Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 29

Thu, 05 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: child abuse and moser (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: child abuse and moser (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Liron Kopinsky)
• 4. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 5. Moshe, his staff and following directions (Liron Kopinsky)
• 6. Brisk (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: shatz saying things out loud a.k.a silent ga'al Yisrael (D&E-H Bannett)
• 8. Re: Early morning minyan (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Micha Berger)
• 10. Child Abuse and Moser (Cantor Wolberg)
• 11. Re: Child Abuse and Moser (Micha Berger)
• 12. Accepting Amelekites As Converts (Jay F Shachter)
• 13. Re: Accepting Amelekites As Converts (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: RE AMALEK-CHILDREN OF HAMAN IN BNEI BRAK (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: child abuse and moser (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 16. Re: Derech HaLimud (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 17. Re: Early morning minyan (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 18. Re: Changes re: VLamalshinim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

> Is reporting child abuse - moser

Is not reporting lo sa'amod or lo suchal lehis'aleim?

KT RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:35:52PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Is reporting child abuse - moser?

As I see it, there are only two possibilities:
1- No,
2- Yes, but (as RDMI) we have no other way to stop the guy, who (as RRW
assumes), is risking the mental health and yir'as Shamayim of his
victims -- thus piqu'ach nefesh.

If #2, then we can ask hutrah or dechuyah. And is there a difference
lemaaseh? where OT1H shemiras halashon limits doing more than the
minimum. Yet OTOH we can't know what that minimum is, as we don't kjnow
until after we create a "qol" how many other victims, the extent of harm
to this one beyond what is known, etc..., and therefore piquach nefesh
argues for a large estimate.

There are questions that make me glad I'm not a poseiq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

>
> WADR, barring any specific sources on this question (which no one has
> introduced) it would seem more likely to me that we must go back to the
> original takanah, which (at least in part) was related to the possibility of
> using yayin for AZ.  It would seem to me that if we add enough mevushal to
> make the yayin pasul for nesicha, then the takannah shouldn't apply.


Why would the shiur that would pasul wine for use in the Beit Hamikdash
affect its usability for AZ? The goyim don't follow our halachot.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090205/5a23f96d/attachment-0001.htm>

Daniel Israel wrote:
> The responses thus far orbit around the issue of bitul, except for
> RRW's own suggestion that it may relate to the proportion of other
> liquid added would make it no longer a hagafen. [...] It would seem
> to me that if we add enough mevushal to make the yayin pasul for
> nesicha, then the takannah shouldn't apply.

That is *exactly* what I've been saying from the beginning.


David Riceman wrote:
>> Do we know if the standard used to exempt yayin mevushal from the 
>> takanah of stam yayin is based on what would make it pasul for use in 
>> the Bh"M or what would pasul it for (l'havdil) AZ?

> See YD 123:4.  Honey is assur b'mashehu on the mizbeah (IIRC it's in the 
> third perek of Pesahim) so that implies psul for the mizbeah is 
> insufficient.

Honey is assur bemashehu to be *burnt on the mizbeach*, as or with a
korban ("lo taktiru mimenu isheh").  That tells us nothing about what
amount would make wine pasul for the nesachim.  Rambam Issurei Mizbeach
6:8 doesn't specifically mention with with stuff mixed into it, unless
that's what's meant by "matok", which is passul.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Hi all,
Has anyone seen an interesting commentary on the following?

   - Dam
      - The Lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and *stretch
      forth your hand *over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over
      their canals, over their ponds, and over all their bodies of
water, and they
      will become blood, and there will be blood throughout the entire land of
      Egypt, even in wood and in stone.' "
      - Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord had commanded, and he raised the
      staff and *struck the water *that was in the Nile before the eyes of
      Pharaoh and before the eyes of his servants, and all the water
that was in
      the Nile turned to blood.
         - There was no command to "smite"
      - Tzefardea
      -  The Lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, *stretch forth your hand *with
      your staff over the rivers, over the canals, and over the ponds,
and bring
      up the frogs on the land of Egypt."
      -   And Aaron *stretched forth his hand *over the waters of Egypt, and
      the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt.
      - Directions followed exactly. Stretching only.
         - Kinim
      -   The Lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, '*Stretch forth your staff
      and strike *the dust of the earth, and it shall become lice throughout
      the entire land of Egypt.' "
      -   They did so, and Aaron *stretched forth his hand with his staff
      and struck *the dust of the earth, and the lice were upon man and
      beast; all the dust of the earth became lice throughout the
entire land of
      Egypt.
      - Directions followed exactly. Stretching and striking.
      - Arov
      - No action by Moshe and Ahron
   - Dever
      - No action by Moshe and Ahron
   - Shchin
      -   The Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, "Take yourselves handfuls of
      furnace soot, and Moses shall cast it heavenward before Pharaoh's eyes.
      -   And it will become dust upon the entire land of Egypt, and it will
      become boils, breaking out into blisters upon man and upon beast
throughout
      the entire land of Egypt."
      -   So they took furnace soot, and they stood before Pharaoh, and
      Moses cast it heavenward, and it became boils breaking out into blisters
      upon man and upon beast.
      - Directions followed exactly. Just hand.
      - Barad
      -   The Lord said to Moses, "Stretch forth your hand heavenward, and
      hail will be upon the entire land of Egypt, upon man and upon
beast and upon
      all the vegetation of the field in the land of Egypt."
      -   So Moses stretched forth his staff heavenward, and the Lord gave
      forth thunder and hail, and fire came down to the earth, and the
Lord rained
      down hail upon the land of Egypt.
      - Directions followed exactly. Just hand.
      - Arbe
      -   The Lord said to Moses, "*Stretch forth your hand *over the land
      of Egypt for the locusts, and they will ascend over the land of
Egypt, and
      they will eat all the vegetation of the earth, all that the hail has left
      over."
      -   So Moses *stretched forth his staff *over the land of Egypt, and
      the Lord led an east wind in the land all that day and all the night. [By
      the time] it was morning, the east wind had borne the locusts.
      - Used staff when he was told to only use hand.
         - Choshesh
      -   The Lord said to Moses, "Stretch forth your hand toward the
      heavens, and there will be darkness over the land of Egypt, and
the darkness
      will become darker."
      -
         So Moses stretched forth his hand toward the heavens, and there was
      thick darkness over the entire land of Egypt for three days.
      - Directions followed exactly. Just hand.
         - Makat B'chorot
      - No action by Moshe and Ahron

This week's Parsha:

   - 17:5 And the Lord said to Moses, Pass before the people and take with
   you [some] of the elders of Israel, and *take into your hand your staff,
   with which you struck the Nile*, and go.
   - 17:6 Behold, I shall stand there before you on the rock in Horeb, *and
   you shall strike the rock, *and water will come out of it, and the people
   will drink *Moses did so *before the eyes of the elders of Israel.
      - All the Meforshim I saw comment about how the reason this command to
      take the staff is given is to show that the same staff that was used for
      puraniyot can also be used for good.

My Questions:

   1. Why didn't Moshe listen exactly during Dam and Arbe?
   2. Is it possible that the message Hashem is giving Moshe when telling
   him to take the staff in this week's parsha is: "Follow my directions
   exactly. This time I want you to strike the rock, but in the future I will
   want you to do something different. You already "messed up" with the Nile,
   so don't do so again"?
   3. Why did hashem ask for striking of the dirt during Kinim when it
   wasn't in front of Pharoh?
      1. Why does he specify striking for kinim when he only mentions
      stretching forth for Dam and Tzefardea?
      4. Why wasn't the staff used for Schin and Barad?
   5. Why was there no action for Arov and Dever?
   1. This question doesn't need to be asked for Makat B'chorot




All text from JudaicaPress.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/
The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090205/22d9c352/attachment-0001.htm>

<<OTOH, I think the Rambam would agree with most applications of gavra vs
cheftza, if he heard RCB present it. The reduction of the Rambam's art
to a science.>>

There is a statement of RCS that sometimes Teshuvot of the Rambam are
not helpful.
This implies that Rambam would not always be happy with Brisk chillukim.

RCS distinguishes between tefillat ha-tzibbur and tefilla be-tzibbur
stressing its importance
Nevertheless Rambam himself stopped tefillah be-tzibbur in Eygpt
because it caused problems
in shul. Obviously he didnt think it was that important


-- 
Eli Turkel

My last posting on this thread talked about stepping back at 
Oseh shalom in kaddish as a possible copycatting of the same 
words at the end of shmoneh esrei.

I forgot one case where this is definitely not so.  At the 
end of the chazarat ha-sha"tz, the chazan must say yehi 
ratzon imrei fi...and step back.  Some squeeze it in 
immediately. Another equally acceptable method is to delay 
the stepping back until the end of kaddish titkabal.  With 
the second method, the only possible copycatting is that 
those who saw the chazan backing up thought one always backs 
up at end of kaddish and so....

As this is being written at midnight rather than 1 AM, it 
might be more intelligible than my yesterday's postings.  Or 
was day before yesterday?


David 

RMB:
> My question was that we're switching shlichei tzibbur in the middle of
> that chativa.

Why would you need one shatz only for a whole chativa (except for
shemonei essrei, where the prohibition of the slightest hefsek would
make it impractical to change, though I have seen it be'et hatzorekh
(1st shatz suddenly felt ill).

In fact, despite the fact that we have mostly moved away from such
practices, in teh instance of the text said when setting out to return
a sefer Torah to teh heikhal, the chazan relies on the qahal and
tehqahal on the chazan, for teh chazan says yehallellu et shem
ha<Shem>..., and stops in the midst of a verse, which is picked up by
teh qahal. Both parties are motzi each other. This kind of responsive
reading was once very common, and still is in real Ashkenaz (Yekkishe)
and in Yemenite communities (that is how they reportedly say Hallel).

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

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 11:17:05PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
: RRW asked what quantity of yayin mevushal would have to be added to aino 
: mevushal to give it the status of mevushal...

KSA 46:4, "Tavshil sheyayin me'areiv bo ve'eino nikar ... eino
ne'e'sar..."

46:5 Talks about 1/6 in terms of mizug, not bitul.

46:9 speaks of the aku"m sheshafakh mayim lesokh hayahin ... unless
we are sure he indended limzago -- mutar.

Sounds like mizug is 1/6 wine-to-water, and otherwise water could patur it with even less. How much less, I don't see him discuss. Just shafakh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

A very important point is being missed. This is NOT optional. I, as a
clergyman and counselor, have a legal (as well as a moral) obligation
in the United States to report child abuse to the authorities  
immediately.
That means the police -- not a beis din. Dina d'Malchuta Dina.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090205/df0f42f4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:07:26PM -0500, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: That means the police -- not a beis din. Dina d'Malchuta Dina.

DDD isn't necessarily applicable. If aa BD /could/ handle the case, there
is chiyuv to go to BD. And therefore DDD would be trumped. And since BD
can't, one has to protect people from further harm, so DDD is redundant.

Besides, the extent to which DDD applies beyond CM is iffy. Here it's
hezeq, so one could argue that aspect would. But thaat wouldn't impinge
on how that law is enforced.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 17:24:38 EST, one of the members of
this mailing list wrote:

>
> The halacha is we dont accept geirim from Amalek.
>

Contrary to what the above-cited poster wrote, this is not an
undisputed halakha, and anyone who claims that it is should at least
attempt to reconcile it with the plain meaning of 2 Samuel 1:13, which
the above poster does not do.`


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:05:08PM -0600, Jay F Shachter wrote:
: Contrary to what the above-cited poster wrote, this is not an
: undisputed halakha, and anyone who claims that it is should at least
: attempt to reconcile it with the plain meaning of 2 Samuel 1:13, which
: the above poster does not do.`

We discussed this before.

But before I go there, the original question appears to be a machloqes
the Rambam and the Chinukh. The Yad, Hil' Melakhim 6 places killing
Amaleiq among milkhamos mitzvah -- a national din. The Chinukh (#604)
makes a chiyuv on every man, woman and child -- on the yachid.

Now back to this issue of accepting their geirim.

From my post at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n165.shtml#09

RMWeisenberg quoted the Mechilta that we don't accept geirim from Amaleiq,
to which I countered the gemara about Haman's children learning Torah
in Benei Beraq.

As for new ground (for this iteration):
> See also Rambam, Hilkhos Melakhim 6:1-4.

... which means that one should first try to get peace and offer geirei
toshav.

Also Issurei Bi'ah 12:17 about accepting their geirim.

> The Netziv limits that Mekhilta to being during warime.

> OTOH, the Tzitz Eliezer (8:27) notes that the Baal haTurim (Shemos
> 28:7) quotes the gemara as speaking of the descendents of Na'aman, not
> Haman. The TE ends up concluding that the Rambam is speaking of geirei
> toshav, not geirei tzedeq.

In any case, geirei toshav could become talmidei chakhamim in those
dinim that apply to them, so why couldn't it be Haman's?

For that matter, could the descendent of a former Amaleiqite geir toshav
convert even according to those wwho would prohibit the first generation?

Alternatively, perhaps we can find old sources in which Haman isn't an
actual Amaleiqi, that define ha'Agadi otherwise, and thus only bedin
Amaleiq by R' Chaim Brisker's idea that people who try to eterminate us
our concluded -- which wouldn't include children who don't agree. (Unlike
real Amaleiqi which is a born status.)

Targum Sheini (and Josephus Antiquities 11.6.5) take Agagi as a reference
to Agag. But the LXX, in one instance (9:24) translate it to o Makedon
(of Macedon), ie a place name. However, the land of Agag in the modern
theory is next to Madai, and their primary god was probably that of the
Elamites -- Haman. Not the land of Alexander. I still wouldn't surprised
is someone from Chazal ran with an idea in the LXX.

Da'as Miqra discusses this (as did we in vol17).

Y-mi Yevamos 13a (2:6): "Vekhi ben Hamdasa hayah? Ela tzoreir ben
tzoreir of hacha qotzeitz ben qotzeitz." Which argues its not necessarily
discussing physical lineage but listing him as a cultural Agagite.

AND Haman was after Sancheirev, which means there are maamarei chazal
that say there already no known Amaleiqim anymore. Does this mean Berakhos
28a represents a mesorah from the other side of a machloqes?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

What is this in reference to?  I never received the original message,
and RSB doesn't say who wrote it, or when.

simon benloulou wrote:
>>> Does it take care of the problem of how could Haman's descendants 
>>>have learned Torah in Bnai Brak?  If they were Amalekites shouldn't  
>>>they have been put to death?

>>I don't know. What's the status of an Amalekite who becomes a ger?

Why would it be different than any other ger?

 
> Suppose the beit din that does the giyur doesn't know he's an Amalekite.
> Suppose he himself doesn't know he's an Amalekite.
> 
> Can an individual kill an Amalekite, or is it something that has to
> be done either by a beit din or in a time of war? What are the exact
> parameters? If I see an Amalekite, and somehow it's 100% certain that
> he's an Amalekite, am I required/allowed to blow his brains out? Do I
> have that authority?

Of course not.  An individual can kill a rodef or a moser; a goel hadam
can kill the person who was convicted of his relative's manslaughter, if
he finds him outside the ir miklat.  But where would an ordinary person
get the authority to just walk up to someone in the street and kill him?
If you think someone is chayav mita, take him to a beit din.  If you see
a nation of Amalek that exists, go to the Melech and complain.

As for an individual Amaleki, who is going about his business and not
harming anyone, where would even the Melech get the authority to kill
him?  Even an organised Amaleki nation must reject terms of surrender
before it can be wiped out (Melachim Umilchamotehem 6); surely an
individual is entitled to the same right!


> The halacha is we dont accept geirim from Amalek.

Since when?  Where is such a halacha to be found?  Not in Rambam, not
in Shulchan Aruch.


>  rav Tzadok Hacohen milublin zsl addresses this point in passing and
> concludes that its likely that these children were the product of an
> amalekite raping a jewish girl....seems like the simplest answer
> and therefore probably true

Why would such children be different than Amalekim who converted,
perhaps before a BD of hedyotot, if the organised BD would not accept
them (for which I see no evidence)?  Are they more Jewish than such
converts and their offspring?


Jay F Shachter wrote:
 
>> The halacha is we dont accept geirim from Amalek.
>
> Contrary to what the above-cited poster wrote, this is not an
> undisputed halakha

Is it even a disputed halacha?  As I said above, no trace of it is
to be found in the Rambam or Shulchan Aruch.


> and anyone who claims that it is should at least
> attempt to reconcile it with the plain meaning of 2 Samuel 1:13, which
> the above poster does not do.

That pasuk alone is not a problem.  The plain meaning of "ger" in that
pasuk is "alien", not "convert".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:35:52 +0200
Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is reporting child abuse - moser?

The best published discussion of which I am aware of the applicability
of the laws of moser to child abusers is the Kunterus Dam Re'echa, in
Yeshurun Vol. XV, containing rulings and analysis by several leading
Israeli Poskim including Rabbanim Y. S. Elyashiv, Y. Silman, Z. N.
Goldberg and A. Z. Weiss.

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

R' Gilad Field:
>  I came across an interesting teshuva in the Chavos Yair (124) that
> talks about a proper derech ha-limud. in that teshuva he was
> addressing a father asking how to educate his son who
> just became bar mitzvah - but it i think the answer is general enough.
> my question is - are you aware of sources in rishonim or achronim that
> deal with this question?
> I am interested in seeing how the question was answered through the
> generations in different locations.

Take a look at the last page or so of the Ramchal's Derech Chochmah, and
the Sefer Darkei Hagemara (or, in at least one edition, Darkei Hatalmud),
from R' Yitzchok Kanpanton. 

KT,
MYG

R' Micha Berger asked:
> My question was that we're switching shlichei tzibbur
> in the middle of that chativa. (Or in many yeshivos,
> we have a chazan only for the ending.) How does it
> retain unity?
> Yes, for each chazan as an individual, it's a berakhah
> haseumchah lecheverta, but what preserves that nature
> for the minyan? Or -- I'll add, starting to think of
> answers to my own question -- does the minyan not
> really count for pesuqei dezimra?

Yes, I too suspect that your closing line answers the question.

We need a minyan for kaddish. We need a minyan and a chazan for barchu. We
need a minyan for tefila b'tzibur. We need a minyan and a chazan for
chazaras hashatz. etc, etc, etc.

But I don't see any need for a minyan for psukei d'zimra. And the only need
for a chazan there is to help everyone keep pace, which many minyanim don't
bother with. The chazan isn't being motzi anyone with yishtabach.

Switching chazanim between Baruch She'amar and Yishtabach doesn't retain
unity. They don't have any unity to retain. (Tzibur-wise, I mean. Each
chazan must be sure to say both. It's just that each chazan says one aloud
and the other quietly.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
FTD.com
Shop now and save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
u4MuSHFRkLsHLaxASD2UFcLtP1mtrTxH9paIZHbqq3Gcj20xB5PZY/

> HB:
> Discussed in the article is that according to some sources, Es Tzemach was
> added even after VLamalshinim. Wether or not this is the case, everyone
> agrees that VLamalshinim was added after the initial Shmoneh Esreh."

Kallir has tzemach and binyan in 1 bracha

Assumption aiui: used to be 2. Birkat minim made 19 so to preserve
18 those 2 were combined. This was in EY. Bavel had 19 and was ok with
new number.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 29
**************************************

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..."