Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 14

Fri, 19 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 4. Re: Hebrews/Israelites/Bnei Yisroel - Jews (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Re: tower of bavel (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Mitzvat Aseh (Richard Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Re: tower of bavel (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 11. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Zev Sero)
• 14. tower of bavel (Ilana Sober)

On 10/17/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>
> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> >     Rav / Herschel Schachter states:  /
> >
> >         . A matter of /halacha/ which has been accepted for centuries
> >         can not be overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there
> >         simply was an error involved from the very outset.
>
> > Given:
> > [...]
> > Question: how did the GRA revert it back to 2?
>
> Nu, so who says the GRA had to pasken like RHS?
>
> --
> Zev Sero


Ein hachi nami. After reflecting what bothered me so much about the Rav
Schachter's article I realized that he was talking as if every  premise was
universally accepted - and that one who failed to accept his premises and
suppositions was outside the pale

I guess I feel RHS is coming across not acknowledging other "kosher"
approaches - his way or the highway.  Whether he intends to do that, I do
not know, I have not verified this with him.  I would say that we can
quibble with the underlying premise in any given paragraph.

It reminds me of how I feel when friends of mine claim that if one consumes
haleiv hacompanies one is  eating treif despite the fact that RMF has
paskened otherwise.
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/280a1ec5/attachment.html 

R' David Riceman wrote:
> Sefer Toldoth Adam (a biography of R. Zalman Volozhiner, who
> was a student of the Gra) says that R. Zalman used to wear
> mittens when he slept so that he could start learning when
> he woke up without having to wash his hands first.

I can see how mittens protect one from Yadayim Askaniyos, but I cannot see how they would protect from Ruach Ra. Perhaps this very point is additonal evidence for the view of Rav Chaim Volozhiner (reported here in the name of Rav Nebentzal and Rav Auerbach) that there actually is no longer any such ruach ra.

Akiva Miller

> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> > Rav / Herschel Schachter states:  /
> >  [...]
> 
> > And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to
> > visit the Rebb's Ohel?
R' ZS: 
> Why on earth not?   What issur are they doing?

Would someone kindly explain the Metzius of the situation? The Gemara talks
about Ohel Zaruk, and boxes, so I assume that there there must be something
else here that makes R' RW raise this question.

KT,
MYG

> On Thu, October 18, 2007 7:55 am, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> : R' MB:
> :> The name Shneiur originated from Signor. However, Rav Aharon Kotler
> :> named his son for the fact that he was born Friday evening, when
> :> "shenei or" should be lit. So, while the names is from "Signor", my
> :> nephew in Lakewood was still named for the derashah of "two lights".
> 
> : Ayin Yam Shel Shlomo, Gittin, 4:26, and Ayin Sheim Hagedolim,
> : Maareches Gedolim, Shin, Kuntres Acharon.
> 
> Assuming I owned a Sheim Gedolim.
> 
> In any case, I would insist that they are derashos. IOW, folk
> etymologies that added depth to and longevity to the name. Just moving
> my point up in the centuries without changing its substance.

I wasn't disagreeing with you - Sheim Hagedolim says that the name Shneiur
predates the Maharshal's story, citing, among others, Rabbeinu Yonah's Rebbe
whose name was Shneiur (I'm not sure how that jives with your story of the
Genoese (sp?) Signor Salamon). Sheim Hagedolim concludes with a paraphrase
of your analysis of R' Shneiur Kotler's name. I am sending a pdf of the page
by separate email - anyone interested is welcome to email me for it.

KT,
MYG

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:07:02 +0200, "Ilana Sober"
<ilanasober@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RnLL: There were too many generations between the Mabul and 
>> Peleg.  I think that pshat in "for in his days the earth was 
>> divided" is that it's referring to Migdal Bavel.  Which places the 
>> event centuries after the Mabul.
>
>Arpachshad was born 2 years after the flood.
>He was 35 when Shelach was born.
>Shelach was 30 when Ever was born.
>Ever was 34 when Peleg was born.
>Peleg lived to be 239.
>
>This means that Peleg lived from 101 years post flood until 340 years
>post flood.
>
>Therefore, the Midrash posits that Migdal Bavel occurred at the very
>end of Peleg's life. One of these days I should look it up and figure
>out why. But the pshat of chumash doesn't give any indication when in
>his life it happened - it could have been a few hundred years
>earlier.

I think it's Rashi, but I may be misremembering, and I'm too lazy to
get up and check, but Yoktan was his younger brother, and it lists
generations that descended from Yoktan among the nations that were
dispersed.  Therefore, it couldn't be at the end of his life.  Ah,
now I remember.  It was Rashi.  I think he says that the Torah comes
to explain and not to obscure, so it must have been at one end or the
other of his life if it doesn't say when exactly.  And since it
couldn't be at the beginning of his life, it must have been at the
end.

Lisa
--
The Book of Esther in the Light of History, now available at:
http://www.lulu.com/starways/

Images from a Twisted Mind at http://www.cafepress.com/starways/

On 10/18/07, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would someone kindly explain the Metzius of the situation? The Gemara
> talks
> about Ohel Zaruk, and boxes, so I assume that there there must be
> something
> else here that makes R' RW raise this question.
>
> KT,
> MYG


Rav Sachter's article seems to imply to me that one may NOT exploit certain
heteirim when those heiteirim lack a tradition for doing so. That avoiding
exploiting a certain heter is proof that one SHOULD not exploit that heter.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/11b95d8d/attachment-0001.htm 

Almost all mitzvot aseh kiyumit are similar to tzizit that they need to be
done once the action is done.

Conversely, the mitzvot "lo ta'aseh" aren't aveiros until the negative
action is done. For instance, if you have no desire to murder, then there's
not much observance of that mitzvah on your part by not murdering. The only
time it assumes significance is in its violation. On the other hand, if you
have a desire to steal and you exercise your b'chirah chofsheet and don't
steal, then you are rewarded for the "lo ta'aseh" mitzvah in proportion to
the amount of will it took to refrain from its violation.

Regarding any mitzvah, only HaShem determines what the s'char or onesh will
be, but it seems difficult to understand that the Rambam (as an example of
many) would be greatly rewarded for not eating pork (unless, of course, he
struggled with a desire for it). 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/cd9cb110/attachment-0001.html 

R' Richard Wolpoe:
But I was told
Mirshatarbed NISHt fu na kasah
We do NOT die from a question!? 




Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 2:1-3) says that we do.

KT,
MYG 

R' Akiva Miller:
> I can see how mittens protect one from Yadayim Askaniyos, but I cannot
> see how they would protect from Ruach Ra. Perhaps this very point is
> additonal evidence for the view of Rav Chaim Volozhiner (reported here
> in the name of Rav Nebentzal and Rav Auerbach) that there actually is
> no longer any such ruach ra.

Ruach Ra'ah is not an Ikuv for Talmud Torah - Yadayim Askonios is. See
Mishneh Berurah 1:2.

KT,
MYG

R'n LL:
> I think it's Rashi, but I may be misremembering, and I'm too lazy to
> get up and check, but Yoktan was his younger brother, and it lists
> generations that descended from Yoktan among the nations that were
> dispersed.  Therefore, it couldn't be at the end of his life.  Ah,
> now I remember.  It was Rashi.  I think he says that the Torah comes
> to explain and not to obscure, so it must have been at one end or the
> other of his life if it doesn't say when exactly.  And since it
> couldn't be at the beginning of his life, it must have been at the
> end.

See Rashi, Shabbos 10b, s.v. She'yeshivasah Krovah.

KT,
MYG

On 10/18/07, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
Would someone kindly explain the Metzius of the situation? The Gemara talks
about Ohel Zaruk, and boxes, so I assume that there there must be something
else here that makes R' RW raise this question.

R' RW:
Rav Sachter's article seems to imply to me that one may NOT exploit certain
heteirim when those heiteirim lack a tradition for doing so. That avoiding
exploiting a certain heter is proof that one SHOULD not exploit that heter. 


Perhaps I wasn't clear. What is the "Heter" that is being exploited to visit
the Rebbe's Ohel? All that was mentioned was that it involves boxes.

KT,
MYG

P.S. BTW, I've heard an argument similar to R' HS's in the name of a major
Posek regarding wearing modern-day Techeiles: If this is it, explain why the
generations before us were not able to have it?

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> The fact that Kohanim have avoided cemeteries for centuries

I've never heard that kohanim have ever avoided cemeteries.  In my
experience cohanim go to funerals, taking care to stay four amot
away from any unfenced grave.  At the Melbourne Chevra Kadisha
cemetery the chapel has a special cohanim room, which is not under
the same roof as the room where the body is, and is separated by a
glass wall.  And the roads have markings at the point where cohanim
can go no further.  Cohanim and their families are buried in the
front row so their relatives can visit while standing in the road.

I understand that if a particular cemetery doesn't have such
facilities, i.e. if the roads are less than 8 amot wide (from the
front row of graves on one side to the front row on the other side),
and no fence around the chelkot, then cohanim can't visit that
particular cemetery, but not that they can't visit cemeteries in
general.

As far as I know a cohen must be separated from a grave by either
four amot of open space, or a fence 10 tefachim high.  One or the
other is sufficient.  If the path leading to the LR's ohel were
more than eight amot wide, a cohen could walk down the middle in
safety.  Since it isn't, a cohen may not walk down it unless there is
a fence between him and the graves lining the path.  The box is
such a fence, and allows him to reach the ohel in safety.  What
could possibly be wrong with it?


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

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
>> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>>> Rav / Herschel Schachter states:  /
>>>  [...]
>>> And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to
>>> visit the Rebb's Ohel?
> R' ZS: 
>> Why on earth not?   What issur are they doing?
> 
> Would someone kindly explain the Metzius of the situation? The Gemara talks
> about Ohel Zaruk, and boxes, so I assume that there there must be something
> else here that makes R' RW raise this question.

A cohen may not come within 4 amot of a grave unless there is a mechitza
between them.  The path leading to the LR's ohel is quite narrow, certainly
less than 8 amot wide, and lined with graves; therefore an unassisted cohen
may not pass through.  The solution is to create a mechitza between him and
the graves.

The way this used to work was that a group of people would gather around
the cohen, forming a mechitza around him, and the entire group would walk
together.  A mechitza made of people is 100% kosher for all purposes - 
even on Shabbat, such a group may parade through a reshut harabim, with
the person in the middle carrying.  (On shabbat, the people must not know
for what purpose they're being gathered until after the mechitzah has
formed; once they're in place they can be told that they are now a kosher
mechitzah, and to please stay in formation.)

Then someone came up with the idea of providing boxes, which consist
of four walls with handles in the middle - the cohen steps inside the
box, lifts it up by the handle, and carries it with him; the box forms
a mechitzah all around him, and he can go past graves without a problem.

AFAIK all of this is 100% lechatchila, and doesn't rely on any kulot
or heterim.

At the ohel itself there is a mechitzah of 10 tefachim around the
graves, and no roof over them, so there is clearly no problem.

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

RnLL and RZS point out that Rashi Bereishit 10:25, where he learns that the
dispersion was davka at the end of Peleg's life and Ever was a navi who gave
him a name based on an event that would happen 239 years later.

Note that Radak there says that the dispersion happened when he was born, so
the name was based on current events rather than nevuah. But that doesn't
take into account Rashi's argument that Peleg's younger brother's sons must
have been born before the dispersion.

In any case, it seems to me that there is room for different possible
approaches within pshat, although I certainly take Rashi very seriously.

By the way, I'm not sure Rashi's pshat is so very problematic from a metziut
point of view. We know that the division into different languages was a nes.
And populations can move very quickly. Think about  the kind of population
shifts that happened in the 19th and 20th centuries, both among Jews and in
general. Or the quick spread of European colonists in the Americas in the
17-19 centuries. Governments also can be formed and become well established
within a brief time. Look at both the population and the government of
Israel a few decades after independence. Not to mention other former British
colonies, eastern Europe and the former USSR after the collapse of
communism, etc. It doesn't take that long to draw radically new maps.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071019/019f5dfa/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 14
**************************************

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..."