Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 261

Fri, 18 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: ra-ah - da-ah (Samuel Svarc)
• 2. No Right to Mezuzot at Condos (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 3. Re: No Right to Mezuzot at Condos (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: No Right to Mezuzot at Condos (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: No Right to Mezuzot at Condos (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The Gift of Illness (Harry Maryles)
• 7. Trading convicted killers for dead bodies (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Cohen with blood on his hands (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: Cohen with blood on his hands (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Trading convicted killers for dead bodies (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Fwd (rbh@sympatico.ca): Insight 5768-34: Teaching Personality (Micha Berger)
• 12. U'Mipnai Chatoeinu (Rich, Joel)

> From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
> 
> RZS responded to my homiletic explanation of the phrase "omedet b"Bavel
> v'roah
> n'veila B"eretz Yisrael" as describing people who live in chu"l and see
> only bad in EY.
> 
> >>
> The problem with this homiletics game is that it is just a game; the
> darshan is really giving his own view, not the gemara's, so nobody is
> obliged to accept it.  But some people are left with the impression
> that this is the gemara's or the medrash's view, and cite it (as was
> done on Areivim) as if it had some authority.
> 
> >>
> 
> When I wrote that homiletically, the phrase means such and such, I of
> course was giving my own homiletic explanation, which indeed others have
> developed as well. I myself did not imply, or mean to imply, that chazal
> gave this homiletic explanation.

...
 
> Having said all this, essentially agreeing with RZS, I am uncomfortable
> with the phrase "The problem with this homiletics game is that it is just
a
> game". I hope that RZS did not mean to be so derogatory and dismissive of
> homiletics as this phrase makes it seem. I do not think that homiletics is
> just a game, or that those who engage in it are merely playing games,
> occupying themselves with a trivial activity. Drush is the the
"literature"
> of Jewish religious literary activity, and like literature often contains
> profound insights into the human condition, society, and our relation to
> Hashem, Torah and mitzvot. However, for all its value, it does not "prove"
> these insights but rather presents them , just as a play does not "prove"
> the points it is trying to make.

We don't need RZS for that, the P'nei Yehoshua already states clearly in his
hagdama, "Ki rov d'rush rochok min haemes k'rchok mizrach m'marriv". So,
yes, drush *is* usually a game, useful more for identifying where the
darshan is holding then a legitimate form of Pardes (Pshat, Remez, Drush,
Sod - The four frameworks in which the Torah is to be understood). However,
when the darshan is a known quantity, like the Chasam Sofer, who, as you so
cogently point out, is known as a tremendous posek with authoritative
tshuthos, then his drush is qualitatively on a different level then a plain
plebian's.

So I accept the drush of R' Meir Shapiro Zt"l... but as explained by RET.
"... There is, on the other hand, a satan who only finds fault with
Yerushalayim, who only maligns the holy, whether it is the people, the city,
the Torah, anything that is reserved for sanctity..." Not, as it has been
blithely repeated here, that it refers to EY specifically, but rather that
EY is to be understood homiletically, representing someone who is on a lower
level and can tolerate it and finds nothing to criticize, but criticizes
those that are on a higher level.

Unfortunately, this attitude is almost endemic in certain posts. Virtually
all types of behavior has been explained, understood, tolerated, etc. here
on A/A. When, however, "frum" people are being criticized the same posters
can be counted on to join the bandwagon (the recent case of the stripped
sheitel comes to mind amongst others...), and they explain, "Frum people are
to be held to higher standards, these people aren't really frum, etc." R'
Meir Shapiro has now given us another, IMHO a more valid, explanation for
this behavior. A deep character flaw, one that "grants" its possessor the
"distinction" of being non-Kosher. 

One can be like the Berdichiver and "liberally" defend all Jews regardless
of where they're holding. One can be more "normal" and defend Shomrei
Shabbos Jews as being usually in the right in their actions or at least be
m'lamed z'chus, while condemning the actions of m'challie Shabbos that are
wrong (like chillul Shabbos), and find support for this stance from hilchos
LH (in the chiyuvim of being m'lamed z'chus). However, those that can be
counted on to be m'lamed z'chus on MchS and fail to do that by ShS are
without any support, neither "liberal" or "conservative" and RMS's drash is
apropos.

I would never have commented on this thread, except it appeared to me that
RMS's drash was being mangled beyond recognition.

KT,
MSS

After the Chicago lawsuit started, both the City of Chicago and the State
of Illinois passed laws essentially prohibiting condos from barring the
placing of religious items on doors etc. Thus, to a large extent, the
Seventh Circuit's decision has no practical effect any more other than if
Chicago and Illinois want to rescind the new laws they will not be barred
from doing so under the federal Fair Housing Law upon which the lawsuit was
based.	(The only other practical effect is that the plaintiff will not be
able to recover damages and legal fees.)

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080716/67d16aae/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:07:21PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: If the law gives your neighbours the right to prevent you from painting
: your house with bright purple and yellow stripes, does that mean you
: don't own it?  A condo (as opposed to co-op) owner owns his own apartment
: absolutely; his neighbours can only object to what he puts in *their*
: corridor.

You're assuming that ba'alus means ownership. However, a rentor who has
permission to hang a mezuzah is obligated to. Despite a lack of ownership.
Or in the reverse, if you own the property but can't move the resident
of the room around at will, you aren't obligated to hang a mezuzah.

It would seem that ba'alus, at least WRT mezuzah, has more to do with the
ability to control than with property. I would suggest this definition of
ba'alus holds bekhol haTorah kulah, with the exception of bal yeira'eh
bel yeimatzei. This is why (again, with that one exception) something
that has no mutar use is by default hefqer, something that was at the
core of one of the VIDC discussions (check the archive) -- if someone
who was oveir is niftar on Pesach, are the yoreshim obligated to destroy
the chameitz, or do they not inherit any?

: In this case the owners retain the right to put up a mezuzah, but only
: inside; the fight is over whether they can put it up where lechatchila
: it belongs, on the outside.  My sympathy is certainly with them, but in
: the meantime they can put it up inside...

They /could/. I was repeating my old recollection of a theoretical
discussion of whether they /must/. It's not a "ein danin es ha'efshar
mishe'i efshar" argument. Rather than the presence of the rule shows
a lack of control that is granted to many tenants, and therefore less
ba'alus.

RDLifshitz's only chiddush, if any, is that he was willing to use
"permission to hang a mezuzah" as a measure of ba'alus, not only the
textbook criterion of control of who stays where.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
micha@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:07:21PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : If the law gives your neighbours the right to prevent you from painting
> : your house with bright purple and yellow stripes, does that mean you
> : don't own it?  A condo (as opposed to co-op) owner owns his own apartment
> : absolutely; his neighbours can only object to what he puts in *their*
> : corridor.
 
> You're assuming that ba'alus means ownership. However, a rentor who has
> permission to hang a mezuzah is obligated to. Despite a lack of ownership.
> Or in the reverse, if you own the property but can't move the resident
> of the room around at will, you aren't obligated to hang a mezuzah.

OK, so would you say that if you can't paint your house any colour you
want, then you don't have enough ba'alus to obligate you in mezuzah?
If a restriction on painting the house doesn't strip you of ba'alus,
then why should a restriction on affixing things to the outside of the
doorway do so?

 
> : In this case the owners retain the right to put up a mezuzah, but only
> : inside; the fight is over whether they can put it up where lechatchila
> : it belongs, on the outside.  My sympathy is certainly with them, but in
> : the meantime they can put it up inside...
> 
> They /could/. I was repeating my old recollection of a theoretical
> discussion of whether they /must/.

If they can, then surely they must.  They certainly have enough ba'alus
to put whatever they like on the *inside* of the doorway, and that is a
valid place for a mezuzah, albeit not the best place, so on what grounds
could they be patur?

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

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:53:12AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: OK, so would you say that if you can't paint your house any colour you
: want, then you don't have enough ba'alus to obligate you in mezuzah?
: If a restriction on painting the house doesn't strip you of ba'alus,
...

I have no idea what RDL would have said. I didn't ask him. I would not
assume your last sentence.

:>: In this case the owners retain the right to put up a mezuzah, but only
:>: inside; the fight is over whether they can put it up where lechatchila
:>: it belongs, on the outside.  My sympathy is certainly with them, but in
:>: the meantime they can put it up inside...

:> They /could/. I was repeating my old recollection of a theoretical
:> discussion of whether they /must/.

: If they can, then surely they must...

I can hang a mezuzah on a doorway of a building that I own. But if I'm
contractually obligated to leave the tenants where they are, I'm not
obligated to.

It has nothing to do with the fact that the thing he lacks control over
happens to be the hanging of the mezuzah itself. And thus, the ability
to hang it elsewhere doesn't change the argument.

Lemaaseh, I think RDL would still argue the mezuzah should go up.
Just that it's not a chiyuv.

In the case of a dorm room, YU was allowed to relocate us at will (not to
mention had heavy restrictions about what we may do in and with the room),
so th e mezuzah was their chiyuv, not ours. Not because of ownership,
but because of control. I didn't think to ask who the "they" is; questions
of halakhah and corporate entities weren't on my mind at the time.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

--- On Tue, 7/15/08, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
The Wall Street Journal today (pg A19) quoted the following:
> Tony Snow in The Jewish World Review, 2005:

> The art of being sick is not the same as the art of getting well. Some
> cancer patients recover; some don't. But the ordeal of facing your
> mortality and feeling your frailty sharpens your perspective about life.
> You appreciate little things more ferociously. You grasp the mystical
> power of love. You feel the gravitational pull of faith. And you realize
> you have received a unique gift -- a field of vision others don't have
> about the power of hope and the limits of fear; a firm set of convictions
> about what really matters and what does not. You also feel obliged to
> share these insights -- the most important of which is this: There are
> things far worse than illness -- for instance, soullessness.
------------------------------
?
The only thought that comes to mind after reading?Tony Snow's poignant?words is that if someone will tell you that non Jews have wisdom - believe him!
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080716/81bca6a4/attachment-0001.htm>

I've been thinking a lot about it and don't want to discuss the
specifics but am wondering if anyone has seen any halachik (micro and/or
meta-halachik) material on trading convicted non-Jewish killers for dead
Jewish bodies. I suppose an obvious parallel is Maharam Mrutenberg and
the gemara's 2 reasons -impoverishment and/or impact on future
kidnappings.

I hold by R' YBS earlier pronouncements and generally try to keep my
mouth shut in public about Israel government policies since I am chu"l
so if Micha thinks this will lead to analysis of the actual decisions,
please do not post this.

 

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/20080717/aa24a305/attachment-0001.htm>

I read recently that Pinchas needed the bracha of getting the Kehuna back
because it is assur for a Kohen Gadol to have spilt blood. Is this true for
all Kohanim or just the Kohen Gadol?

Either way it seems to open up the possiblity that even had Pinchas been a
Kohen before the ma'aseh of Kozbi and Zimri that we would still need the
bracha to be able to become KG later in life.

Kol Tuv,
~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080717/ba259fae/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 08:39:33AM -0700, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: I read recently that Pinchas needed the bracha of getting the Kehuna back
: because it is assur for a Kohen Gadol to have spilt blood. Is this true for
: all Kohanim or just the Kohen Gadol?

There are a umber of different shitos.

The Birkei Yoseif deduces that a kohein is allowed serve. The gemara in
Qiddushin says he can marry an eishes yefas to'ar, which would be
impossible if he didn't serve. Sheivet Levi can't be drafted, thus their
census doesn't depend on army age, but a kohein or levi may inlist.

However, I never enountered this definition of berisi shalom before.

The Gemara (Zevachim 101b), quoted by Rashi, says the beris was kehunah
itself. Pinechas was born before Elazar was annointed kohein. Therefore,
when his father was made a kohein, he remained a levi. Until this beris.

The Baalei haTosafos, the IE, the Abarbanel and the Chizquni (shitah 1)
say the beris is protection from revenge.

The Neziv says the beris protected Pinechas from the possible damage to
his character from having excercised violence.

Targum Yonasan says the beris is about Pinechas / Eliyahu being the one
sent to announce the ultimate shalom.

The Seforno anf the Malbim also tie it to Eliyahu -- the beris shalom
is long life. Or perhaps Pinchas's appearing in Shofetim 20:28, by
the story of pilegesh begiv'ah, is enough to prove multi-centennial
lifespan. Without adding Eliyahu's lifespan.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 08:41:47AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I've been thinking a lot about it and don't want to discuss the
: specifics but am wondering if anyone has seen any halachik (micro and/or
: meta-halachik) material on trading convicted non-Jewish killers for dead
: Jewish bodies. I suppose an obvious parallel is Maharam Mrutenberg and
: the gemara's 2 reasons -impoverishment and/or impact on future
: kidnappings.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss on the Torah side -- other than
ruling out such a discussion. It's a matter of assessing the logistics:
will this set a precedent that costs more lives than is saved by the
loyalty to an army that will do anything to bring you home?

(As for your oncerns, I apprectiate them. But I can reject politicized
responses, so I have little motivation to reject potentially dangerous
questions. Unlike Areivim, here the job is not so large that I need to
engage in some preemptive pruning to preserve time for doing anything
else.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13 EDT, I forwarded from RBHecht:
: Rabbi Yisroel Chait, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Bnei Torah, poses
: a most fascinating yet bewildering question [1] that I continue to
: find difficult to answer: how does one truly get through to a ba'al
: gaiva, an inherently haughty person, that he/she should not be a ba'al
: gaiva? Of course, it is possible to teach and, perhaps more importantly,
: to motivate such a person to act humbly but that is precisely the Rosh
: Yeshiva's point. If one looks at many of the sources within the Torah
: literature in this regard, such as, for example, Avot 1:13 [2] one finds
: arguments that contend that the method by which one receives honour is
: by not seeking honour-but is the ultimate aim still not honour? ...

: The answer may be that the goal is simply to change behaviour, that
: it is not truly possible to change the yardstick...

I do not share this pessimism. A mitzvah implies the obligation to change
one's personality to fit the values implied by it. Even according to
the Rambam, who limits this idea to mitzvos sichlios, it would apply to
someone with a ruach rechavah.

R' Yisrael Salanter gives a three step process to curing a midah:

1- Hargashah, being aware that something needs correcting, and when you
are doing it.
2- Kibush hayeitzer: acting despite the desire
and this naturally will lead to
3- Tiqun hayeitzer: the desire will take care of itself.

It's straight na'aseh venishmah, listening as a consequence of one's
actions. Ha'adam nif'al lefi pe'ulaso, as the Chinukh would put it.

IOW:
1- Get the person to be intellectually aware of the proper yardstick,
   and motivated to do something about it
2- Encourage progressively acting more and more according to that new
   yardstick
and
3- The yardstick will change in-and-of itself.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

One of my all time favorites from R' Sacks (although I always call it
Tzipita Lyeshua?)
May we speedily learn the lesson.
KT
Joel Rich
Rabbi Yonason Sacks 

U'Mipnai Chatoeinu


The three weeks from shiva asar b'Tamuz to Tisha B'Av mark an intense
period of universal mourning. During this time we face the difficult
challenge of aveilus commemorating the destruction of the Beis
Hamikdash. For many of us, however, this experience may seem somewhat
distant and remote. How do we internalize the loss of something that we
never witnessed and experienced. How do we, living in a blessed era or
religious freedom and growth, yearn for the building of the Beis
Hamikdash?

A profound lesson can be gleaned from the plight of the eved ivri, the
Jewish bondsman. The Torah (Shemos 21) allows the court to sell a thief
into slavery to raise funds to pay his victims. If after six years of
servitude he chooses to remain a slave his ear is bored. Rashi (21:6)
cites the Gemara (Kiddushin 22b) which states, "u'ma ra'ah ozen leiratza
mikol sha'ar eivarim shebaguf? Amar Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, ozen
shesham'a al Har Sinai 'Lo Signov' v'halach v'ganav teiratze - and what
is it about the ear that it should be bored of all the organs of the
body? Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai said it was the ear that heard at Mt.
Sinai 'You shall not steal', and yet he went and stole, therefore let it
be bored."

The Maharal Diskin questions the timing of the boring of the ear. If the
purpose of retzia is to teach the eved the lesson of lo signov, why do
we pierce his ear now - wouldn't it be more fitting to pierce his ear at
the time that he stole? The Maharal Diskin explains that the true
punishment for stealing was his being sold as a slave. However, when his
years of servitude come to an end and he proclaims, "lo eitzei chofshi-
I shall not go free", it becomes clear that what was intended as a
punishment was perceived by the eved as an ideal. It now becomes
necessary to punish him again by boring his ear.

Golus is a punishment. Our challenge, especially during these three
weeks, is to realize that although b'chasdei Hashem we live in a time of
abundant beracha, nevertheless "U'Mipnai chatoeinu galinu meiartzeinu -
because of our sins we were exiled from our land."

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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080718/d6aa6053/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 261
***************************************

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..."