Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 386

Fri, 14 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: a troubling halacha (Ben Waxman)
• 2. saying kaddish (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: a troubling halacha (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Some Jewish Philosophy Is Based on Arab Thinkers (Yitzchok Levine)
• 5. Arab Character (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. Re: a troubling halacha (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: a troubling halacha (Michael Poppers)
• 8. Re: on a Jewish Mother (Prof. Levine)
• 9. orthoprax (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 10. Re: orthoprax (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: on a Jewish Mother (Moshe Y. Gluck)

Shulhan Aruch and Rama YD: 402:12

Ben

> 
> I am still waiting for a source (before KSA) that one shouldn't inform
> relatives of the death of a family member (except for kaddish)
  
> -- 
> Eli Turkel

<<In summary, I don't think anyone really thinks that it is forbidden
to say kaddish for a brother. But if one does do so, and says that
kaddish together with others, then it is possible to say that this
person is taking advantage of a hetter which was not intended for his
situation. The poskim very reluctantly allowed several sons to say
kaddish together, in order to avoid the fights over the limited number
of kaddishim available. Once we became accustomed to that, so
accustomed that it seems natural to us, then the next step was to say
kaddish not only for our parents, but other relatives as well. Not
forbidden, but not totally right either.>>

I have the minhag of saying kaddish for my grandfather since all the
sond have already passed away. I have see sources that this is a
proper minhag. Of course in the original minhag this would have the
lowest priority and sons would have the first priority. Nevertheless
once the minhag is for everyone to say then there is no problem.

There is a rabbi in our shul who lost a son (about 20 year old) in a
military raid. He says kaddish for his son for several years. Again
while there is no halacha of saying kaddish beyond 30 days I don't see
anything wrong with continuing. As others have brought RYBS said
kaddish for his wife for a long time even though he had a son who was
saying kaddish for his mother


-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Eli Turkel asked:
> I am still waiting for a source (before KSA) that one
> shouldn't inform relatives of the death of a family
> member (except for kaddish)

On the one hand, Mechaber Yoreh Deah 402:12 says that "there's no
obligation". On the other hand, he also brings the pasuk "He who speaks
dibbah is a k'sil" (Mishlei 10:18). So you can decide for yourself whether
the Mechaber's true intention is that "one need not" or "one should not".

It is the Rama on that se'if who makes the exception for kaddish, and adds (based on the Mahariv) that for daughters, "there is no minhag at all to tell them".

The various nosei kelim there add additional cases, such as Yom Tov, and
make it very clear that because of the mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov, one
definitely should not inform the relative in such a case.

So it seems to me that this halacha is quite old, quite authoritative, and
uncontested. What I'm looking for is some sort of explanation of why we
presume that the potential avel would prefer not to know about the death.
Or at least an exception, that if one would happen to know that the
potential avel does want to know, that we *should* inform him/her.

We must be missing something. The end of this se'if says that if the
potential avel specifically asks about the relative's health, we should not
lie, but should give some sort of ambiguous response. Why should this be
the halacha? This is certainly seems to be a situation where the person is
concerned (or at least interested) about the relative. Why not answer
directly? There seems to be a presumption that the person is better off not
knowing.

I can understand having such a presumption in unusual situations, such as
where the person's health could be affected by hearing such sad news. Or
where the person (or another relative) is about to be married very soon. Or
where some other major event is coming up that mourning would interfere
with. But as I read this halacha, the presumption seems to exist even in
very ordinary situations.

And at the same time, this presumption is weak enough that the opportunity to say kaddish trumps it. I must be missing something. What could it be?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fix your credit report today. Click here for fast and effective programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3m2LZq6ldP3oYXYMStyixixopQ041KOqgJ1eLgjSy7rSn9qi/

The following is from the new translation of 
RSRH's commentary on Chumash Bereishis 16:14. You 
may read Rav Hirsch's complete commentary on this 
Pasuk at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/arab_jew_bereishis.pdf

16:14  Therefore, he called the well, Well of the 
Living One Who Sees me; it is the one between Kadesh and Bered.

In one respect ? viz., the intellectual ? the Arab nation occupies
a position of prominence. It developed with keen insight the idea of
God, an idea bequeathed to it by Avraham. Consider the magnitude
of the Arab influence: The ideas on the unity of God in the writings
of the Jewish philosophers ? to the extent that these ideas are developed
philosophically ? are based largely on the intellectual work
of Arab thinkers. They attained emunah ? but they did not attain the
mitzvos.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081113/26dd1f05/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from the new translation of 
RSRH's commentary on Chumash Bereishis 16:14. You 
may read Rav Hirsch's complete commentary on this 
Pasuk at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/arab_jew_bereishis.pdf

These two ideas, chai and roi ? God is the absolute Master of space
and time, and He watches over and guides all ? were gifts given to
the Arabian people by their matriarch and patriarch. All the Arabian
thinkers and philosophers worked at developing these ideas for mankind.
This work constitutes the essence of the Arabian people?s treasury
of ideas.

The story of the genesis of the Ishmaelite nation contains all the
elements of the Ishmaelite character, which later emerged from potentiality
into actuality. Cham?s sensuality, Hagar?s thirst for freedom,
Avraham?s spirit ? these are the basic threads from which the Arab
national character was woven.

The Arab nation, descended from Avraham and Hagar, is one-sidedly
Jewish.

We, the Jewish people, have been assigned by God a dual mission:
(a) emunah, intellectual truths, which we are to absorb in our hearts and
through which our minds are to develop; (b) mitzva shaping ? in harmony
with these truths ? all of life according to the dictates of God?s
Will.

<snip>

Yishmael inherited from Avraham the sanctification of the intellect,
but he did not inherit from Sarah the sanctification of the body.
When a Jewish woman bears, nurses, and brings up her child, the
child?s body is sanctified from the very beginning.

I think that these ideas may help us to 
understand how a female Egyptian lawyer could 
suggest that  Arab men should  sexually harass 
Israeli women. See the MEMRI video clip at 
<http://www.memri
tv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1903.htm>http://www.memri
tv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1903.htm 


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081113/e9416d95/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:17:14PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: So it seems to me that this halacha is quite old, quite authoritative,
: and uncontested. What I'm looking for is some sort of explanation of why
: we presume that the potential avel would prefer not to know about the
: death. Or at least an exception, that if one would happen to know that
: the potential avel does want to know, that we *should* inform him/her.

I was extrapolating even further out along those lines. Perhaps, as
RAM's hava amina here, the SA is giving a default assumption which
wouldn't hold if you knew the aveil enough to not have to presume. And
if so, perhaps we could further assert that in most modern cultures,
the metzi'us has changed sufficiently for the SA's pesaq not to apply
even if you don't know the aveil.

IOW, the SA means "if you have reason to assume they would be happier
not knowing, don't tell them".

It still doesn't address RZS's citation of the Chazal (Bereishis Rabba,
quoted by Rashi Ber' 37:35, "vayima'ein lehisnacheim". Here's the Chazal:
    Ein adam meqabel tachanumin
    al hachai vesavur shemeis.

    Sh'eal hameis
    nigzerah gezeirah
    shetishtakach min haleiv
    velo al hachai.

RZS summarized the BR as my rebbe did when he taught me the Rashi (I
presume, I just mean as I "always" understood it). Yaaqov never got
nechamah during Yoseif's absence, and had Yoseif actually been niftar,
Yaaqov avinu's pain would have faded. Borrowing a phrase from the physics
community, RZS used the phrase "spooky action at a distance" (one thing
impacting another with no physical medium transferring the influence)
to describe this gezeirah.

I have a problem with this Chazal as it's not born out (IMHO as well
as RET's testimony) by experience. I also prefer to minimize the role
of non-physical causality that isn't a matter of sechar va'onesh. So,
I started seeking an explanation of this gezeira that makes it a more
rationalistic law.

Perhaps the medrash is describing the difference between an MIA and
someone who was buried; there is no "closure", no certainty. This requires
reading "vesavur" (in "hachai vesavur shemeis") as being a lower level of
confidence. Perhaps in contrast to the more expected "venechashav she-".

In which case, BR wouldn't be discussing someone about whom there is no
reason to wonder, worry, and hope-against-hope.

(BTW, another shitah in the medrash is that Yaaqov was mourning the
beris, which he felt Yoseif's alleged petirah proved had ended. Not
Yoseif himself. Yaaqov avinu figured that perhaps he violated his side
of the deal by marrying two sisters or getting hana'ah from Lavan's
not-so-appropriately gained goods.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

In Avodah Digest V25#383, R'Micha responded to me:
: In Avodah Digest V25#381, REMT related:
:>> Each gave a different answer: RYBS mentioned the kibbud av va'eim aspect,
:>> RYH said that the passing of a parent means that we are one more generation
:>> removed from the origin of our mesora, and my father said that one has only
:>> one father and mother, while parents generally have more than one child.

:> Could REMT (or someone else) expand on the difference(s) between the
:> respective answers of his father and of RYBS zichronam livrachah?

> Just guessing...
> A nafqa minha could be that kibud av va'eim applies to parents who didn't
> receive the mesorah from their parents. Or who were not present to pass
> it on to the child.

Thanks for the guess. My Q is based on the concept of "huqash k'vodo
[i.e. of the father] lichvod haMaqom," noted by RaMBaN in his Seifer
Shmos commentary re the dibbur of "kabeid es avicha." Frankly, I'm
not sure that the heqesh extends to the singular nature of both, but
perhaps it does (note the use of "avinu" by RaMBaN at the beginning of
his comment -- there's only one "av ha'acharon" just as there's only one
"av harishon")....

A guten Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom and all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

[Appending a PS RMP sent separately at 12:16:20 (2-1/2 min later). -micha]

...and may I add that the nature of k'vod haRav (of which a person should
only be qoneh one) also relates to this type of heqesh.... --MP

At 11:49 AM 11/13/2008, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
>RYL writes about Hagar:

RSRH wrote this about Hagar, not me.

>
>"Hagar's whole behavior is highly characteristic; it typifies the unrefined
>Chamite nature. A Jewish mother would never abandon her child,
>even if all she could do for him would be to speak softly to him, to
>soothe him if only for a millionth part of a second. One who abandons
>a child and does nothing because "she cannot bear to see the child's
>misery" does not act out of compassion."
>
>This story appears, as I recall, in the same 
>book as a story about a Jewish father who was 
>prepared to slit the throat of his own, and 
>only, son.  One could argue that the Abraham's 
>actions typifies the unrefined and primitive 
>Jewish nature.  Please note: I'm not making that 
>argument.  I'm simply pointing out that perhaps 
>we shouldn't be making statements about the 
>unrefined nature of other cultures based on a single story.
>
>Joseph Kaplan

Again, the "we" is RSRH, not you and me. 
(Parenthetically, I find your terminology "in the 
same book" unusual. This is in the Torah, which 
is not simply some book.  Perhaps I am reading 
too much into your choice of words. If so, then I apologize.)

Perhaps Rav Hirsch's commentary on the Akeidah 
will clarify things. On 22: 11 - 12  An angel of 
God called to him from heaven and said, Avraham! 
Avraham! and he replied, Here I am!   He said: Do 
not stretch your hand toward the lad, nor do the 
slightest thing to him, for now I know
that you are God-fearing, since you did not 
withhold your son, your only son, from Me.

Rav Hirsch writes: [The bold emphasis below is mine.]

It is significant that here God sent a message through an angel,
whereas elsewhere, throughout Avraham?s life, God Himself spoke
with Avraham. Here, to stop the performance of a command, the
agency of an angel sufficed.

This exception to the rule gives us an indication of the deep inner
struggle by which Avraham was tested. *Had an angel brought him
word of a command to offer up his son as an offering, Avraham
would not have believed him, so glaring was the contradiction between
this command and God?s previous revelations to him ? revelations
generally, and regarding Yitzchak particularly. But for the retraction
of the Akeidah command, the agency of an angel sufficed.* To clarify the
reason for this retraction, and to explain the whole command of the
Akeidah as a test in which demonstrating one?s readiness to meet the
test is tantamount to having met it ? for that purpose no extraordinary
revelation was necessary. This retraction fit in harmoniously with everything
else that Avraham knew of God.

 From this I deduce that the only reason why 
Avraham was willing to sacrifice Yitzchok was 
because HaShem spoke directly to him and told him to do it.


Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081113/7c557855/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php see   the discussion  'orthoprax'  . 
one wonders as to the pragmatism of being both a maamin and a Documentary 
bible Critic.  Must you reject all the tenets of his work?  if not,  how 
do you balance the tension, as the MO questioner wonders.  the professor 
in question is both well in the DL camp, and from looking at hiss 
schedule,  appears also at some MO institutions in the US....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081113/ebce6a11/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:21:30 -0800
Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:

> http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php see   the discussion  'orthoprax'  . 
> one wonders as to the pragmatism of being both a maamin and a Documentary 
> bible Critic.  Must you reject all the tenets of his work?  if not,  how 
> do you balance the tension, as the MO questioner wonders.  the professor 
> in question is both well in the DL camp, and from looking at hiss 
> schedule,  appears also at some MO institutions in the US....

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/10/james-kugel-and-new-york-
times-mistake.html

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

RYL (quoting RSRH):
"Hagar's whole behavior is highly characteristic; it typifies the unrefined
Chamite nature. A Jewish mother would never abandon her child,
<SNIP>

R' Joseph Kaplan:
This story appears, as I recall, in the same book as a story about a Jewish
father who was prepared to slit the throat of his own, and only, son.? One
could argue that the Abraham's actions typifies the unrefined and primitive
Jewish nature.? Please note: I'm not making that argument.? I'm simply
pointing out that perhaps we shouldn't be making statements about the
unrefined nature of other cultures based on a single story.
-------------



KT,
MYG




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 386
***************************************

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..."