Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 402

Wed, 03 Dec 2008

• 1. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Like one person, with one heart (Michael Poppers)
• 3. Kim Leih Bid'rabba mineih (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: R' Aviner on gadol hador status (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: R' Aviner on gadol hador status (Harry Maryles)
• 6. gadol hador (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: R' Aviner on gadol hador status (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Self-righteous hypocrites, who affect piety (Yitzchok Levine)
• 9. Re: Kim Leih Bid'rabba mineih (Zev Sero)
• 10. Kedoshim status of Holocaust victims (JoshH...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Dying al Kiddush Hashem (Micha Berger)

I wrote:

> : I have no clue about R' Zevin but you are forgetting about 
> a whole range of
> : halachic concepts which we do find throughout the 
> literature operate to
> : mitigate or and in some cases overrule what might otherwise be the
> : straightforward psak - kavod habriyos ..., darkei shalom, 
> shalom bayis,
> : pikuach nefesh, b'shas hadchak ...                         
> even lifnin
> : meshuras hadin somewhat - these are off the top of my head...

And RMB, inter alia replied:

> I'm not sure I would lump all of these together. Hefseid 
> merubah is a chessed concern for the poseiq, but not a 
> halachic issue for the sho'eil. Darkei shalom, piquach 
> nefesh, these are themselves halachic mandates with their own 
> specific dinim that outweigh many other halakhos. The poseiq 
> isn't seeking a qulah, he's seeking a chumrah in a more 
> significant din.
> 
> Of your list, perhaps only kavod haberi'os (when it's the 
> sho'eil's kavod, eg Shabbos toilet paper) fit my intent when 
> I wrote of hefseid merubah.

I am not sure that is fully true.  While shalom bayis may indeed have a
halachic mandate, it is also (often) the matzav of the shoel that is at
stake, ie their relationship with their spouse.   Pikuach nefesh can
also be about the matzav of the shoel (although less often).  B'shas
hadchak is even more likely to be so and even closer to your hefsed
meruba example.  Think for example of the halacha that you can rely on a
minority opinion in such a circumstance.  Horaas sha'ah is one a case
that has generated has a certain amount of discussion on this list of
late, in the context of women an serarah (as in, preferring an observant
woman over a non observant man in a position of serarah).  That example
too shows how the matzav determines the psak.

Given the wider context, I would not describe hefsed merubah as "a
chessed concern for the posek", but rather that the posek is, in
formulating his psak, looking what one might call "situationally", ie at
the shoel within his context.  But I think that all psak is really like
that.  There is halacha in the abstract, but psak by definition is
applied, rather than pure, mathematics.  Now looking situationally does
not always result in being makil - it can also result in being machmir
if the posek feels that is what is required (baal nefesh machmir, which
is also situational, becomes directional if it is given as a specific
psak from one's Rav).  And all of the halachic concepts that I listed
are, to my mind, merely examples of the requirement to look at the
surrounding situation of the shoel that is driving the shayla.  I then
see the extreme cases that you bring, eg the obligation to seek out
snifim l'hakel to free an aguna, as merely the extreme end of this.  The
halachic system also tells us what situations are regarded as being
sufficiently serious as to exercise a greater gravitational force on
other aspects of halacha. This by the way is not axiomatic.  It is by no
means axiomatic that a woman being left as an aguna is in a worse
situation than many others.  There have been many many spinsters who
have led full and productive lives despite never marrying - and a true
aguna is arguably not any worse off than that.  The fact that the
halachic system deems the lack of hope of a true marriage as a greater
crisis than the mere absence of a marriage is a statement of value (to
which we pretty much automatically subscribe because we have been
brought up with it - ie we have aligned our moral views with the Torah
views).  It is also not axiomatic that hefsed meruba should count as a
situation that requires leniency - it is rooted in the idea that Hashem
has compassion on mamon Yisroel, but it need not be the case (and I
don't believe that concept necessarily took root in other religions).
That is why looking at these examples enable us to see some of the moral
underpinnings of the halachic system.  It is more than chessed, it is
midos in general.

 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

In Avodah Digest V25#398, R'Micha spoke, I dare say, for us all via
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/11/like-one-person-with-one-heart.shtml.

> And with that moment of unity, we merited to
be the recipients of the Torah. <
Toras Moshe.

> Our doxology is not "Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is One",
it first begins "Hear Israel". <
Spoken to us by Moshe.

> Little Moishe is out safely?! Thank G-d. His
parents? "About these I cry; my eyes, my eyes, spill water." <
And when you mentioned Moshe and mayim, I couldn't help thinking of "ki
min-hamayim m'shisihu" (there are comparisons and, of course, contrasts
with bas Par'oh taking MRAH from the water)...and then noticed that
"hamayim" is pretty close (close, but not close enough) to an anagram of
"Mumbai"....

May it someday be said of this Moshe what was said about RaMBaM, and may we
soon go from "m'shisihu" to Mashiach....

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081202/3a5ce2d6/attachment-0001.htm>

My son and I are studying the mishnayos of Bava Kama, and we're on the 
mishna which says that someone who burns a neighbor's haystack on 
Shabbos is exempt from repayment because he has committed a capital 
crime.  My son asked whether this applies nowadays, when we don't 
adjudicate capital crimes.  Any ideas/sources?

Thanks,

David Riceman

In Avodah Digest 25:401, R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> Looking back now, for example, I think everybody would
> agree that the ... Vilna Gaon was "the" godol hador of
> his dor, but in their lifetimes I don't think their
> status was uncontested.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think that even today, some might give that title to the Baal Shem Tov.

To quote a question asked by R' Joel Rich in that same digest (though in a different thread):

> Any nafka mina l'dina?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on nursing degrees, up to $150/hour
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw2bNHuPHCPYFjKcYnuiy2DC0555ZepQuvPe3fG9BbjMpYLwu/

I think you're wrong about that. I beleive Rav Aviner is clsoer to the
truth. It's all about 'whose' Gadol HaDor. There is no question in my mind
that while in his prime (and of course still alive) Rav Aharon Kotler was
'THE' Gadol Hador in the world of Lithuanian Yeshivos. Certainly in
America. There is no question in my mind that the Chazon Ish was 'THE'
Gadol Hador in his lifetime, certainly in Eretz Yisroel. Same thing Rav
Moshe. Recently Rav Shach had that title. And now most of the Yeshiva world
considers Rav Elyashiv the Gadol HaDor.
?
In Modern Orthodoxy there is no question that RYBS had that title.
?
In the Chasidic world there is also no question in my mind that the Satmar
Rebbe was 'THE' Gadol HaDor to Satmar Chasidim... and the Gerer Rebbe to
Ger Chasidim... and so on.
?
To Chabad, the late L Rebbe was beyond just the Gadol HaDor. He was the Nasi Hador.
?
But... looking forward... ??????????????? 
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

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

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com> wrote:

From: T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com>



From: "Rich, Joel" 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.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081202/dcf5fe36/attachment-0001.htm>

<<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.>>

From meory Rambam was a contemporary of Rabbenu Tam. I for one would
not want to choose
between them.

As for the Vilna gaon he was truly a Gaon but had limited impact on
his generation.

Even after many years I dont think there is any such thing as THE gadol hador.
Choose between Rashba and Rosh????
Among achronim its even harder or rather impossible


-- 
Eli Turkel

 


In Avodah Digest 25:401, R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> Looking back now, for example, I think everybody would agree that the 
> ... Vilna Gaon was "the" godol hador of his dor, but in their 
> lifetimes I don't think their status was uncontested.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think that even today, some might give that title to
the Baal Shem Tov.

To quote a question asked by R' Joel Rich in that same digest (though in
a different thread):

> Any nafka mina l'dina?

Akiva Miller

Here yes - see for example S"A Y"D 244:10
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.

The following is from the new translation of 
RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30: 27 - 30

27 Lavan said to him: Would that I found favor in 
your eyes, for I have a presentiment that God has blessed me for your sake.

28 Then he said: Set your wage from me and I will gladly give it.

29 [Ya?akov] said to him: You know very well how 
I have served you and what your property has become with me.

30 For the little that you had before I came 
increased tremendously because God blessed you 
according to my endeavor. And now, when will I, 
as well, provide for my household?

27?30 Lavan would very much like to retain Ya?akov?s services, preferably for
no other payment except his keep, as heretofore. Hence, he begins to
speak in the manner that is typical of self-righteous hypocrites, who
affect piety. He does not admit that he would like to keep Ya?akov because
of the diligent services he has rendered. He knows that such actual
things have to be paid for, and that he who praises them will pay a
high price. For this reason he affects extreme piety (just as, today, those
who have cast off all genuine piety turn to superstition, imagining that
nechush, superstitious belief in omens, is tantamount to piety). Lavan says
to Ya?akov: I don?t like to let you go. There is no real reason for it, but
I have a nechush (presentiment): It seems to me that ?'Hashem? Whom you serve,
has blessed me for your sake, because you are such a pious man. I
would not like to see such a pious man leave me.

Lavan hopes that the pious man will be swayed by the flattery and
will agree to stay on. But when Ya?akov makes no reply, Lavan realizes
that he must also offer a material reward. ?You name your wage,? he
says, ?and I will gladly pay it.?

Thereupon Ya?akov replies: ?You know very well ? there is no need
for presentiments ? how I have served you and how I have contributed
to your prosperity. You do not have to surmise that God has blessed
you beglali; you know that He has blessed you liragli, according to my
ways, according to the efficiency with which I have employed my hands
and feet in your service. It is not on account of my piety that God has
blessed you, but on account of my diligence. And now, don?t you think
the time has come that I should use some of this same diligence for
building up my own household??

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081203/286dc2f4/attachment-0001.htm>

David Riceman wrote:
> My son and I are studying the mishnayos of Bava Kama, and we're on the 
> mishna which says that someone who burns a neighbor's haystack on 
> Shabbos is exempt from repayment because he has committed a capital 
> crime.  My son asked whether this applies nowadays, when we don't 
> adjudicate capital crimes.  Any ideas/sources?

It would seem that we still apply the rule, just as we do if the chilul
shabbos was beshogeg, and thus the arsonist isn't really executed, but
still doesn't have to pay.  See Rambam Hil' Geneva, beginning of ch 3.
Also see Gemara Ketubot, bottom of 30a.


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

 
In a message dated 12/2/2008 5:00:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org writes:

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



Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt'l also said this,specifically in connection with  
R.Meir Kahane,Hy'd.Rav Y.B.Soloveitchik also said this,as related by Rabbi  
Rothkoff in his article in Gesher,5785 ( in a footnote IIRC) Rabbi Rothkoff  asked 
the Rov about it after a shiur he attended in the early 1980s. I was at  that 
shiur,and heard their conversation. I don't recall if either Rav Ahron or  
the Rov gave a source.
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081203/fb6f297f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:39:45PM EST, R 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*!

You're correct. I lost context. The Rambam I was looking at was actually
speaking of someone killed for doing something Jewish, eg the gemara's
case of changing shoelaces (Sanhedrin 74b). Definitely a matter of choice.

REED, as I already wrote, made it about choice -- choice of how to die,
and how one accepts one's fate. This allows us to consider someone who
died for being a Jew who didn't actually get a choice whether to live
or die still as a qadosh.

If you accept that, then I would say the gemara of "harei at mequdeshes
li al menas she'ani tzadiq" would require us to assume that maybe he
died with hirhurei teshuvah in mind. Qal vachomer: If we are to assume
this in the case of marriage, al achas kamah vekamah in a case where
"there are no atheists in the foxhole".

Among those who don't require choice, we just saw (I paused after that
last sentence to check the queue and approved RJH's post) RAS and RYBS,
and I already noted the Nesivos Shalom saying that qiddush hasheim
could be based on national choice even if this person had no say in
the matter. And RJR cited R' Moshe Sternbach. I mentioned R' Schach,
who described a yeshiva bacher killed in yeshiva as a "qadosh" -- and
there we don't even know the motive! Notice, though, that none of these
are "classical" sources, which is what RYG wrote about.

So, is there a classical source?

The Crusades might qualify as a borderline case. When the Crusaders
killed the Jews of Mainz, R' Eliezer ben Nasan described it as "cruel
foreigners, fierce and swift, Frenchmen and Germans...[who] put crosses
on their clothing and were more plentiful than locusts on the face of
the earth." (quoting Norman Gold "The Jews in Medieval Normandy", via
wikipedia; the quote is a paraphrase of Chavaquq 1:6). "...Taf venashim
beyom echad, ushelalam lavoz."

Similarly the sacking of the Jewish quarter in London was orchestrated by
Richard de Malbis, who owed money to R' Aharon miLincoln. They attacked
starting at the home of R' Baruch miLondon (a baal Tosafos and a business
agent of RAmL). The ghetto was torched, people killed in the streets,
women raped, etc... They fled to York Castle, and that story's ending
is infamous.

(R' Yosef miYork was a friend of the local duke's and his benefactor,
King John -- yes, the King John villified in Robin Hood stories. Richard
was out of the country fighting the Crusades when John tried to assume the
throne. John therefore had us as likely allies. But back to the point...)

England had some exceptions, where people were given a choice. And a
year after the crusaders left, Henry IV let "conversos" who wanted
to return to Yahadus. He didn't believe forced baptism really converted
anyone.

But by the time they got to Germany? Much of the killing of the crusaders
were wholesale slaughter of the entire quarter. Men thirsty for blood and
motivated by lust aren't likely to be stopping each one and demanding
"Convert or Die!" Maybe some yechidei segulah had the option of outright
refusing Yeishu, but it seems plausible to me that the masses did not.

The Jews of Speyer were killed in one day, Shabbos 8 Iyyar 1095, as were
most of the Jews of Worms (most of the rest were killed a week later
during Shacharis, after hiding out in a castle for a week). The Jews of
Cologne were given a choice -- as a group, the leadership spoke for
them all. Someone who was weak wasn't given a chance to buck the group.

Yes, in most cases the people had the option of converting in the days
or hours before the attack. But can we say they chose death rather than
conversion? After all, had they really internalized the possibility that
they would be facing those choices, why didn't they flee?

And so, I would argue (and have before, but at less length) that the
majority of the people we describe most Shabbasos as "qehillos haqodesh
shemaseru nafsham al qiddushas hasheim" didn't actually choose Yahadus
over death.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: Notice again that I write "qiddusheis hasheim". The expressions
"qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim" predate the use of "Hashem" as a
qinui. They mean "the name" or "the reputation", not the sanctification
or desecration of G-d Himself. I therefore transliterated in my usual
style, and without capitalization, rather than use the Yinglish "Hashem".

Saying "qiddush Hashem" opens questions of how one can talk about
changes in G-d.

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 402
***************************************

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..."