Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 153

Mon, 03 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: tisha baav is a moed (Micha Berger)
• 2. Kohen Gadol (Cantor Wolberg)
• 3. Re: Kohen Gadol (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: tisha baav as a moed (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: tisha baav as a moed (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: tisha baav as a moed (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Hilul Hashem vis-a-vis non-Jews (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 8. Re: Hilul Hashem vis-a-vis non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 9. some halachot of moser (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: tisha baav as a moed (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: selling kidneys (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Hilul Hashem vis-a-vis non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic (Michael Makovi)
• 16. Re: some halachot of moser (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: midrash elei ezekarah (Micha Berger)

Someone sent me the following, noted of a talk delivered by Rav Asher
Balanson of Jerusalem. (With an apology about trying to keep their web
presence down to a minimum.) He only added at the end that 9 Av is directly
connected to Yamim Noraim via the shiva denechamta...

-micha

: The Shulchan Aruch says that on Tisha B'Av we do not say Tachanun. The
: reason for this is that the day of Tisha B'Av in the Tanach is referred to
: as a "moed" - literally meaning a holiday - and therefore we don't say
: tachanun just like we don't say it on any other holiday. Now, at first
: glance this would seem to be just a play of words, after all, Tisha B'Av is
: certainly not a holiday nowadays, (even though that at the time of the
: Mashiach it will be one). However, that does not make very much sense.
: Obviously there must be a deeper meaning in this halacha. Let's try to see
: how Rav Wolbe explains it.

: Rav Wolbe quotes R' Yeruchem (from the Mir) who says that even though all
: the other holidays that we celebrate during the Jewish yearly cycle indicate
: how close HaShem is to us, on Tisha B'Av we celebrate "moed shel richuk" a
: holiday which comes to show us how FAR AWAY HaShem is from us. Let's try to
: understand this concept a bit.

: At the time preceding the Churban Beis HaMikdash, Klal Yisroel did not
: really believe that the Beis HaMikdash would be destroyed. Despite the fact
: that Yirmiyahu HaNavi had warned them, they didn't believe him: After all
: there were plenty of Neviei Sheker who were assuring them that they had
: nothing to worry about. Klal Yisroel were more or less convinced that they
: were doing the right thing and that the Beis HaMikdash was not threatened.
: The Navi says to them "How can you say that you have not sinned? Look at
: what you have done". We see from this that the Klal really believed that
: they had not sinned really badly. Maybe they made a few minor mistakes, but
: their overall situation was not too bad. That is what they believed. And
: then, all of a sudden, HaShem does allow the Beis HaMikdash to be destroyed.
: All of a sudden the Klal is faced with the realization that they have been
: sinning very badly; their ways have not been good. To them, Tisha B'Av was
: not just the day that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, it was the day that
: they were rudely awakened to their true situation.

: While it is not good for a person to commit sins, there is something worse:
: That is a situation where a person commits sins and doesn't realize it. He
: thinks that he is a Tzaddik when he is really a Rasha. That is the worst
: possible situation. For a person who has been convinced that he is doing
: fine and that all is well, the realization that this is not true, while
: certainly very upsetting is also a reason for celebration: At least now he
: knows his true situation; at least now he is no longer fooling himself.

: That is what is meant by a "Moed shel richuk". On Tisha B'Av we celebrate
: the fact that we are no longer able to fool ourselves. We don't have the
: Beis HaMikdash and that is OUR fault. All year long we can walk around
: fooling ourselves that we are more or less Tzaddikim. On Tisha B'Av this is
: no longer true. We must take a good accurate look at ourselves and see the
: truth as it really is.

: This does not apply only to the Klal or only to the Beis HaMikdash. Each and
: every person has this same situation in his own private life: We walk around
: day after day more or less convinced that we are okay as far as Avodas
: HaShem is concerned. Our davening is more or less okay. Our Brachos are more
: or less okay. Our Shmiras HaLashon is more or less okay. However, we must
: take a really good look at ourselves: Our davening is NOT more or less okay
: - it is horrible. Our brachos are NOT more or less okay. Nor is our Shmiras
: HaLashon. We have to take a good look at ourselves and realize what we have
: done to ourselves, how bad the situation really is.

: And, why is this so important? Because, unless you realize that something is
: broken, you don't try to fix it. Unless we realize how bad our sitution is,
: we won't truly try to fix it. It is no wonder that a few short weeks after
: Tisha B'Av begins Chodesh Elul and the preparation for Yomim Noraim. First
: we have to see how far away we really are - moed shel richuk - and then we
: have to see what we can do about fixing the situation and coming closer.

R' Micha wrote:  It seems to me self evident, a huge statement about  
the relative
importance of chessed.

And not to allow him for his own immediate family IS chessed?
Also, if he comes upon a meis, he could demonstrate his chessed by  
summoning another person.
Sorry, that answer is not self evident.
The only answer I could accept is that it is a chok.  It certainly  
isn't rational in my way of thinking and IMHO.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090731/470f30be/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 03:07:26PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: R' Micha wrote:  It seems to me self evident, a huge statement about  
: the relative importance of chessed.

: And not to allow him for his own immediate family IS chessed?

I'm not sure, but are you conflating the chessed the Torah calls upon
the KG to do for a meis mitzvah with the chessed the Torah doesn't do
for the KG?

What it shows is that the KG is expected to emulate his ancestor
"vayidom Aharon" when it comes to personal pain, but not be callous
when it comes to someone else's.

: Also, if he comes upon a meis, he could demonstrate his chessed by  
: summoning another person.

If there was another person summonable, he would be obligated to do so
rather than do the burial himself.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Micha Berger asked:
> Once it becomes a holiday, will we put on tefillin at all?
> Or is the gemara implying there would be an issur melakhah?

If an issur melacha on Tisha B'Av does arise, I see two forms it might take: D'Oraisa or D'Rabanan.

If it is of a D'Oraisa sort, well, do we have a d'Oraisa-level source for
it? "Kara alai moed" is in Kesuvim. Contrast this to pork becoming mutar,
which I understand to have a d'Oraisa source, namely the word "chazir"
itself, alluding to a future turnaround to permissibility. Without
something similar, I suppose it is possible that Yirmiyah HaNavi used the
word "moed" to testify to a mesorah he had about Tisha B'Av becoming a
d'Oraisa-level holiday in the future. After all, if I'm not mistaken, only
the Regalim are called "Moed" - not even RH or YK.

But if the issur melacha is of a d'Rabanan sort, I don't see it being
strong enough to uproot Tefilin. Chazal did it for Yom Tov Sheni, but that
was a gezera to protect Yom Tov Rishon.

After writing all the above, I checked the source for what I wrote about
chazir, which was from page 96 of "when Moshiach Comes", by Rabbi Yehudah
Chayoun, published by Feldheim, citing "See Ritva on Kiddushin 49b; Rabenu
Bechaya, Toras Moshe (the Chasam Sofer) and Avraham Anochi (Gra Pilagi) on
"Shmini"; and Radvaz vol 2 ch. 828."

But I was really blown away by that sefer's citation (p 97) that "Fast
days: Rambam writes that all fast days will become festivals." (citation is
the very last halacha in Hilchos Taanis)

Because of Rambam's powerful words, and because it goes to the heart of R' Micha's question, I will now quote that Rambam in both Lashon Hakodesh and English:

Kol hatzomos ha'elu asidim liyvatel liymos hamoshiach. V'lo od, ela she-hem
asidim lihyos yom tov viymei sason v'simchah, sheneemar, "Koh amar HaShem
Tzevakos: Tzom harevii v'tzom hachamishi v'tzom hashvii v'tzom ha'asiri
yihyeh l'vais Yehuda l'sason ul'simcha, ulmoadim tovim, v'haemes v'hashalom
ehavu."

All these fasts are destined to be cancelled in the days of the Moshiach.
Not only that, but they are destined to become days of sason and simchah,
as it is said, "So says HaShem Tzevakos: Shiva Asar B'Tamuz, and Tisha
B'Av, and Tzom Gedalya, and Asara B'teves will be for the house of Yehuda
for sasson and for simcha and for Good Moadim; And love truth and harmony!"

Tze u'lmad!

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Need name badges? Click here to find great name badge solutions!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsMp98pWOyuau2TXMN4FvVmpvavSfryl7WFJtle7e1bPPdqolf5ico/

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:49:30PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: But if the issur melacha is of a d'Rabanan sort, I don't see it being
: strong enough to uproot Tefilin. Chazal did it for Yom Tov Sheni, but
: that was a gezera to protect Yom Tov Rishon.

The only thing one needs to "uproot" WRT tefillin is mechzei keshiqra.
Tefillin is a mitzvah qiyumis, not a mitzvah chiyuvis. There is no
chiyuv to overturn.

Besides, we do wear tefillin on 9 be'Av. The question is far smaller --
why do we do our shunted not-the-entire-day at minchah rather than the
usual Shacharis? Very strange, since the whole mechzei keshiqra is about
the Shema said during the day!

So I would argue that if you were told not to for one day, you don't
look like you're lying. Just as the conflict of osos on Shabbos and YT
is enough to explain why you're not wearing them, and thus alleviating
the appearance of sheqer.

There is a good mussar shmuess in this about the evils of sheqer given
how far we go to avoid even the appearance of it, but I don't need to
spell it out.

I tried a similar argument to defend not wearing tefillin on ChM by
those who are following the Zohar over the implication in the gemara
that is taken by the Maharam miRutenburg, the Or Zarua and the Rosh --
and thus of original minhag Ashkenaz -- that we do wear them. RRW is
bothered by this. (If the gemara permits writing tefillin on ch"m,
then clearly it's possible to do so without the problem of hakhanah,
thus implying they are worn on ch"m.)

But again, if there is no chiyuv to overturn, there is no problem.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

[Some] Sephardim do wear Tefillin on 9 Av shacharis

Given Aveilim may come to shul 9 av morning.  We sit low.
The ashkenazic Hiddush is merely to treat the morning as the FIRST day
of shiva where pe'er is assur - hence no tefillin.

Once the afternoon starts - no more shiva re: sitting low so we add the
Tefillin back.

That is the main reason for early mincha - in order to put on tefillin
ASAP (source: early LOR)

The minhag to daven mincha very late on 9 Av stems from emulating n'ilah.

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



I don't have all mareh meqomos ready but see the Tur re: repeating Shema
with Tefillin derabbeinu Tam and see MB re: NOT repeating Shema when
putting them on for mincha.

IIRC the Arizal said shema with tefillin privately at home before going
to shul.

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[The question arose on Areivim whether the concept of Hilul Hashem includes
a concern about the opinions of non-Jews.  I posted these links, which RMB
suggested I repost here:]

http://seforim.traditiononli
ne.org/index.cfm/2009/5/24/A-Shanda-fur-die-Goyim-Hillul-HaShem-in-the-Eyes
-of-NonJews
 
www.kitzur.com/4hnbp
 
http://seforim.traditionon
line.org/index.cfm/2009/6/7/A-Shanda-fur-die-Goyim-Hillul-HaShem-in-the-Eye
s-of-NonJews-II
 
www.kitzur.com/495y3

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

It struck me during this morning's leining :
    Guard and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding
    in the eyes of the nations; tha, when they hear all these statutes,
    ve'ameru, "Raq am chokhom venavon hagoy hagadol hazzeh."
                                - Devarim 5:6

Not quite what the media has been saying *this* week...

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

  R Broyde has an article on the
subject in Journal of Contemporary Society 43

In it his brings that the Tzitz Eliezer allows reporting crimes to
western society governments based on the Arukh HaShulchan
that todays governments do not
kill criminals as bandits used to in the old days.
Tzitz Eliezer explicitly says that one should inform on child
molesters to the government

R. Elyashiv concurs in a case of a robbery in the office of religious
affairs. Informing
the police will lead to an investigation which most likely will find one of the
religious employees guilty. R Elyashiv based on a Panim Meorot says to report
the incident to the police

R Batzri disagrees stating there is no such thing as a just secular government.
R. Wosner differentiates bewteen a crime under Jewish law and a crime only under
secular law. When the incident is covered under dina demalchuta then one
can inform the police.

R. Moshe Feinstein seems to allow informing the police only for violent crimes.

In summary it is a machloket haposkim and so the one who informed has
a legal basis.
Even in theory one would have no right to kill such a person.



-- 
Eli Turkel

RMB wrote:
> Or, should our attention be focused on correcting the basic 
> conflation, of returning women to their grandmother's "bas melekh penimah"

> orientation?

I don't have any real difficulty with this (as opposed to what it appeared
to me was your redefinition of the value of public roles in general in
yahadus).  And I certainly agree with your view that change needs to be
viewed with caution.

But in all of this high level discussion - you have avoided the hard
questions I tried to ask you, specifically about the nature of grandmother's
(actually these days for many of us we may be talking great-grandmother at
least, but I guess it depends on your generation) bas melekh penimah and the
circumstances that created that - or at least the modern circumstances that
mitigate again such roles.

And I was asking especially of you, who, because of your mussar bent, and in
light of your recent posts, highlight concepts such as ase l'cha rav.

> To summarize: My biggest complaint is that I do not see 
> anyone exploring
> whether the change is forced upon us, and if so questioning if it's
> a positive value. I don't see the active conscious confrontation with
> modernity, the whole thing RYBS describes in terms of the tension of
> the dialectic.

So, I was asking you to do that - and specifically about the change that has
gone on in the lives of young women -prior to their marriage.  As I tried to
indicate, the reality is in non charedi circles, young women are spending a
decade or two post puberty but prior to marriage.  Obviously at least the
first two to four years of that is indeed forced upon us (depending on the
dina d'malchusa dina of wherever it is you live - in England you need to be
16, but other parts of the world differ).   Please explore whether the rest
is indeed forced upon us?  Do the pros of later marriage outweigh the cons?
Do the methods used by some communities to encourage earlier marriage
outweigh the cons?  -You must have children in the parsha by now (or at
least would have if you were conforming to certain of our communities'
norms)?  Are you activating the shidduch system to the best of your ability?
Certainly traditionally it was the father whose responsibility it was - are
you taking on that traditional responsibility, or has your encounter with
modernity altered your relationship to your traditional responsibility?
Have you had an active conscious confrontation with that reality (and your
children, if their views differ from yours), or have you just just accepted
modernity in this regard?

Simply put, are you trying to get your children (and I know it is mostly
sons at this stage, but you need the sons to marry other people's daughters)
married off as soon as possible or are you letting them make a much more
independent assessment than a pre-modern mindset would allow?  Are you
trying to educate them towards a parnassa before you get them (or let them)
get married off?

That is, the first question is, are you confronting the change towards much
latter marriage or are you accommodating it?  

Now of course the modern approach is that one should delay marriage, at
least until one has had time to complete university and hence have (for both
parties to the marriage) the tools to earn a reasonable parnassa without
having to deal with the birth and raising of children during that period of
study.  What is your view on this?  This change is not, like the legal age
of marriage, forced upon us in quite the same way.  Some of the financial
scandals, however, that you are decrying, certainly risk being aggravated,
do they not, if people marry before they have a chance of completing
university, and hence risk struggling to provide a parnassa for their
families when they have them?    Pros? cons?

And then, if you are prepared to recognise that there are those who do think
that this change of women marrying later is indeed forced upon us by
economic necessity, if nothing else, how do you provide the spiritual
nourishment that may have traditionally been available via marriage, without
a marriage? I get back to the question of ase l'cha rav.  For a woman who is
yet to marry, do you hold that aseh l'cha rav, is a positive mitzvah?  If
so, how should it be achieved, given the modern hurdles?  Or is the correct
price to pay that a woman needs to put her spiritual growth (not to mention
halachic observance) on hold during her teenage and twenties (if not
thirties) while she pursues her secular studies?  If not, how is growth to
be achieved given that the traditional supports available to her grandmother
in her bas melech penima role are not available to her during this period?  

And yet a further question.  One aspect of modernity is, as you have
identified, the Beis Ya'akov movement, including the seminary movement.  Are
the methods employed there the correct ones?  Does it matter so long as they
operate under the radar of men and ultimately produce women who are willing
to marry men?  Would it bother you, for example, if you were to learn that
there were multitude teachings (and would it matter if they were correct
teachings or misteachings) of halacha in the women's seminaries?  Or maybe
it doesn't matter because after a few years they will get sorted out by
their husbands?   Is the issue that is bothering you about this whole
maharat business that it is being done before men as well as women?  Would
such an innovation be acceptable if it only happened within the women's
seminaries (and maybe you therefore weren't even aware of it)?  Or is it the
title?  Would it be OK if there were women fulfilling the role for other
women in the seminaries (whatever role you identify, from poskening shialas
to giving counselling)?  Would it be considered public then, or is it still
part of bas melech penima?  

You say that your problem is that people are not truly grappling with the
issues raised by modernity.  So please grapple.


> Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,


Regards

Chana

R' Micha Berger asked:
> Once it becomes a holiday, will we put on tefillin at all?
> Or is the gemara implying there would be an issur melakhah?

By "coincidence", my chavrusa and I hit a gemara today, which I think is quite relevant to this.

In Gemara Megilla 5b, near the top (lines 9-12), Rav Yosef cites Esther
9:19, which says that Purim is a "Yom Tov", to show that there is an Issur
Melacha on Purim.

Further down that daf (lines 29-34), Rabba brei d'Rava says that 9:19
refers to before Purim was legislated, and that the proper pasuk - which
describes Purim nowadays - is 9:22. He shows that 9:22 specifically omits
the term "yom tov" from its description of the halachic aspects of Purim,
and that although eulogies and fasting are assur, melacha is not. The
gemara then goes on to explain that although is not technically "assur",
there are indeed communities which has accepted a *minhag* to avoid
melacha. (The halacha follows the second view - Orach Chaim 696:1.)

So here's my question: Rav Yosef holds that there is a real issur melacha on Purim. Did *he* wear his tefillin on that day? (and maybe even say Kiddush?)

The question becomes even more relevant in light of the Rambam (last
halacha in Taanis) which I cited in my previous post. That Rambam quoted
the pasuk of Zechariah 8:19, which says that all four fast days are
destined to become "moadim tovim", and he interprets that to mean that in
Moshiach's days, they'll become "yom tov".

My guess is that however Rav Yosef related to the issur melacha on Purim, we'll be doing the same for Tisha B'Av, bimhera b'yamenu.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsMx6xsPJ4fdFW1FqNCUgpIy0b11LtgzNpFpHNnjqqyOrPgsd9tiPO/

Eli Turkel wrote:

> However, harming oneself is allowed only to save a life.

Not so.  "Chovel be'atzmo" is allowed for many purposes.  The posuk
explicitly allows risking ones *life* for money; kol sheken merely
risking ones health is allowed.


> Thus several poskim point out that the Shylock contract obligating one
> to give a pound of flesh if payment is not made is a nonvaild contract.

The real reason it's not valid is 1) asmachta, 2) Shylock had no
actual use for the flesh, and his entire purpose was to take revenge
on Antonio, and of course 3) the issue was that he proposed not to be
"chovel" Antonio but to kill him, for which his consent would not
suffice because he had no right to commit suicide.


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

I just thought of another source, one that came up back when Napster was
in the news and the discussion of copyright and halakhah came up. I
again invite you to see my earlier posts of notes of a shiur by R Zev
Reichman then of the YU's Kollel Elyon, speaking at an OU
lunch-and-learn program, at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#04> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#13>.

This isn't about chilul Hashem, directly, but assurs the underlying
cause -- acting less morally than our host society expects of their
population.

On the list (in the second post), at #2, was the Sho'el uMeishiv
1:44. To quote myself from back when the shiur was fresh in my mind
(in the first post):
> The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
> obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment,
> it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns
> ownership of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership
> is eternal (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that
> copyrights are lehalachah also eternal.

> Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for
> that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a
> halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos
> of copyright.

> I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns
> moral rights identified by the surrounding culture.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Chana Luntz wrote:
> Now of course the modern approach is that one should delay marriage, at
> least until one has had time to complete university and hence have (for both
> parties to the marriage) the tools to earn a reasonable parnassa without
> having to deal with the birth and raising of children during that period of
> study.  What is your view on this?  This change is not, like the legal age
> of marriage, forced upon us in quite the same way.  Some of the financial
> scandals, however, that you are decrying, certainly risk being aggravated,
> do they not, if people marry before they have a chance of completing
> university, and hence risk struggling to provide a parnassa for their
> families when they have them?    Pros? cons?
>   
While I basically agree with the thrust of this post, I'm puzzled that 
you characterize this approach as "modern".  See H. Deoth 5:11.

David Riceman

I have previously written regarding Rabbi Benzion Uziel's use of
compassion and love as a tool for leniency in halakhah.

R' Yitzhak Grossman, however, responded with a case involving a woman
who claimed a certain man was the father of her child. The court ruled
that we should believe the woman, but Rabbi Uziel responded
indignantly that "Yet, this quality of compassion does not overturn
the law. . . . One may not favor a poor person in his judgment.
Compassion should not alter the law (Ketuhhot 84a). This means that
one cannot be merciful to one person at the expense of another;
rather, the law must he judged according to its absolute truth." R'
Grossman brought this as a proof against me.

However, Rabbi Haim David Halevi, Rabbi Uziel's student, explains this
matter differently, in his Aseh Lekha Rav 8:97, translated by Rabbi
Marc Angel in "The Love of Israel as a Factor in Halakhic
Decision-Making in the Works of Rabbi Benzion Uziel", Tradition 24:3,
Spring 1989.

After 15 pages of discussing how Beit Hillel was lenient because it
understood the frailty of the human condition, and after bringing
eight cases in which Rabbi Uziel was lenient based on compassion,
Rabbi Halevy brings, as his ninth case, this case of the woman
claiming the man is her father's child.

Rabbi Halevi says, "Although his [viz. Rabbi Uziel's] personality was
imbued with the love of compassion and mercy, he never allowed these
feelings to pervert true judgment, Heaven forbid. The law was decided
according to the haIakhic principles which we have received.
Compassion had the power of a "mi-de-rabbanan," leading him to find
openings in difficult cases, to engage in cases that not every judge
was ready to involve himself in, to search the sources strenuously in
order to find a lenient position to be utilized in an emergency
situation. But never was compassion invoked in a non-halakhic fashion.
The following responsum proves this point."

Rabbi Halevi first brings the reasoning of the court in Meknes:
whereas previous authorities would have doubted the woman's claim that
the man is her father's child, this was back when such cases of
promiscuous non-marital sex were rare. But today, when such cases are
common, the ramifications are dire, and we must be lenient and trust
the woman's claim.

Rabbi Uziel responded indignantly that logic would dictate the
opposite: if, in previous times, when promiscuity was rare, the rabbis
did not believe the woman, all the more so today we shouldn't believe
the woman, since she is more likely to have slept with many men,
creating doubt as to whether this particular man is her child's
father.

It is true that from Rabbi Uziel's own words, here, R' Grossman's
conclusion seems sound. Rabbi Uziel says, inter alia, "Yet, this
quality of compassion does not overturn the law. . . . One may not
favor a poor person in his judgment. Compassion should not alter the
law (Ketuhhot 84a). This means that one cannot be merciful to one
person at the expense of another; rather, the law must he judged
according to its absolute truth. ... I have written these words since
I have seen in thesc days a number of rabbis who try to establish
halakhah with the argument that times and conditions have changed, and
because of compassionate feelings. Therefore, I found it to be my
responsibility to say these few words which fulfill the short verse in
the Torah, 'Judgment is the Lord's.'"

Indeed, R' Grossman's conclusion appears sound: the law must cut
through the mountain, and leniency cannot be invoked to overturn the
law. And if leniency can ever be invoked, it is only when the case
does not have two parties, for in such a case, to be lenient with one
party is to be strict with the other, and compassion and leniency
cannot be allowed to unjustly cause a loss to one party out of mercy
to the winning party.

But Rabbi Haim David Halevi understood this whole matter differently.
Remember, his entire article is devoted to showing how Rabbi Uziel
ruled based on mercy and compassion, and he sees the present case as
the exception that proves the rule. Rabbi Uziel's disagreement here,
notwithstanding the literal and simple import of his words, was not
with using leniency per se. Rather, he objected to leniency being used
without there being also solid halakhic basis. Now, this solid
halakhic basis might involve minority opinions, etc., but it is still
solid. But here, the court in Meknes used logic which Rabbi Uziel
found entirely false; they ruled that today, one should trust the
woman more because promiscuity is common today, but Rabbi Uziel felt
that just the opposite, one should all the more *not* trust the woman,
due to promiscuity being more common. Since the technical halakhic
basis was wanting, the compassion and mercy were inadmissible. Mercy
and compassion cannot operate without technical halakhic basis, just
as conversely, formal halakhah cannot operate without mercy and
compassion and humane understanding. Din and rahamim must go
hand-in-hand.

I'll note that I myself had been in doubt regarding R' Grossman's
conclusion; it seemed to go against everything else Rabbi Uziel said
elsewhere. I didn't know how to answer this specific case, however.
Rabbi Halevi has apparently interpreted this particular case so as to
accord with the methodology Rabbi Uziel showed in general. (And recall
that Rabbi Halevi was a quite intimate student of Rabbi Uziel's.)

Michael Makovi

Eli Turkel wrote:
>   R Broyde has an article on the
> subject in Journal of Contemporary Society 43
> 
> In it his brings that the Tzitz Eliezer allows reporting crimes to
> western society governments based on the Arukh HaShulchan that todays
> governments do not kill criminals as bandits used to in the old days.

1. This makes no sense, since its premise - that the law of moser has
something to do with the government killing the victim - is patently
false.  Hamoser *mamon* chavero is no less a mosser.

2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
designed to please the censor, and is so over the top precisely so
that the reader should understand that he doesn't mean it.  E.g. see
the title of the siman on hilchot gerut.   It's of a piece with the
siddurim that proclaimed "avinu malkenu en lanu melech *bashamayim*
ela ata"; everybody understood that the extra word was not to be said.



> R. Elyashiv concurs in a case of a robbery in the office of religious
> affairs. Informing the police will lead to an investigation which
> most likely will find one of the religious employees guilty.

And it may not.  Surely one is entitled to judge the religious employees
lechaf zechut, and assume them to be innocent and have nothing to fear.
Is there anyone who *would* call this mesirah?  Unless the fear is that
the police will pin it on an employee whether or not one is guilty, in
which case there is nobody who would permit it.


> R. Moshe Feinstein seems to allow informing the police only for
> violent crimes.

The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
assailant.  I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.


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

RET asked:
: 1. Medrash Ele ezkarah (anyone know anything about it?)

Since no one chimed in with primary sources...

Wikipedia copies the Jewish Encyclopedia entry, so this bit is last
century's theory, but...

According to them, the introduction was borrowed from Medrash Konein,
and R' Yishma'el's listening in mei'achorei hapargod is probably from
the Heichalos Rabbasi.
See
<http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=593&;letter=M#1961>.
They heavily cite Aharon/Adolph Jellinek, who edited and published the
MEE in the google book I pointed to earlier.

As for dating it, the Encyclopedia of Judaism
<http://www.answers.com/topic/ten-martyrs> called it medieval. It
doesn't say why, that's just the adjective used when introducing the
term:
> The account is based on several midrashim, especially the medieval
> Midrash Eleh Ezkerah.

But to me that kind of dating seems compelling, since it's only from
the perspective of centuries later that one would think to telescope
churban bayis with the Hadrianic persecutions as a single narrative. It
just wouldn't seem like one long story from a closer perspective.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 153
***************************************

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..."