cf2e3/attachment-0001.html 

RAB writes:

> Yes, yes. I mean according to your analysis that chinuch 
> shouldn' be able to overide any lo ta'aseh, it should follow 
> that a rav can never hit a talmid - and that isn't true as 
> you have well shown.

Only if you understand the lo ta'aseh of pen yosif as forbidding any
kind of hitting in any context.  If however you understand the words as
they read literally - pen yosif, ie that what is forbidden is excessive
hitting, then all the sources allowing a rav to hit etc is only setting
out what are the permissible levels of hitting, so that you know when it
is that you hit (if you will excuse the pun) the lo ta'ase.  There is no
need for chinuch to be doche a lo ta'aseh, the lo ta'aseh is never
activated until the Rav hits excessively.

> 
> Why does this trouble you. One might be justified arguing 
> that in the 21st century it would be largely  inaffective. Or 
> that it's a dangerous slope. But surely fom a moral 
> standpoint, his longterm welfare is of paramount importance.

You don't find sources that would appear to support wifebeating somewhat
troubling? (BTW on the subject of kanaus, what say those on this list
who have said one cannot indulge in being a kanoi unless one has the
absence of negios of a Pinchas.  In particular, what do you think of the
Trumas hadeshen that appears to be the source of the Rema, where it
would seem hard to believe it was possible for there to be no personal
negios - ie cursing and showing an absence of kavod to the in-laws being
the crime in question.  And how about the case brought in the Shulchan
Aruch and as discussed by the meforshim there regarding the
permissibility to, it would seem, get involved in a fight that involves
ones relatives even where one would not necessarily have done so in
other contexts)?

> Not steal. If there is a heter to confiscate, then 
> absolutely, why not?  It's far better than hitting, 
> especially if one has "modern sensibilities".

Ah, but what and where is there a "heter to confiscate" and what does
that mean halachically?  The sources, as Rav Henkin brings, are clear
that the taking of somebody else's property without their permission,
even with the intention to later return it, falls within the halachic
definition of stealing.  The prohibition on the Torah regarding stealing
is not phrased in the manner of pen yosif - "lest he exceed", but is a
stam prohibition, thou shalt not steal.  So where are you finding the
wriggle room within that definition for a "heter to confiscate"?  And
how are you analysing such a heter?  Is it hutra or dechuya?  
 
>    >You hold a lulav hagozel is mutar on the second day?  I 
> >  don't think the Mishna or the Shulchan Aruch (see Orech Chaim siman
649 
> > si'if 1) agrees with you (kol arba minim poslim b'gozel or b'gonav)!
>    >
> 
> Again, not stolen. Once it is mutter to confiscate, the rav 
> is a shoel/shomer.

First you have to show the existence of a heter to steal.  Then, it
would seem, you need to be able to justify that the appropriate
relationship of the Rav to the property is as a shoel or a shomer - I
don't think even RDB would go that far.  And then of course you need to
show that a shomer (chinam presumably) is permitted to use the object
which he is holding for mitzvah purposes without the consent (and
presumably against the wishes of) the true owner.  Of course, if you are
willing to hold that the Rav represents a shoel, you don't even need to
raise the question of mitzvah, the Rav presumably could use the object
for any purpose that he desired (he could play ball with it himself if
that is what he chose to do).  This does beg the question, however, as
to whether the Rav would be chayav to pay for it if the object was
permanently lost or stolen.  Without wanting to put words into his
mouth, my guess would be that RDB would hold no, on the grounds that if
the Rav is patur from galus if he kills the talmid, then surely he
should be patur from paying if he confiscates the talmid's property
intending to do so for a short time, and the property gets lost, stolen
or damaged, even without swearing (which presumably a Rav would not want
to do). But then that would appear to take it out of the category of
shomer chinam or shoel, so it would sound like you hold differently.
> GCT
> 
> Akiva

Gmar tov

Chana 

RnCL writes:


> >> Without wanting to put words into his
> mouth, my guess would be that RDB would hold no, on the grounds that if
> the Rav is patur from galus if he kills the talmid, then surely he
> should be patur from paying if he confiscates the talmid's property
> intending to do so for a short time, and the property gets lost, stolen
> or damaged, even without swearing (which presumably a Rav would not want
> to do). But then that would appear to take it out of the category of
> shomer chinam or shoel, so it would sound like you hold differently. <<


R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg holds that the Rav has the status of a Shomer
Chinam in this case. The Ptur from golus is because it was done in the
context of what the Rav deemed necessary for chinuch, but in the case of
taking the item - taking the item serves the purpose of chinuch w/o the Rav
being negligent in making sure he could return it. (Of course, if the Rav
thought that the necessary objective of chinuch would be best served by
destroying the object, he is within his rights according to RZNG.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070920/586be5f3/attachment-0001.htm 

From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> Mon, 17 Sep 2007
> ...The trick here is to appreciate and be grateful for everything you have and
to still strive for more w/o feeling regret over "What is"

> Health mashal:
> A person is involved - heaven Forbid  - in a serious car accident. He comes
out alive but he is baned-up badly and has broken bones, contusions,
bruises, etc.

> He benches Gomel for his very Life that has been spared
Yet he still davens for a REFUAH SHLEIMA in order to be restored to total
health.

> If he remains complacent he will be a grateful cripple
If he becomes completely  unappreciative and dissatsified, he may grow into
a bitter - albeit healed, survivor.
The trick is to Thank HKBH for what He has already done for him and yet to
still ask for more.

> Life can be a balancing act...<










Perhaps this is why it's worded "sameach," "happya" b'chelko, and not "satisfied" (merutseh?) b'chelko?













Zvi Lampel






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070920/6733eadd/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, September 20, 2007 5:25 pm, R Zvi Lampel wrote:
: Perhaps this is why it's worded "sameach," "happya" b'chelko, and not
: "satisfied" (merutseh?) b'chelko?

I reached quite the opposite conclusion, perhaps because of my more
dynamic conception of what a person's cheileq is.

The word "happy", means both the joy one feels at one's child's
chasunah (I imagine), and the pleasant, contented feeling one has with
a life well lived.

In <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/vaeschanan.pdf> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/purim-yehudim-and-simchah.shtml>
(mishenichnas Av and mishenichnas Adar) I develop the notion that the
first is sason, which RSRH sees as an internal, emotional "zuz" (both
of which are an outgrowth, a "tzitz")... Whereas simchah means that
long-term contenment joy.

And I took it for granted that "eizehu ashir" *bolsters* that conclusion.

Also, but I never connected them before - "ein simchah elah Torah" or
"ein simchah ela bebasar veyayin". A person can learn (follow?) Torah
or have a "simchah" (as we call it, I would argue it's not Chazal's
usage) without meat and wine. However, can one have a fulfilling life
or (until recent times) a contentment-inducing meal?

Tangent on the latter point: My wife interrupted my typing that
paragraph to ask me about whether our pre-YK meal should be fleishig.
I was torn: OT1H, "ein simchah ela..." OTOH, it's much easier to come
up with a pre-fast appropriate menu on milichigs. So I'm wondering,
does the chiyuv to have a seudah necessarily imply a preference for
meat?

Khasivah veChasimah Tovah, vesheTir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

Not a lot of time left for critique; luckily it's pretty far fetched and 
(I hope) easy to improve.

1.  A letter attributed (by Sefer Haredim) to the Rambam describes his 
trip to Israel.  Two salient points: (i) during the voyage the ship 
almost capsized in a storm, and the Rambam set aside the anniversary of 
that day as a day of fasting and repentance for himself and his 
descendants, and (ii) the Rambam set aside the anniversary of the day of 
his arrival as a festive holiday for himself and his descendants.

2.  I think the source of the latter is the din "haro'eh makom 
shena'aseh lo nes m'varech".  In the normative instance the place is 
presumed to be regularly accessible.  In our example the miracle was 
precisely that the Rambam reached an inaccessible place; hence the 
commemoration is based on the date and not the location.  Notice that 
just as it is a mitzva to commemorate a nes it is prohibited to 
commemorate a non-miracle as a miracle.  That, at least, is a common 
interpretation of "kol haomer hallel hamitzri b'chol yom k'ilu m'charef 
um'gadef"; the trend extends from a Yerushalmi (cited by the Meiri but 
which I couldn't locate inside) to R. Meir Simcha in the Meshech 
Hochmah.  Hence the rarity of this particular halacha - it requires 
great subtlety to recognize a miracle.

3.  At the beginning of H. Ta'anis the Rambam says that we should take 
catastrophes as an impetus to Teshuva.  But what is the source of taking 
the anniversary of a tragedy as an impetus to Teshuva? I suggest that it 
is precisely the realization that the tragedy has not been rectified.  
For example, during bayis sheini the fasts associated with hurban bayis 
rishon became feasts because the tragedy of hurban habayis had been 
rectified.  Similarly the tragedy the Rambam wanted to commemorate was 
that he didn't settle in Eretz Yisrael, but instead moved to Egypt.  We 
know from other writings of the Rambam that this bothered him immensely.

4.  If that's the case, though, the fast and feast really ought to be on 
the same day.  Making them separate days also has precedent.  Gedaliah 
ben Ahikam was assassinated on Rosh HaShanah, but we defer the fast, and 
celebrate Rosh HaShanah as a feast day.  At first glance this seems 
appropriate; how, after all, can one have a fast and a feast on the same 
day?

5.  The question is a good one, however, since Yom Kippur is both a fast 
and a feast.  Two examples: (i) the Be'er Heiteiv OH 551:39 cites Sefer 
Gan HaMelech that one should smell incense and make birchas harei'ah on 
Yom Kippur in order to fulfill the mitzvah of oneg(!). (ii) the gemara 
has a hava amina that one should say hallel hamitzri on Yom Kippur.

6.  I'd like to suggest that Teshuva on Yom Kippur, and hence fasting on 
Yom Kippur, are different from any other day of the year.  This is 
alluded to in the midrash: "Hashem Ori, zo Rosh HaShanah, V'yish'i, zo 
Yom HaKippurim".  Normal fasts are dedicated to light: we try to examine 
our situation as it is and evaluate which sins are the reasons for our 
troubles.  Even the annual fasts are dependent on the situation of 
hurban habayis.  Rosh HaShana, though it's not a fast day, is the 
paradigmatic day for examining our current state.  Yom Kippur, on the 
other day, is the day for our highest hopes and aspirations.  It's the 
day when we imagine what we could possibly be, to the extent of acting 
like angels during the day.  R. Abraham Maimonides relates that once, 
when walking with his dad on Erev Yom Kippur, they heard someone 
complain that he had no sins to confess on Yom Kippur.  The Rambam 
remarked to his son that that thought itself was a sin which needed 
confession.  Imagining that one can improve no more is the antithesis of 
Yom Kippur.

7.  Analogously fasting on Yom Kippur is different.  On other fast days 
fasting is a punishment; our lost flesh and fat are like sacrifices on 
the altar.  On Yom Kippur fasting is like an operation; we fast, not for 
its own sake, but as a side effect of our attempt to emulate the angels; 
to become someone else.

8.  I once heard from the mashgiah of my yeshiva that normally people 
succeed only when they make small incremental changes in behavior.  
There are two days, however, when he's seen people succeed in making 
drastic changes and sticking to them.  They are Purim and Yom 
HaKippurim.  I suggest that this is alluded to in the Tiqqunei HaZohar 
which explains the name Yom K'Purim: a day like Purim.  Just as "bayom 
asher sibru oyvei hay'hudim [=yetzer hara] lishlot bahem", suddenly 
"v'nahafoch hu asher yishl'tu hayhudim heima b'son'eihem".  Similarly on 
Yom Kippur, as in an operation, there's a sudden transition from before 
to after.

9.  The midrash says that the reason the angels were climbing up and 
down between Ya'akov and the sky was that they noticed that he was 
identical to his image on the Kisei HaKavod.  We find that often, when 
God calls people in the Bible, he doubles their names, "Avraham, 
Avraham", "Yaakov, Yaakov", etc.  The sefarim hakedoshim say that one 
name alludes to the person, the other to his image on the throne of 
glory.  Yet we never find "Yitzhak, Yitxhak".  This is because Yitzhak 
represents Rosh HaShanah; "va'akeidas Yitzhak hayom l'zar'o b'rahamim 
tizkor", and Rosh HaShanah is "Hashem Ori", the day when we gaze coldly 
and clearly on who we really are.  But Yom Kippur is "Hashem Yish'i", 
the day we imagine who we can be: we start the day lying and the rocky 
ground, and, in an instant, we can find ourselves engraved on the Throne 
of Glory.

David Riceman

In Avodah Digest V23#199, R'Micha responded:
> 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? <
Would that first Q's logic apply to, say, wearing a new suit for the first
time?  And couldn't a response to the 2nd Q be that what one is bidden to
do re certain monetary situations that one happens to be a part of is
similar to, say, what one is bidden to do when in a 4-cornered-garment
situation?

BTW, mei'inyan l'inyan: do you know why "shehecheyanu" isn't made by a
b'ris (which surely is a "qiyum bequm va'asei")?  The "Sharashei Minhag
Ashk'naz" Vol1 piece on this topic is worthwhile (and speaking of
"Sharashei Minhag Ashk'naz," see my next post)....

G'mar tov and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070920/57f45245/attachment.htm 

In Avodah Digest V23#199, R'Micha wrote:
> 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. <
A few centuries ago, everyone lacked this "minhag" (which it isn't -- it's
part of the seider hat'filah in many places nowadays).  Once added by a
q'hilah to the nusach, I would think that saying it is minhag hamaqom and
that the same Halachic rules apply to it as apply to, say, the tzibbur
saying "n'qadeish" at the beginning of Q'dushah (also a recent innovation
counter to the practice for so many prior centuries that only the SHaTZ
says it -- see the very first "Sharashei Minhag Ashk'naz" Vol1 piece...and
while you're enjoying that volume, see the piece on "Brich Shmeih" which
appears there).

> 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. <
Talking about prior onlist conversation, you and I have talked about this
subject, too.  One's personal predilections do not outweigh minhag hamaqom,
but what one does in private, e.g. washing (however one performs that
washing) before Qiddush, isn't a "lo sisgod'du" issue even when the vast
majority of the community does otherwise.

G'mar tov and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070920/fb63b7f0/attachment.html 

<<I'm not 100% sure but I would suspect that the GRA would say to say Birkas
Hatorah ASAP in the morning after Netillas Yadayim etc.  A lot of siddurim
these days have
Yadayim
Asher Yatzar
E.lopkai Hnesham
& Birkkas  Hatorah
as the first thing in the morning. I figure it is al pi the GRA>>

I don't think so, because the Siddur HaGra and the Siddur Ezor Eliyahu, 
which is fairly authoritative as far as the minhagei GRA are concerned, put 
birchos haTorah after birchos hashachar and immediately before korbonos, 
which makes the most sense, because it puts mikra, mishna and gemara (ie 
parshas Tamid, Eizehu mekoman and Rabbi Yishmael) straight after the birchos 
haTorah.  I believe that this is also old minhag Ashkenaz.  I think the 
Chabad Tehilllas HaShem also follows this order, but could be wrong there.

You may be correct, however, that the rationale for the common custom 
nowadays is the concern any p'sukim or asiyas mitzvos prior to birchos 
haTorah is inappropriate.

G'mar tov
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!  http://www.newhotmail.co.uk

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:16:40 -0700 RDE wrote:

> The Shomer Emunim Rebbe told me that according to  Derech Mitzvosecha 
> that one can only be a kanoi if it doesn't provide pleasure or excitement.

There's a story I love about a certain Rav [0], famous as a vehement
zealot, who once reprimanded someone for excessive zealotry.  When
asked, "But you, too, are known as a great zealot?", he responded with
a parable:  A housewife imports a cat to rid her house of mice; both
the woman and the cat have the same goal of eliminating the vermin, but
the woman would ideally prefer that there be no infestation in
the first place, while the cat is delighted to have rodents to chase.
That's the distinction between us, said the Rav;  in my ideal world
there would be no profanation of the glory of Heaven, while you live
for the joy of battle ...

I'm not sure how accurate my rendition of the anecdote is, but there's a
greater truth here even if the details are incorrect.  [It should go
without saying, but for the record, I *in no way* mean by that to
sanction the use of falsehoods in the service of truth.]

[0] I'm not sure of the identity of the protagonist, but I think he was
a prominent Hassidic figure.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Fri, September 21, 2007 11:57 am, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: There's a story I love about a certain Rav [0], famous as a vehement
: zealot, who once reprimanded someone for excessive zealotry.  When
: asked, "But you, too, are known as a great zealot?", he responded with
: a parable...
: [0] I'm not sure of the identity of the protagonist, but I think he
: was a prominent Hassidic figure.

Both R' Velvel Brisker and RYBS said this in the name of Rav Chaim,
although I do not recall RYBS (who I heard first-hand thanks to MP3)
identifying R' Chaim as a kana'i.

In RYBS's version, R' Chaim attributed the mashal to his wife, Rn Lifsha.

Khasivah veChasimah Tovah, vesheTir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 201
***************************************

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..."