Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 115

Mon, 31 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: R Angel and Gerus Redux (Zeliglaw@aol.com)
• 2. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Danny Schoemann)
• 3. Daas Torah - sources (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: R Angel and Gerus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 5. A better answer (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Michael Kopinsky)
• 7. What is a saris? (Michael Kopinsky)
• 8. The Levush and the "Ayin-Tes-Zayin" (R Davidovich)
• 9. Re: geirim (AY & CB Walters)
• 10. Re: The Levush and the "Ayin-Tes-Zayin" (Simon Montagu)
• 11. Re: What is a saris? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: What is a saris? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: What is a saris? (Michael Kopinsky)

I would suggest that anyone interested in reviewing the sources on Kabalas  
HaMitzvos as an essential element begin with the sugya in Yevamos 46-47 and the 
 Rishonim, especially the Mossad HaRav Kook edition of the Ritva and the  
footnotes there as well as the Encyclopedia Talmudis entry on Gerus before  
concluding that many Rishonim do not view Kabalas Ol Mitzvos as an essential  part 
of Gerus. WADR to R Uzziel ZTL, his premise is that the key is that a  
potential ger wants "to be Jewish" and that the details of Kabalas Ol Mitzvos  are 
essentially dispensed with, a view that one can legitimately say is  completely 
contrary to the view of how many Rishonim understood the element of  Kabalas 
Ol Mitzvos. The work that R Meir Shinnar posted about is interesting in  its 
methodology but is premised on a view that Hilcos Gerus was essentially  Lkulah 
untill social changes dictated that Poskim employ a more Machmir POV, a  
premise that requires more proof than is asserted by the authors, especially in  
light of how many Rishonim do in fact view Kabalas Ol Mitzvos as absolutely  
essential. 
 
Steve Brizel
_Zeliglaw@aol.com_ (mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com) 



**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
Home.      
(h
ttp://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&;ncid=
aolhom00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080327/b53d9a7b/attachment-0001.html 

R' Michael Makovi asserts:

>But in today's non-religious Jew, it is absolutely positively known
>that they know that Orthodox Jews don't eat pork or drive cars on
>Shabbat. They also know that Orthodox women don't dress provocatively.

Lo Ro'isi Aino Ra'ayo - Because you haven't seen it doesn't prove anything.

I can tell you from first hand experience in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and
Petach Tikva that your statements are incorrect.

It's sad, but true. You simply cannot believe the ignorance of those
removed from Yiddishkeit.

Even if they have heard of the concept of not driving on Shabbos
doesn't mean they assume that  Yidden are forbidden to do so; they
assume it's a personal chumra of a select few. (Compare with the
Chofetz Chaim and Mesilas Yeshorim trying to persuade their readers
that what they write is halacho and not chumra.)


- Danny

From among links on the subject sent to Areivim, I found the following
to say things of substance (as opposed to popularist short articles):

R' Amichai <http://daat.co.il/daat///ezrachut/demokratia/nispah3.htm>
"DT be'inyanim she'einam hilkhatiim muvhaqim"

R' NE Rabinovitch (RY of Bikat Moshe, Maalei Adumim)
<http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%205%20Rabinovitch.pdf>
"What is "Emunat Chakhamim"?

R' Alfred Cohen <http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf>
"Daat Torah"

R' Yitzchak Kasdan (Founding publisher of jlaw.com)
<http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/observ-on-daat.html>
"Observations On And Beyond Rabbi Alfred Cohen's 'Daat Torah'"

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Steve Brizel wrote:
>  The work that R Meir Shinnar posted about is interesting in its 
> methodology but is premised on a view that Hilcos Gerus was 
> essentially Lkulah untill social changes dictated that Poskim employ a 
> more Machmir POV, a premise that requires more proof than is asserted 
> by the authors, especially in light of how many Rishonim do in fact 
> view Kabalas Ol Mitzvos as absolutely essential.
>  

*Bechoros**(30b): *A non-Jew who comes to convert and he accepts all 
obligations except for one thing ? he is not to be accepted as a 
convert. R? Yose said that he is not accepted even if he refuses to 
accept any details of even the rabbinic decrees.


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


??? - ??? ?????? ????, ?' ???? ??' ????? ????: ???' ????? ??? ????? ??????;

*Rashi[1] <#_ftn1>(Shabbos 31a): [Shammai] angrily rejected him ? 
*Because it is taught in Bechoros (30b): ?that a non?Jew who comes to 
convert and to accept upon himself the words of Torah ? except for one 
thing ? is not accepted. [*Hillel] converted him* ? and relied upon his 
wisdom that eventually he would accept all the Oral Torah. This is not 
the same as accepting everything except for one thing ? because the 
non?Jew was not denying the Oral Torah but just didn?t believe that is 
was from G?d. Hillel was certain that after he taught the non?Jew he 
would come to accept it from him.**


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


????? ??? ???? ???, ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? 
- ??? ?????? ????, ????? ?????? (?:): *??????* - ???? ?? ????? ????? 
???????? ???? ????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? - ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? 
??, ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????, ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????.

*
Rambam**(Hilchos Issurei Bi?ah 12:17): *Any non?Jew who converts and 
accepts the obligation to do all the mitzvos of the Torah and slaves who 
have been freed ? they are considered Jews for all matters ...


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


????????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? 
??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?"? ???, ???? 
???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????????, ??? ??' ????? 
???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ??? 
?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????.

*Rav Kook[1] <#_ftn1>(Daas Cohen Y.D. #154): *It explicity says in 
Chazal (Bechoros 30b): A non?Jew who comes to accept all of Torah except 
for one thing is not to be accepted. R? Yose says even one detail of a 
rabbinic law. Therefore how is it possible to accept gerim like these 
(intermarried) when it is obvious that after they convert they will 
violate Torah law. (It is true that it is surprising that the poskim 
delete this law entirely. Nevetheless this braissa does not lose it?s 
validity because of this and there  is no one who rejects it as halacha 
? at least not the statement of the tanna kama that if the ger rejects 
even one Torah law he is not accepted.)


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


??"? ?????? (?:) ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????, 
?"? ??"? ???? ???' ????? ??? ??"?, ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????? 
???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????, (??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? 
???? ?? ?????, ?"? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????, ???? ???? ?"? ??"? ??' ?"? 
???? ??"? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????).

R' Steinsaltz in a footnote in Horiyot mentions a tosfot in Shabbat that
opines that the gemara will sometimes ask the same questions twice
because maybe a chacham has a better answer.
Before I search every tosfot in Shabbat, does anyone know where in
Shabbat this tosfot might be?

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/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080330/31d85747/attachment-0001.htm 

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ken Bloom <kbloom@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm actually really curious what an Ashkenazi shaliach tzibbur is saying
> before pseukei d'zimrah that he's saying too quietly for me to hear. He
> says morning berachot, then I hear him say "hagomel chasadim tovim l'amo
> yisrael", "l'olam yehei adam", shema, then "ham'kadesh sh'mo b'rabim",
> then shortly after that it's kaddish. Everything else is said too
> quietly for me to know what he's saying. I've found that I hear pretty
> much the same thing at lots of Ashkenazi shuls, so there must be some
> kind of standard.
>
AFAIK, the standard in most American Ashkenazi shuls the shatz either says
or doesn't say the paragraph after Mekadesh Sh'mo Barabim (Atah hu Hashem
Elokeinu bashamayim uva'aretz), and then skips to R' Yishmael.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080330/3795f145/attachment.html 

On Purim, I had an argument with someone (he happened to be shikker at the
time, which certainly fed into the argument) which eventually led to me
being accused of departing from mesores chazal, and for the rest of the
seudah, this person called me "Maskil".  (Though to his defense, I should
have known better than to defend Mendelssohn in Lakewood.)

My shocking statement that led to all this was that when the Megillah says
sarisei hamelech, it means eunuchs, and not just servants.

Afterward, I mentioned this to several people, including former Kollel
yungerleit, and the reaction I got was always, "Yeah, I guess it could be, I
never thought about that."

A search of mefarshim and midrashim only megillah turned up nothing, except
for the Targum which says Rabbanaya.

Looking in the Even-Shoshan Concordance, he has three definitions of saris:
a) castrated man, b) eunuch, c) servant, and brings examples of each.  An
admittedly too-brief look at those mekoros does not convince me that any of
those examples have to be davka not eunuchs, and it may be that
Even-Shoshan's three definitions coincide completely.

The one question I had with my understanding:  Something in my subconscious
is telling me that Haman = mehuman, which is a problem since Haman had kids
and mehuman was a saris.  However, a search of Otzar Hamidrashim as well as
of Google turned up no identification of Haman as Mehuman, only as Memuchan.

Any comments on my translation of saris as eunuch?  Am I crazy, or are all
the people who are surprised by my translation crazy?

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080330/6a1ec1d7/attachment.htm 

The Shach in Yoreh Deya constantly cites the "Ayin Tes-Zayin".  For years,
friends and I have been saying "Ateres Zekeinim", without delving further.
I recently did a quick online search and discovered that "Ateres Zekeinim"
was the name of two seforim. The one who discusses Halacha was a younger
contemporary of the Shach who outlived him by some 30 years, a R' Mendel
Auerbach.

Someone suggested that the "Ayin Tes-Zayin" refers to the Levush.  But I
have not been able to locate a different name for the sefer known as the
Levush that would match that Acronym.

Any ideas or knowledge out there?

-- 
RD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080329/b9cc6be8/attachment-0001.html 

Someone wrote

> <<Indeed - ALL gerim are not going to be able to keep all the mitzvot at
> first - like a bar mitzvah.

But ain loimdim efsher m'shi efsher - the bar mitsve becomes a bar mitsveh 
whether he's ready or not; the ger could wait

> The problem is that some batei dinim in Israel do indeed demand more of 
> geirim
> than many orthodox Jews keep in practice
>
No-one objects to the fact that someone who wishes to become an American 
citizen must do a lot more than most born Americans; he must speak English 
(unlike native born Americans who don't have too), he must be free of 
criminal record, he must swear to uphold the constitution etc. So why when 
someone becomes a ger can we not expect more from him than a native?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out how you can get spam free email.
http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/3

See http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=1841 "Levush Ateret
Zahav" is the Levush on Yoreh Deah

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 6:37 AM, R Davidovich <raphaeldavidovich@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The Shach in Yoreh Deya constantly cites the "Ayin Tes-Zayin".  For years,
> friends and I have been saying "Ateres Zekeinim", without delving further.
> I recently did a quick online search and discovered that "Ateres Zekeinim"
> was the name of two seforim. The one who discusses Halacha was a younger
> contemporary of the Shach who outlived him by some 30 years, a R' Mendel
> Auerbach.
>
> Someone suggested that the "Ayin Tes-Zayin" refers to the Levush.  But I
> have not been able to locate a different name for the sefer known as the
> Levush that would match that Acronym.
>
> Any ideas or knowledge out there?
>
> --
> RD
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080331/4d3c4752/attachment.htm 

Saris definitely means eunuch; when Yeshaya says "ve'al yomar hasaris
hen ani etz yavesh", he doesn't mean "royal servant".  The question is
whether, by the time of the Megillah, the term had shifted in meaning;
since traditionally royal servants were eunuchs, perhaps the term had
come to be applied to all royal servants, regardless of their anatomical
status.

As for Haman, if saris is meant literally, perhaps he was castrated for
the sake of his career after he had his children.

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

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:45:05AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Saris definitely means eunuch; when Yeshaya says "ve'al yomar hasaris
: hen ani etz yavesh", he doesn't mean "royal servant"...
: As for Haman, if saris is meant literally, perhaps he was castrated for
: the sake of his career after he had his children.

What about "Potiphar saris Par'oh" (Bereishis 39:1)? Or is that why
eishes Potiphar was looking for men elsewhere?

I would think that "al yad Heigai, seris hammelekh, shomer hannashim"
(Esther 2:3) makes sense for him to have been a saris. However, "heigai"
might be "aga", which in turn means both "court officer" and "eunoch" in
Sanskrit. OTOH, wouldn't that make him "haheigai", with a hei hayedi'ah
(or "heigai hashomeir" maybe) or have the word "echad" in there somewhere?

I think it's simpler to say that since so many kings used eunochs in
certain roles, the word shifted meaning to also include others in similar
roles. Just as "aga" did. In fact in Hebrew such drift is more likely
given the phonetic similarity to "sar".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Saris definitely means eunuch; when Yeshaya says "ve'al yomar hasaris
> hen ani etz yavesh", he doesn't mean "royal servant".  The question is
> whether, by the time of the Megillah, the term had shifted in meaning;
> since traditionally royal servants were eunuchs, perhaps the term had
> come to be applied to all royal servants, regardless of their anatomical
> status.


Do we see that the term eunuch or saris was extended to refer to a fertile,
procreative royal servant?  According to Wikipedia[1], "by Late Antiquity
the term "eunuch" had come to be applied not only to castrated men, but also
to a wide range of men with comparable behavior, who had "chosen to withdraw
from worldly activities and thus refused to procreate."  However, I see no
indication that men who did procreate were still called eunuchs.

Does "saris" have a broader implication than "eunuch"?

As for Haman, if saris is meant literally, perhaps he was castrated for
> the sake of his career after he had his children.
>

Assuming that Haman was a saris, which I see no indication of.  AFAIK, Haman
!= Mehuman.

This problem and suggestion are also explored at ohr.edu: [2] (from a
fantastical tale of a guy that meets Mordechai in person)

> There is a problem with Haman being Mehuman. The Megillah states that
> Mehuman was one of the "Surisei" of the King. Actually, the commentaries say
> that Memuchan also was a Suris. Its kmown that Surisim cant have children.
> Throughout medieval history, monarchs have often demanded their attendants
> not to marry nor have children in order to devote their whole lives to the
> king. How is it that Haman had ten sons if he was a Suris of the king?"
>
> I chuckled. "Perhaps he had his children before he served the king."
>
> "That may be true, but Megilla states that Haman boasted he had great
> wealth, many sons and then the king promoted him. Haman wouldnt mention
> children as a sign of wealth or power if the king didnt want it. Also he
> attained wealth by stealing the treasures of the Beit Hamikdash. He only was
> able to do that if he was already working for the king. So the great wealth
> had to have come after the many sons."
>
KT,
Michael


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Non-castrated_.22eunuchs.22
[2] http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1569
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080331/a41df562/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 115
***************************************

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..."