Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 401

Tue, 02 Dec 2008

• 1. Kiddush Ha'Shem (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 2. Re: Dying al Kiddush Hashem (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. surrogate mother (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Humanism (Efraim Yawitz)
• 5. Re: Dying al Kiddush Hashem (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Only if Hashem is Elokeinu to a man (Yitzchok Levine)
• 7. Harag, ratzach, heimis (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Harag, ratzach, heimis (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: R' Aviner on gadol hador status (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Harag, ratzach, heimis (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Humanism in Yahadus (Micha Berger)

Someone asked me off-list if I'd say that most victims of the Holocaust
did not die Al Kiddush Ha'Shem.

From R. Dr. Aaron Rothkoff-Rakeffet "The 'Kedoshim' Status of the
Holocaust Victims", Gesher 5745 Volume 9:

"The victims of the Holocaust are generally credited with having
attained the status of Kedoshim since their deaths were a
Sanctification of G-d's Name (Kiddush Hashem).  This term, however,
should not be utilized indiscriminately.  It usually indicates that a
Jew has chosen to sacrifice his life rather than transgress a
commandment. ..."

His conclusion, which I don't find persuasive:

"In accordance with those viewpoints, the designation of kedoshim is
appropriate for all the Jewish Holocaust victims."

From a previous Areivim email of mine:

> I have wondered for many years whether there is *any* classic source
> for the notion that one who is killed for being a Jew, as opposed to
> one who *voluntarily* gives up his life for God, His Torah, His Mizvos,
> or His people, can be said to have died Al Kiddush Hashem.
> 
> My friend Yisroel shows me that R. Moshe Bleich raises this
> question in an article in Or HaMizrach ("The Hebrew Torah Journal of
> the Religious Zionists of America"): it is a commonplace to
> automatically call all Jewish victims of the Holocaust "Kedoshim", but
> what is the source for this [0]? R. Shepansky, the editor, is firmly
> convinced that the appellation is correct, and he attempts in an
> editor's note to provide some sources for this, but I did not find his
> arguments convincing. Neither, apparently, did R. Moshe Bleich, since
> he reiterates his dissatisfaction with the convention in a subsequent
> issue of the journal, in a note to which R. Shepansky, too, reminds the
> reader of his position [1].
> 
> And so I throw down the gauntlet; I challenge anyone to provide a
> classic, or at the very least pre-twentieth century, source for the
> doctrine that being murdered for being a Jew is a sufficient condition
> for being considered to have died Al Kiddush HaShem.
> 
> [0] 130-131 Nissan-Tammuz 5748 p. 302
> [1] 138-139 Nissan-Tammuz 5750 p. 232

I have since encountered some more sources on the topic, which I may
cite in a subsequent email.

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

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:43:58 -0500
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Rambam, in Maamar Qiddush Hashem (Mosad haRav Kook 1960 edition of
>> Igeros haRambam pg. 60) writes explicitly that any Jew killed for being
>> a Jew even if it has nothing to do with conversion, is called 'qadosh'.
>>     
>
> Rambam does *not* say that; in fact, he say *exactly the opposite*!
>   
Rav Moshe Sternbuch told me that a Jew who is killed because he is a Jew 
has the status of a kadosh.

Daniel Eidensohn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081202/1885d8b9/attachment-0001.vcf>

> R. Bleich points out as well that the production of a child in a
> surrogacy arrangement may not fulfill the mitzvah of piryah ve-rivyah
> and therefore questions the religious motives of a couple wishing to
employ surrogacy.
.=============================
Does he make the same assertion about adoptions? IVF? AIH?  >>

Even more basic question. A woman is not in piryah ve-rivyah. If the husband
already has children one should question their motives?

However, Rachel Imenu "demands" children from Yaakov and if not she
will die even though Yaakov already had children.
Would R. Bleich question the motives of Rachel?

-- 
Eli Turkel

Regarding the recent discussion of humanism & Judaism, here is a
definition from Merriam-Webster:

1 a: devotion to the humanities : literary culture b: the revival of
classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis
on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2: humanitarianism
3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or
values ; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects
supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and
capacity for self-realization through reason

I think some of the participants mean #2 and should really use the
more precise word humanitarianism.  Those who said that Communism is
humanist are quite right according to #3.

 

>   
Rav Moshe Sternbuch told me that a Jew who is killed because he is a Jew
has the status of a kadosh.

Daniel Eidensohn
=================
Any nafka mina l'dina?
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.

RSRH makes some very interesting comments on 
Bereishis 28: 20 - 22. I have put these at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/bereshis_28_19_22.pdf

A sampling is given below.

Ever since the gates of Paradise were closed, the establishment of
an independent household involves so many difficulties, hinges on circumstances
and situations so complex, that a person needs special help
from God so as not to forfeit the whole of his better self in gaining that
piece of bread. Who can count the people who were morally pure before
they set out on ?the path to bread and clothing,? but who subsequently,
for the sake of making a living and attaining social status, denied God,
spurned morality, were inconsiderate of their neighbor and of his human
dignity, and so on.

Only if Hashem is Elokeinu to man can man?s house become a house of God.
The crooked and perverse generations, which pride themselves in their
temples of God, will pervert this truth, too. They will build, as the
prophet puts it, sepom es sepe, ?their threshold next to My threshold?
(Yechezkel 43:8), their house next to My House ? everything in its own
separate domain. ?God, too, is to have a House,? they say, ?but let not
our house be His House! We will visit God in His House, but He must
not enter our house; His Presence and His demands would only inconvenience
us!?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081202/3ca7da85/attachment-0001.htm>

On Areivim, R Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com> quoted Philologos:
: One commonly hears it said that the Hebrew verb for "kill" is harag
: and that had God wished to say "Thou shalt not kill" rather than "Thou
: shalt not murder" in the Bible, He would have said "lo taharog" and
: not "lo tirtsa." And  yet this is more a back-projection of these
: words' meaning in later Hebrew than a correct analysis of what they
: meant in biblical times.... The biblical  distinction, if there is
: any, between "harag" and "ratsach" is far from  clear-cut and is
: certainly not the same as our modern distinction between "kill" and
: "murder."

To which RnTK replied:
: The distinction between "ratsach" and "harag" may not  be clear -- as
: both may refer to murder or manslaughter -- but the real distinction
: is between those two words on the one hand, and lehamis on the other
: hand.
: IIANM the Torah always uses "lehamis" to describe a lawful killing,
: e.g., when a bais din executes someone.

This also is non-trivial.

The general notion of killing can come up in a number of cases:
1- Killing an animal
2- Unintentional killing of a person
3- Unintentional but criminally negligent killing (I'm trying to capture
   cases of ir hanidachas)
4- Intentional but legal killing -- the deceased didn't go to the ir
   hanidachas
5- Intentional mandatory killing -- misas beis din, milkhamah, haba
   lehargekha...
6- Intentional manslaughter, not preplanned
7- Preplanned murder

I'm not saying that list is canonical. In fact, it's quite possible
much of my point may be hidden behind my choice of categories.

But my intent is to clarify the question to say which of the words
"ratzach", "harag" and "hamis" apply to which of these cases.

Heimis appears to be the most general. Which makes diqduq sense, the
word is literally "to cause misah". Hashem is "meimis umechayeh", an
animal can "heimis ish" (Shemos 21:29) and in Yehoshua (10:23)
"vayimseim" refers to killing in war. Does Tanakh avoid the word when
the case is manslaughter or murder?

Harag is not found where the killer isn't a human. However, "hereg" is
not murder. Again, the term appears to include misos BD. And Lamech
refers to his harigah of Qayin in error and Tuval Qayin in the melee
(Bereishis 4:23 as explained by Chazal, see Rashi sham). In Bereishis
20:4, Avimelekh asks HQBH if "hagoi gam tzadiq taharog" -- judicial
killing, but of someone who didn't deserve it (thus his objection).

Retzichah seems to be the easiest to handle, because the Rashbam (on
"lo sirtzach") discusses it. Ratzach appears to be about murder, and
it is certainly never used WRT animals. Bamidbar 35:11 discusses my
case #3 -- retzichah includes golus-worthy accidents and v. 27
addresses  #4, the go'eil killing him. Perhaps retzichah is only where
some guilt is assignable.

HOWEVER, that's only belashon Tanakh. Belashon Chazal, we also have
Sanhedrin 35b, where the discussion of whether misas beis din is
docheh Shabbos or avodah uses the word retzichah for capital
punishment.

No answers, just thoughts along the way. Hope they help someone.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:

> 3- Unintentional but criminally negligent killing (I'm trying to capture
>    cases of ir hanidachas)

Ir miklat, you mean.

> 4- Intentional but legal killing -- the deceased didn't go to the ir
>    [miklat]
> 5- Intentional mandatory killing -- misas beis din, milkhamah, haba
>    lehargekha...

What's the difference between these two?

 
> Retzichah seems to be the easiest to handle, because the Rashbam (on
> "lo sirtzach") discusses it. Ratzach appears to be about murder, and
> it is certainly never used WRT animals. Bamidbar 35:11 discusses my
> case #3 -- retzichah includes golus-worthy accidents and v. 27
> addresses  #4, the go'eil killing him. Perhaps retzichah is only where
> some guilt is assignable.

How is guilt assignable when a go'el hadam kills the manslaughterer?
"Veratzach goel hadam et harotzeach" is a mitzvah.  And yet it's called
retzicha.



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

 
 
From: "Rich, Joel" _JRich@sibson.com_ (mailto:JR...@sibson.com) 


>>One person says that this rabbi is the "Gadol Ha-Dor," while  another
says that another rabbi is the "Gadol Ha-Dor." <<
 
 
>>>>
While a number of rabbanim in any given generation  attain renown and respect 
for their Torah learning and authority, the title  of "THE godol hador" can 
only be given posthumously, often many years after  the demise of "the" godol 
hador.  Looking back now, for example, I think  everybody would agree that the 
Rambam was "the" godol hador of his dor, and the  Vilna Gaon was "the" godol 
hador of his dor, but in their lifetimes I don't  think their status was 
uncontested.




--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the  newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper you are  misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW 
AOL.com. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081202/edc6d69e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 02:22:05PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:>4- Intentional but legal killing -- the deceased didn't go to the ir
:>   [miklat]
:>5- Intentional mandatory killing -- misas beis din, milkhamah, haba
:>   lehargekha...

: What's the difference between these two?
...
: How is guilt assignable when a go'el hadam kills the manslaughterer?
: "Veratzach goel hadam et harotzeach" is a mitzvah.  And yet it's called
: retzicha.

Geirushin is also a mitzvah. It doesn't make it a chiyuv. Rather, if
nebich a marriage /must/ be dissolved, this is how to do it. A mitzvah
qiyumit.

IOW, the go'el has a license, not a chiyuv. Is he better off using the
license (uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha) or is he better off not taking
revenge?

Given the amount of effort we put into making sure the killer gets to
the ir miklat before being caught (Makkos 10b discusses putting up signs
at every crossroads and sending rabbanim with him to intervene verbally
with the go'el), I assumed the latter.

I called that "some guilt", with a little equivication.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: Good signature quote (below) when responding to someone who noted
my typos. ("Thinkos", as I believe RZS calls them when the error was in
word retrieval, not typing).

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

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 06:59:43PM EST, R David Riceman wrote:
: It'll take me time to read the whole post; meanwhile I don't understand 
: the relationship between these two paragraphs.  Are dinim BALC dependent 
: on the status of people's souls? If so, how are those of us who suffer 
: from soul-related blindness to determine our obligations?

The question would be whether the difference in chiyuvim BALC between
amisekha, achikha (arguably: all Yehudim and "achikha bemitzvos",
respectively), and nachriim (and other categories) are due to spiritual
anatomy differences, or something else.

I'm arguing "something else", using the spiritual changes due to Shabbos
as a counterexample.

And yes, since that post includes links to long discussions, it will
take a while to make your way through. Hopefully this is a topic people
feel passionate enough about to do the research. Me, I tent to print
the Avodah digests and material linked from them, and read them while
commuting, marking them up for things to which I want to reply. (That's
not the only time I reply, since on many posts I lack the savlanut from
moderation time until getting to my sefarim shrank. Like now.)


On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 02:03:38PM IST, R Efraim Yawitz wrote:
: Regarding the recent discussion of humanism & Judaism, here is a
: definition from Merriam-Webster:
...
: 2: humanitarianism
: 3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or
: values ; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects
: supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and
: capacity for self-realization through reason

: I think some of the participants mean #2 and should really use the
: more precise word humanitarianism.  Those who said that Communism is
: humanist are quite right according to #3.

I actually mean both #2 and variant of #3. (I disagree that any allegedly
Communist gov't actually was Communist, and therefore think that last
sentence had nothing to do with historical examples.)

I recently wrote upon hearing the tragic news frum Mumbai
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n398.shtml#08>:
> Like one person, with one heart
...
Why again the Jews?

Because in Judaism, unity is inherent, love is to be unconditional,
and the value of a cause defined by the value it brings to humanity.
...

I truly believe HQBH created the universe to have someone to whom He
could do tov. Thus, kol haTorah kulah boils down to what's of value to
humanity, the person acting and those he is doing it with/to. "Da'alakh
sani..."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 401
***************************************

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..."