Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 191

Wed, 21 May 2008

• 1. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Asei doche lav and mitzvah haba'ah ba'avererah (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Split Nusach (Yaakov Ellis)
• 4. Re: Pesach Sheni (David E Cohen)
• 5. Mitzvah Haba'a BeAveira (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Re: Mitzvah Haba'a BeAveira (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Mitzvah Haba'a BeAveira (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: prozbul & heter iska (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: A Reminder for All of Us (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: prozbul & heter iska (Arie Folger)
• 11. Re: Mitzvah Haba'a BeAveira (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: HHH - Matzah - Kashe on Sephradic Practice (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 13. pesach sheni [from Hakhel] (Jeffrey Medetsky)
• 14. Counting the Omer with a Lamed or a Bet (rebshrink@aol.com)

 
 
>>Tosafos is a hapax legamenon, and its translation was lost.  <<

 

>>>>>
That should be "totafos"
 


--Toby  Katz
=============






**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080521/278ca768/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: "Michael Makovi"  <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
>>Similarly, today a friend had a  question: a (male) friend of hers had
just broken up with his girlfriend, and  he was somewhat inconsolable.
He indicated he needed a hug, and she replied  that she is shomer
negiah, but he insisted again. She in the end hugged him,  but asked me
what I thought. <<
 
>>>>>
Too bad she didn't ask me what /I/ thought.  I think the guy's a  smooth 
operator and she fell for a line. She is too young and gullible to  be left alone 
with a guy.  Hm, there's another halacha that might have  protected her, if 
she'd known about it: yichud.  It protects the sheep  from the wolves.  It 
protects the wolves too.




--Toby  Katz
=============





**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080521/63bc8e7b/attachment-0001.htm>

I have been in many shuls in EY where there is no set nusach. Instead, the
nusach goes by whomever is shaliach tzibbur - either nusash Ashkenaz or
Sefard. So you will often have the circumstance where on Shabbat shacharit
is done in one nusach and Mussaf is done in the other. One Rav that I know
of was extremely disapproving of this - he thought that it was inappropriate
to have two tefillot back to back where the shaliach tzibbur used a
different nusach. Does anyone know of rabbinic literature pertaining to this
issue - the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of having a shul with no set
nusach, or of having two different tefillot back to back with different
nuschaot?

Yaakov Ellis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080521/96c53e7d/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Cantor Wolberg suggested that the question might hinge on the machalokes
between Rebbi and R' Nasan (Pesachim 93a) about a ger who converted or katan
who became bar mitzvah between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheini.

I'm not so sure if that's relevant here, because:

1.  In those cases, the majority of the tzibbur did bring the korban Pesach
on Pesach Rishon.  In the case I'm asking about, they did not, and that's
why I would be inclined to think that Rav's rule should apply: "kol heikhi
delo avdi tzibbur berishon, lo avid yachid besheini" (Pesachim 80a, not 90a
as I accidentally wrote last time).

2.  Those are cases where the person was fundamentally not a bar chiyuva on
Pesach Rishon.  We did have the basic obligation on Pesach Rishon, and were
only peturim because of ones.  Thus, in the theoretical event that he didn't
hold like Rav in point #1 above, even R' Nasan might agree that in our case,
we would bring it on Pesach Sheini.

--D.C.

> He indicated he needed a hug, and she replied that she is shomer
> negiah, but he insisted again.

The fact that he insisted again would indicate to me that he is  
disrespectful of her hashkafa (if that's the correct word here).
The bottom line is that this wasn't pikuach nefesh, e.g. mouth to  
mouth resuscitation in the case of cardiac arrest.
I think her good nature was taken advantage of by a selfish individual.
She is not to be criticized harshly since she was definitely vulnerable.
However, it might make her feel better if she were to write him  
explaining how she could understand his emotional pain, but by his not  
respecting her religious beliefs, he caused her undue pain.
This is one of the measures of ahavas chinom -- respecting others,  
even though we may not agree (providing, of course, they are not, as  
R. Rich Wolpoe said, thoroughly evil).

K.T.
ri

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:02:03PM -0400, Kayza Zajac wrote:
: Well, for starters, I think there is the issue of Lav vs Assei.

This thread was launched by a discussion of asei dokheh lav vs mitzvah
habaah ba'aveira. I suggested the position that
ADL: both are one act
MHB: the "mitzvah" would be impossible had an earlier aveirah not been
     committed.

I made this mistake once before. Lulav hagazul includes the case where
the gezeilah and the netilah are the same maaseh. I was corrected by
RCSherer, and didn't retain it. Perhaps because no one at the time
suggested an alternative chiluq. I now have two, one of which makes me
almost right.

See the discussion under the topics:
    Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
    Mitzva HaBaa b'Aveira (was Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the
        Suppression of Historical Evidence)
    Mitzva HaBaa b'Aveira
starting at v4n349, and ending around n360. That discussion is a fun
read about cheirem deR' Gershom, geneivah from a dead person, and
whether reading an article built on the Seridei Eish's personal mail
would be a MHB.

We discussed last Nov whether the ends justified the means. I gave this
misunderstood distinction between MHB and ADL to prove that the ends
to not -- that all else being equal, long-term pros do not at-weigh
short-term cons simply because on is short term and the other long-term.
Now that I see I based that on an error, that question is reopened as
well.

In the v4 iteration, RYGB cites Sedei Chemed "mem". MHB is a permanent
pesul in the cheftzah. Perhaps the distinction is pe'ulah vs cheftzah.
However, in Sukkah 31b, we learn that a lulav from AZ is kesheirah
bedi'eved (according to Rava) in distinction to shel asheirah. There,
the distinction is made in that an asheirah must be burned, which makes
it effectively burned already (like the adjacent case in the mishnah,
the ir hanidachas). Not because MHB is a pesul in the lulav itself,
since that would include all AZ.



Let's just get more confusing and throw in
ha'oseiq bemitzvah patur min hamitzvah: we see that asei dokheh asei as
    well
Not surprising, since if it's dokheh a lav, then using it to justify
sheiv ve'al ta'aseh of another asei seems no stretch at all.



So, I returned to my notes on Lulav haGazul.

Shitah I:
The Ramban and Ritva cite the baalei Tosafos, and Rabbeinu Peretz
and the Tosafos Shantz (Pesachim 35b, everone else in on Sukkah 31a)
all say that MHB only applies to a cheftzah used to be meratzeh Hashem
or used for shevach.

In practice there are three cases in the gemara:

1- Lulav haGazul. Rashi (Sukkah 36b, "ela leRav") tells us this is the
   purpose of lulav.
2- A qorban (which I presume is self-evidently leratzeh; "reiach
   nikhoach")
3- Shofar (also I think self-evident)

Shitah II:
The Ritva (in his own name, and on all three gemaros) and Tosafos (Sukkah
9a, "hahu") say something similar but different to my point, which would
even more firmly close the "ends justify the means" question. MHB is
where the aveirah is done for the sake/purpose of the mitzvah. (I said
it enabled the mitzvah, which is a more inclusive requirement than done
in order to enable the mitzvah.) The Ritva discusses the shinui sheim
(kaf tamar -> lulav; beheimah -> qorban) being the actual act of
stealing.



Now this handling of the simultaneous case requires more thought than
I put in so far. This touches a chiluq between sibah-mesoveiv and
hasaras hamonei'ah proposed by R' Amiel, who says that causality
requires a flow of time, the pe'ulah preceeding the chalos.
You can't put a shetar in the field being sold to effect the
sale -- it isn't in his reshus until /after/ the shetar enters the
field. However for hasaras hamonei'ah "gito veyado ba'im ke'achas". (See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/causality-in-halakhah.shtml> for
more explanation.)

Here we are saying that MHB involves sibah umesoveiv even if they are
simultaneous -- the lulav becomes a "lulav" and thus stolen in the same
event as the mitzvah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

Getting to the tangent...

When dealing with kiruv or chinukh, it gets more complicated. The
aveirah changes the eikhus of what's being taught. The mitzvah
and aveirah aren't seperable, one is watering the other down.

The rest of my response would involve arguing against the idea that the
metzi'us was that these people couldn't be reached any other way. Off
topic.

The case of the hug is also entangled. Arguably the comfort is the very
chibah which is the issur. Your "chessed" is (as already pointed out by
others) arguably lifnei iveir or mesayei'ah and not a chessed at all.
A more extreme case: making someone feel good by serving them the chazer
they're dying for.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

> <<How did the court rule?  If it ruled against the bank, does the bank
> continue to lend on the same terms?  If so it appears that it now
> agrees to those terms knowing what they >>

> I believe the secular courts ruled in favor of the banks. How we continue
> using the same heter iska is a good question
>
> any israeli lawyers in the crowd?
>
> Eli Turkel

I'm not sure, but I'll take a stab:

Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked about a Jewish-owned store that sold its
chametz to a gentile, but continued to sell the chametz to customers
over Pesach, while the sale to the gentile was still in place. RMF was
asked, perhaps this shows the sale to the gentile was invalid? RMF
answered, the guy is simply transgressing gezel from the gentile to
whom he sold his chametz, but this doesn't invalidate the original
sale for the purposes of owning chametz over Pesach.

Similarly, perhaps, if the bank transgresses on the terms of their own
heter iska, perhaps that doesn't invalidate the heter iska.

Mikha'el Makovi

Reb Richard Wolberg wrote:
> The following is an appropriate quote during Sefira and right before
> Lag B'Omer: ? The Gerer Rebbe said: "When one learns the Torah, prays much
> and begins to think 'I am truly pious: I overlook nothing in the
> performance of my mitzvot,' such a person transgresses the mitzvah: "Do not
> be seduced by your heart nor led astray by your eyes.' Let such people look
> at the Tzitzis and be reminded who they are."

That is a paraphrase of Messilat Yesharim at the end of the section dealing 
with Perishut IIRC.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Wednesday, 21. May 2008 01.06:49 avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> I believe the secular courts ruled in favor of the banks. How we continue
> using the same heter iska is a good question
>
> any israeli lawyers in the crowd?

IIRC this was against Bank Leumi, and the court ruled against the banks, but 
on different grounds: the banks had aggressively sold stock market 
investments IIUC on margin to avreikhim who provided their homes as 
collateral. Then, when the markets crashed, they asked the hetter isqa to be 
used as a basis for sharing in the losses. The court reprimanded the bank - 
and indirectly, also other banks - that had inappropriately and excessively 
aggressively sold these investment products to unknowing consumers.

Source: a shiur by Rab Bleich when I was in RIETS.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

> In other words he simply is not respecting her boundaries - "I want what
> I want, and I don't care what it means for you to give it to me." What
> other issurim will she be over to accommodate him?
>
> -- Kayza

B'vadai, he cannot expect her to do it - I agree with you. It's like
the case in the Gemara of the man who will die if he doesn't
(progressively going down) have relations with, or touch, or see, or
hear a certain woman - she is not required to do any of these, to
compromise her modesty, for some wacko. Now, I'll hazard an UNeducated
guess that if she of her own free will decides to let him hear her
(speaking) voice or see her (wearing enough clothing), i.e. no
explicit lavim, that's her prerogative. But we cannot force her.
(Actually, if she of her own free will decided to do an actual
bona-fide lav, such as let him touch her, or even have relations
(assuming she is not married or related to him, and so it isn't one of
the big three), can she do this, in the name of pikuach nefesh? All I
know from the Gemara is that we don't force her. But can she "force"
herself?)

So the question then is, if she of her own free will decides to hug
him, is there a certain level of emotional need of his that justifies
this act, the same way, for example, a man can reciprocate a woman's
handshake (after she's already extended her hand) to avoid shaming
her?

If so, why is it not mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba'averah? This also applies to
the handshake example I've just offered.

Mikha'el Makovi

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Some [all?] Sephardim do not make Hamotzi on Matzah EXCEPT
> on Pasover since they do not consider it LECHEM but LECHEM
> ONI.

What's wrong with saying Hamotzi on Lechem Oni?

> The problem? The Mishan/Haggadah with the questions equate
> year 'round teh eating of Hametz uMatza - which presupposes
> that they are equally valid for kevia's S'eduha all year
> Round.

I had thought that the reason why some say mezonos on matza is because it
is a cracker (Pas Habaa Bkisnin Type 3), and it is not regular bread. If
so, then all evidence one might bring from the Mishna or Hagada becomes
totally irrelevant, because they were talking about soft matza. Is there
anyone who suggests that soft pita-like matza would not be Hamotzi?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to get a free auto insurance quotes from top companies.
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m2nsTlSjz34FGGnYAY2T5XChqkf820HodViGhKVwPbHJ6Aa/?c
ount=1234567890

Shalom Alechem,

 

I would like to know the source for those who do not eat matzah at all
on Pesach Sheni so as not to add to the mitzvos.

 

Kol yuv,

 

Jeffrey A. Medetsky

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080521/d06c7cea/attachment.htm>

The tradition I have in the name of the Rav (Rabbi Soloveitchik) is to say
the Omer twice (but obviously with only one B'racha at the beginning), once
with a Bet and once with a Lamed.?? The reason for both pronunciations is
to?fulfill both side of ?the question as to whether Sefirat HaOmer is one
Mitzvah or fourty-nine separate Mitzvot.?? Saying B'Omer implies there are
fourty-nine separate Mitzvot within the Omer period.??? Saying L'Omer
implies moving toward a goal which is the fulfillment of the one Mitzvah of
counting, only completed when one has?numbered all fourty-nine of its days.

Kol Tov

Stu Grant?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080521/ac5bc043/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 191
***************************************

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..."