Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 53

Sun, 21 Feb 2010

• 1. kol hamosif , gorea (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 2. Re: Acharaei Rabbim l'Hatos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: kol hamosif , gorea (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: kol hamosif , gorea (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: kol hamosif , gorea (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Revenge and Punishment (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. do gentiles have more teeth (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Geirut for marriage (Chana)
• 9. The Jew and History (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Revenge and Punishment (Dov Kaiser)
• 11. Re: Revenge and Punishment (Micha Berger)
• 12. "Mishenichnas Adar Marbin B'simcha" (SBA)
• 13. Shemaya veAvtalyon (SBA)
• 14. Re: kol hamosif , gorea (David Riceman)
• 15. Revenge and Punishment (Dov Kaiser)

from revach-----

The Menorah was made out of a solid block of gold.  All its decorations 
were carved out of this block and nothing was made separately and attached 

to the Menorah afterwards.  The pasuk highlights this fact by saying 
"Kaftoreha U'Pracheha Mimena Yihiyu"; it buttons and flowers 
should come 
from within it. 
The Chasam Sofer says since the Menorah represents the light of Torah we 
learn from here that no outside sciences or wisdom should be used to adorn 

the Torah.  The torah has all its light within it and nothing in the 
outside world can enhance this brilliant light.  With this idea he 
explains the gemara Megila (32) "He who holds the Sefer Torah bare 
(without a covering) will be buried bare without mitzvos".  This 
means 
that if a person considers the Torah lacking and he feels it needs the 
beauty of science and other wisdoms to adorn it and make it complete will 
himself die without mitzvos since this is Apikurses.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100219/0a1582c9/attachment-0001.htm>

R Eli Turkel:
> I believe there is a long Maharatz Chajes that strongly disagrees and
> says that rov does not apply outside of bet din. i.e. we dont pasken by
> taking a majority of shitot (which shitot would be included?)

Yasher koach for the raya listor, but how about some supporting sheetos? 
 
I can come. With many at least by inference. 
 
As Far as WHO to include who was the m'chabeir referring to in SA ChM
25:1 as "posqim" WRT toeh bidvar mishnah? Who are the posqim?
 
IIRC The Rema answers that question [perhaps indirectly] there by defining
them as those s'farim that have been widely accepted.
 
Also consider Mishnah Brura's use of "rov acharonim" 
 
But -- as I pointed out re: Bracha on Ner Hanukkah -- Maggid Mishnah
uses the same expression in Hil Shabbos 5:1.
 
For MM that would probably mean Ramban, Rashba, Re'ah etc. 


Micha:
> Otherwise there wouldn't be so many cases where the SA takes the mi'ut
> position among his triumverate.

Actually see the halachah re: 2 vs. 3 matzos

Rif/Rambam say 2
BY overrides them by using a majority of posqim. IOW rov posqim -
at least here - trumps the vote of his BD. This is my raya that BY
subscribes to consensus.

And follow this up with Kaf haChayyim on same issue who quotes GRA and
pasqens that Rov Acharonim rejected GRA - and by extension the simple
read in Shas

IOW consensus trumps going back to Shas.
 
GS 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

The Chasam Sofer says since the Menorah represents the light of Torah we
learn from here that no outside sciences or wisdom should be used to adorn
the Torah.
==================
and R' Aron Soloveitchik taught that the menorah represents all wisdoms with the central  branch representing torah towards which all curve towards.
Surprise - we look in the mirror of torah and see ourselves.
KT
Joel Rich

________________________________
As of February 22, our New York Office will be located at:
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100219/94660398/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:26:09AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: and R' Aron Soloveitchik taught that the menorah represents all
: wisdoms with the central branch representing torah towards which all
: curve towards.

I bet RAS said it besheim the Gra, who did say it first. Likening the 7
branches to the 7 wisdoms identified in the Zohar. (E.g. on Bereishis
7:11, where is speaks of the wellsprings of the 7 wisdoms being opened
in the year 5600.)

According to R' Hillel Rivlin's Sha'ar Be'er Sheva, the Gra's list
of 7 wisdoms were: math, astronomy, physics and chemistry, practical
engineering, medicine, music, psychology. How that maps to the menorah,
where the Torah would have to count as one of the seven, leaving only
6 sciences, is beyond me.

And R' Hutner writes in the Pachad Yitzchaq, Sukkos, that the 7 branches
are the 7 wisdoms, of which music is the most spiritual -- and then
discusses the role of music in simchas bas hasho'eivah. His thesis is
that SBHS is a reenactment of the creation of man as in Bereishis 2.
Water is poured into the very spot from which the dirt to make Adam was
taken (according to one shitah), and then the singing is vayipach
be'apav nishmas chayim. Re'ei sham.

But I think even they would agree with part of the CI's point... one
must view all the wisdoms as flowing from the trunk, and pointing back
to the middle neir. They aren't "outside" additions to the Torah but
daughters that are expressions of it.

BUT...
Isn't this the same CI who is credited with giving brain surgery advice?
Wouldn't that mean that he did learn sciences?

:-)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

BUT...
Isn't this the same CI who is credited with giving brain surgery advice?
Wouldn't that mean that he did learn sciences?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

--
The other side would say sod hashem lyireav
KT
Joel Rich

As of February 22, our New York Office will be located at:
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> But, e.g., a go'el hadam has an obligation to avenge the victim

I was under the impression that a go'el hadam has *permission* to avenge
the victim. Or perhaps that he does not even have permission, but that he
will not be liable to Beis Din for his act - but might still be liable to
Shamayim for it.

Am I mistaken? Where do you get the idea that the go'el hadam HAS TO avenge the victim?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Home Improvement Projects
Do it right the first time.  Click to find contractors to work on your home improvement project.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=jqL2blOCHSmA4IqlmqYJ8QAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAShAAAAAA=

However, you don't have proof that this knowledge is more fundamental to
halakhah than claims from Chazal about how the world ought to be. What
the tooth thing would show is that regardless of how the world /is/, the
fact that Chazal feel that 33 teeth better describes how the world
should be is more relevent to how we should act.>>

1. from the blog
Midrash Talpiyot was authored by Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Avraham, and
was published in 1698.
hardly qualifies as chazal

2.  R Chaim Kanevesky quotes R. Y. Zilberstein that some dentist
actually uses this difference
in teeth to identify Jews. So it is not being used merely theoretrically

3. how the world /is/, the
fact that Chazal feel that 33 teeth better describes how the world
should be is more relevent to how we should act.

got lost - how does the number of some theoretical number of teeth
teach us how to act




-- 
Eli Turkel

> : RMB wrotes:
> : > Except that I still don't find it clear. He writes, "chutz miqabalas
> : > hamitzvos sheme'aqeves..." which although is the language of the
Tosafos
> : > and the Rosh WRT requiring a beis din (3 kesheirim meeting during the
> : > day) does not prove he holds like them WRT sefeiqos in the qabalah due
> : > to the person having ulteriar motives. And the Rambam is more machmir,
> : > requiring the other steps to also require BD, not that qabbalas ol
> : > mitzvos before a BD is less mandatory.

I replied:

> : I struggle to see how you can see this in the Rambam ...

And RMB responded:

> I was looking at the SA when I wrote that. Not what the Rambam says,
> just translating what the SA says he says.

But the thing is, any reading of the SA has to be plausible.  If you tell me
that what the SA says is nonsensical, then the general Orthodox assumption
is that you are reading the SA wrong.  Similarly, we all agree that the SA
knew how to read the Rambam.   So if he says that the Rambam says something,
it must be a plausible read in the Rambam (it may not be the only read, but
it must be a plausible read).  If there is no way that one can read this
into the Rambam, then the most logical explanation is that you are reading
the SA wrong.

Before we get into your discussion of the Rambam, it seems to me that in the
discussion (including in the discussion that follows) one of the problems we
are having is that there are two different concepts that are both being
identified under the rubric of what you call QOM and they are getting
confused.  The two concepts are as follows:

a) QOM as a legal action - very similar to a shavuah in fact, in which the
person says in front of a beis din of three - "from here on in, I will keep
the mitzvot".   This is what Tosphos and the Rosh understands when they
refer to QOM.  It is this quasi (if not in fact) shavuah that they refer to
when they say that it is meakev, that it has to happen before a beis din,
that it has to happen during the day, etc etc  If this quasi shavuah does
not happen before  beis din and during the day, etc etc, then there is no
gerus, the person is a much a goy as he was before, regardless as to whether
any mila or tevila has happened or what was in his heart.

b) QOM as something that the person resolves to do in their heart.  Now this
form of QOM may well happen many moons before they ever come before beis
din.  In fact, in the case of a true ger tzedek, it is often the resolve and
determination to keep the mitzvos that keep them banging on the door of beis
din to let them in and pushes them to overcome all the hurdles in their
path.  But of course, in theory, it could also happen after a mila and a
tevila.  Somebody could go through a mila and a tevila (eg due to falling in
love with somebody) and then only later decide that really keeping mitzvos
is for them.  It is probably reasonably unlikely (although possible) that
this particular sensation would come over them just at the point at which
they were in front of beis din.

Of course the two overlap.  If the person has b) already - what they are
doing in front of beis din that constitutes a) is making an vow and
affirmation before beis din of what was in their heart already.  And if they
didn't have b) they are making a false vow in front of beis din.

Now when the SA poskens like Tosphos and the Rosh, that means that he holds
that a) the legal action is a necessary component of the geirus process.
You then argued that the SA holds that the Rambam was just more machmir,
that he required mila and tevila before three *as well* - but that means
that you are saying that the SA says that the Rambam holds that QOM as the
legal action is a necessary component of the geirus process - and it is this
that I cannot see how you can read into the Rambam, or aver that the SA
reads into the Rambam.

> But since we are revisiting this discussion, we can return to the
> Rambam...


> Because in 12:17 we see the Rambam calling QOM a separate part of
> becoming Jewish from the mitzvah maasis of geirus. (BTW, note also in
hilkhos
> teshuvah, he opens by telling you the mitzvah is saying vidui when you
> do teshuvah. The mindset is a precondition; the act is the mitzvah. I
> think there is a leshitaso here -- the Rambam doesn't count pure
> thought and emotion among the mitzvos.)
> 
> The language of 12:17 is "kol hagoyim kulam sheyisgayru viyqablu
> aleihen kol hamitzvos shel Torah .. harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar..."
He
> says you need QOM in addition to geirus. Two things.

Yes he does say kol hagoyim kulam sheyisgayru viyqablu aleihen kol hamitzvos
shel Torah .. harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar...".  But there is a leap in
the logic here to say, as you have done above that this means that "QOM is a
separate part of becoming Jewish".   He does not say this.  He says that if
the ger has this he is like your standard born Jew.  But that does not
necessarily mean that if he does not have this, that means he is not a ger
but a goy.

In fact, if it was an intrinsic part of "becoming" Jewish, then you would
not need to mention it here.  The Rambam does not need to mention all goyim
sheyisgaru and do tevila - because tevila is an intrinsic part of
sheyisgaru, without which the goy remains a goy.  If QOM was in fact meakev
to the geirus process, then there is no need to mention it.

So what does he mean when he says this.  As a tangent, I would just point
out that even the "harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar..." is an over
simplification of the Rambam's position.  The Rambam is very explicit (eg in
Hilchos Melachim perek 1 halacha 4) that a ger is not keYisrael lekhol davar
- he cannot be appointed a king, not a dayan in many cases, nor even a
leader of tens.  And I don't believe anybody holds that this is a
contradiction in the Rambam.  Rather, here he is talking about the
overwhelming majority of scenarios and there he is talking about a few
select ones which are exceptions.  But in that sense he is not here being
precise.

But getting back to the main point.  If you understand the Rambam, as the
Bach does, that he does not require QOM kol ikar - that is, not only does
the Rambam not require the legal action of Tosphos and the Rosh, but he
doesn't even require the mindset that goes with b), the resolve in the heart
at the time of the geirus and as a precondition for geirus, then of course
the Rambam needs to say this.

Because there is another case (or series of cases) that of the Yisrael
mumar.  Now what the deal is with a Yisrael mumar depends on whether he is a
mumar l'hachis or a mumar l'tavon.  Whether he is a mumar l'davar echad or a
mumar lkol hatorah kula.  Whether he is a mumar l'avodah zara or mechallel
shabbas befarhesia or with different aveyros.  But the point is that the
Yisrael mumar does not have, depending on the kind of mumar he is, the
status of a standard Yisrael l'kol davar.  His wine may be assur to drink,
it may be permissible to lend to him at ribus.  It may be permissible to
hate him.  And the list goes on and on.  In fact, at the extreme, he has the
status "k'akum".

Now, if you hold like the Bach that the Rambam does not require QOM kol
ikar, then if the Rambam had merely said that "kol hagoyim kulam
sheyisgayru.. (without any mention of QOM) harei hein keYisrael lekhol
davar...".  then that would have suggest that in fact a ger who did not
fulfil the mitzvos and behaved like a Yisrael mumar, in fact got a free pass
on all the halachos that we mention above those apply to a Yisrael mumar
(you could drink his wine if he was over on avodah zara, for example).  But
since the Rambam is not necessarily going to privilege a ger over a born
Jew, this is a logical short hand statement to say precisely that.  That is,
the other side of the equation, which the Rambam does not need to mention
here as it is irrelevant, but which he does mention in Perek 13, is that a
ger who does not have QOM is, in many respects, like a Yisrael mumar (and at
the extreme, if they worship avodah zara, they are like an akum, just as a
Jew is).

I am not saying this is the only read of this Rambam, your read is possible,
but it is a very weak thread to hold you read on when everything else points
the other way and this read is perfectly tenable.

> The Bach you refer to (YD 268, "vekhol inyanav") also doesn't deny the
> Rambam requiring QOM. Rather, he says the Rambam and Semag only require
> BD for tevilah. The question he addresses is whether QOM requires BD,
> not whether becoming a Jew requires QOM altogether -- even bedi'eved.

No, you quoting from too high up in that Bach.  He starts by discussing that
the Rambam and the Semag only require BD for tevila, but later on he
says"D'katuv haRambam (perek 13 halacha 17) d'kasher af al pi shelo hayta
l'shem kabalat mitzvoth kol ikar"

> I would think the Bach's understanding of the Rambam is mistabeir from
> the notion that it's geirus that requires BD, and this other part of
> becoming Jewish does not.

Well at least, I guess that given my division into two types of QOM, it
would seem that you appear here to agree that the Bach, and I think also
from what you have been saying, the Rambam, do not require type A QOM, ie a
ma'aseh in beis din - the most you appear to be demanding is that there
actually be some sort of QOM in the heart, akin to teshuva.  But as this is
clearly not what the Shulchan Aruch is talking about, I think that we get
back to my original comment. The Shulchan Aruch goes with the Rosh and
Tosphos, and requires a ma'aseh in beis din. And since it is virtually
impossible to read the Rambam to say that he requires a type a) QOM, that
cannot be the way he holds, either which means that he does not posken like
the Rambam.  So arguably whether or not the Rambam who does not require a
ma'aseh QOM in beis din requires something in the heart seems somewhat
academic, unless you are going to a Rav Uzziel type argument that b'shas
hadchak we should rely on the Rambam.

The far more key question for us today is what would the view have been of
Tosphos and the Rosh if the ma'aseh beis din occurred but it turned out that
this was clearly a false vow, and there was never any intention to take on
any of the mitzvos - because that indeed tends to be the situation that
occurs today.  The formal requirements of the legal act are generally
adhered to, just not always the devarim shebalev.

But anyhow, if we do want to go back to the Rambam and talk about relying
upon him in a Shas hadchak situation - then the Bach's view is that the
Rambam rules the conversion kasher af al pi shelo hayta l'shem kabalat
mitzvoth kol ikar.  You might be able to argue with the Bach, which is what
you appear to be doing, and say that actually the Rambam requires a form of
QOM in the heart, just not a legal act, what I don't think you can say is
that the Rambam requires a legal act and therefore that he is being machmir
on the position of Tosphos and the Rosh.  And I don't think it is a fair
reading of the Bach to say that he is agreeing with you. 
 
> This notion that there are two stages: mitzvas geirus and QOM, fits the
> layout of pereq 13. When he defines geirus, the Rambam defines only
> the steps of geirus -- "sheyisgayru", not those of "viybalu aleihen
> kol hamizvos".

OK, so here is your argument that the Rambam has two aspects, one is the
formal legal one which has nothing to do with QOM, and one is the duty of
the heart, akin to teshuva.  Now there are various problems with this.  As
you indicate "I think there is a leshitaso here -- the Rambam doesn't count
pure thought and emotion among the mitzvos" - well I think that could be
said generally.  Devarim sheb'lev aino devarim.   And certainly when we are
dealing with something that involves a determination of legal status, you
end up in an impossibly amorphous state that I don't see anybody ever
countenancing.  So even if your reading of the Rambam were the correct one,
nobody is going to posken like him l'halacha, as it is an impossible test
from a practical point of view and a completely new and radical concept.
But since the Rambam himself was eminently practical, I find it impossible
to attribute this kind of attitude to him either, and think a far more
likely read is one that avoids that kind of radicalism.

But the other thing that seems to come out of your test is that there need
be no defining moment.  The mila and the tevila can happen without this QOM
in the heart, and then an hour, a day, a week, a month or months later maybe
there can be this QOM.  This suspension seems to work both ways.  So if
somebody now who at the time of his conversion had absolutely no intention
of keeping the mitzvos, he only did it to satisfy his girlfriend, suddenly
decides it is for him, according to you then suddenly it is all fine.  On
which basis the argument then seems to become somewhat academic.  Because
there is would seem to be no need for a new procedure.  We just need chazar
b'teshuva like any Yisrael mumar.  

> So, we don't get to defining QOM for certain until 13:15. Although
> again,
> we know from 12:17 that the Rambam required it.

As mentioned, there is absolutely not necessity to read 12:17 as the Rambam
requiring it.  All he requires is that for us to treat him in all respects
as a kosher Jew, he has to behave like a kosher Jew, and not like a mumar.

> We also see the requirement in pereq 13, halakhah 17, where the Rambam
> contrasts someone we are unsure did QOM with one we established his
> tzidqus but afterward "chazar ve'avad AZ". In the first case,
> Jewishness
> is a matter of cheshash until QOM is resolved. In latter case, the
> Jewishness was already chal, so the person is a meshumad, but Jewish
> with all the dinim -- the Rambam lists qidushin and hashavas aveidah.

There are two points where you and I are reading this differently.

a) the word choshashin.  You understand choshashin to mean that we are in
doubt about whether there is a real, halachically valid, conversion.  I
understand choshashin similar to the way it and chashad are used throughout
discussions regarding a Yisrael Mumar, hilchos shechita etc.  You are
entitled to have suspicions about a person in various circumstances where
there are reasons to believe that they are not performing mitzvos correctly,
and if you have legitimate reasons for your suspicions, you are entitled to
take preventative action.  Such suspicions can be overruled in certain cases
by a chazaka, such as a chazakas kashrus, but in other cases they are not.
Here, it seems to me the far more straightforward reading is that, according
to the Rambam, we do not give a ger a chezkas kashrus, eg eating his house,
until it is clear that he has accepted upon himself the mitzvos of kashrus.
That does not mean his conversion is in doubt.  Of course, according to
Tosphos all this is unnecessary, the QOM was a formal act in front of beis
din, so every ger presents with a chezkas kashrus, but according to the
Rambam they do not necessarily.

b) You are reading the "afilu chozer" as only going on one who has
"sheyitbaer tzidkuto" whereas I read it as going on each and every ger in
the sentence, whether he has sheyitbaer tzidkuto or not.  While the subject
of afilu chozer is potentially ambiguous, the fact that he later says that
it is a mitzvah to return his lost object "meachar shetoyvil na'aseh
k'yisrael" supports my reading.  If your reading were correct, that portion
should read that you were only required to return his lost object like a Jew
after he toyveled and his tzitkus was revealed or his QOM took place.

> And a weak proof from the SA and the Bach arguing about whether it
> requires BD bedi'eved, which kind of distances one from the question of
> whether it is required altogether.

But since I hold the SA and the Bach don't argue, this is hardly a proof.
The Bach summarises the position of the Rambam as not requiring QOM kol
ikar, but states that given that the Rosh and Tosphos are cholek and say
that even without QOM in beis din it is meakev b'dieved, therefore we posken
like them.  That is exactly my view as to what the SA says as well.

> BTW, the Tur that Bach is commenting on says that QOM bifnei BD is
> me'aqeves, and he also has the Rif saying that tevilah and milah
> require
> a BD even bedi'eved. Nothing about the Rif saying that *instead* of QOM
> requiring BD.
> 
> What I can't find is the Rif himself, to see the original words.

The Rif is in Yevamos 16a (Perek Revi'I on the Mishna Hamachzir  but a
couple of pages on).  The Rif, of course, doesn't mention QOM at all.  The
thing is that if you understand the development of this whole thing, it is
Tosphos who puts the QOM and the beis din requirement together from two
separate sugyas in the gemora (and then throws in a third to argue that in
fact the tevila does not need beis din) - the linkage is by no means obvious
and thus not surprisingly the Rif makes no mention of it (it is a very
typical Tosphos type of move, and not one that one would expect to find in
the Rif as that was not generally the way he thought).

Again, if there is no real way of making a plausible read that the Rif
requires QOM before beis din, then I don't see how you can argue that the SA
says he does, especially when there is a very simple and straightforward
read of the SA which does not require him to make these statements on the
Rif and the Rambam.  If you understand that he holds, like the Bach, that
the Rif and Rambam are cholek on Tosphos and the Rosh, then it is very
simple to explain the SA.  He is using his usual pattern of a "stam" and a
"yesh omrim".  The difference here is because of the weight of the yesh
omrim (the Rambam and the Rif, ie the two he would usually posken like) he
mentions them by name rather than writing it as a "yesh omrim".  But
basically he is doing his usual stam and yesh omrim, where the halacha is
k'stam, but the yesh omrim has sufficient weight to be brought.  And no need
to try and read impossible things into the Rambam and the Rif, or suggest
that the Shulchan Aruch himself had difficult reads.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Shavuah tov

Chana

The following is from the introduction to RSRH's essay Adar I that 
appears in the Collected Writings of RSRH, Volume II,  beginning on 
page 365.  It seems to me to elucidate an attitude towards life that 
we should all strive to attain. YL

  To no race of men has it been granted to make its way through 
history with a clear vision of the path before it as it has to the 
Jewish. At the very beginning of its history, it went through 
experiences to which it could ever and anon turn its glance in order 
to see, as in a prophetic looking-glass, itself, its fitness for its 
task, its relations to neighboring peoples, the course of conduct 
which would bring to it chastisement, self-improvement, testing and 
reward. The Jew who knows his task and his history is not surprised 
by anything that happens, he is never thrown off his balance or 
dazzled. He has only to look back on the mirror of his past which God 
is ever presenting to him, and he knows where he is everywhere and in 
all circumstances, he is able to weigh correctly every event of his 
time, and he steers calmly, whether over a smooth sea or through 
storm and fire, towards the goal to which God is leading him. He is 
prepared for everything. He trusts no moment and fears none. He finds 
his grounds of hope or fear not in the political conditions of the 
day, but in his own breast. An undeserved piece of good fortune 
cannot elate him, an unmerited suffering cannot crush him. Only the 
evidence afforded by his own conscience can elevate or depress him. 
He knows only one enemy-sin; he knows only one armour-innocence.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100220/abd827f6/attachment-0001.htm>

<<We say Hashem yiqom>>

 

At first, I thought it was just a typo, but I have noticed that both RMB and RZS have been writing *yikom*.  I believe it should be *yinkom*.

 

Kol tuv

Dov Kaiser
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100221/15ffe5a5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:09:27AM +0000, Dov Kaiser wrote:
:> We say Hashem yiqom

: At first, I thought it was just a typo, but I have noticed that both
: RMB and RZS have been writing *yikom*. I believe it should be *yinkom*.

I appeal to the "we say" and will pretend I was correct. After all,
that is what is generally said. <g>

As for the real issue, the pasuq is quite clear what the neqamah is about
"lamah yomeru haggoyim ayeh E-loheihem, yivada baggoyim le'eineinu niqmas
ddam avadekh hashafukh" (Tehillim 79:10).

The Radaq emphasizes that the matter is chullul hasheim, and the Malbim
does as well and invokes that this is a continuation of kavod shimkha,
ie the lemaan shemekha at the end of pasuq 9. This is not about some
kind of tit-for-tat balance, but a need to show the world that there
really is a Just G-d.

Medrash Tehillim (Buber's edition) 149, brings this to "Keil neqamos
Hashem", and says "lo niqmas adam elah neqamos Hashem".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

From: Eli Turkel 
<< Beginning Rosh Chodesh Adar there is a custom to hang a sign in the
home that says "Mishenichnas Adar Marbin B'simcha" 
. Some have the custom to place this sign to cover the "Zecher L'churban
unfinished wall area that many have the custom to retain in their home.
Yalkut Avraham 686, Piskei Tshuvos 686:5 >>  Anyone familar with this
minhag?
>>

Which one?
To hang the Mishenichnas sign? Sure. Plenty do that.

To cover the zecher l'churban? Haven't heard of that one.

SBA

From: Micha Berger 
Shemaya veAvtalyon were both geirim. Yet, as one of the zugos, they
were in a leadership position. The question is how they could serve
in Sanhedrin. 
=========

See the Tosfos Yom Tov (Avos 1:10) where he writes beshem the Maharal that
they were not actually Gerim  - but "mikehal geirim" and that their mother
was Jewish.

SBA
.

RMB:
> BUT...
> Isn't this the same CI who is credited with giving brain surgery advice?
> Wouldn't that mean that he did learn sciences?
>   
> RJR:
> The other side would say sod hashem lyireav
>   
See Rabbi Zevin's book Ishim V'Sheetos pp. 334-336 (the final three 
pages about Rabbi Karelitz).

David Riceman

R. Eidensohn excerpted:
 
<<*Yoma^] (23a): *Any scholar who does not avenge himself and bear
grudge like a snake is not a real talmid chachom. But doesn't the Torah
(Vayikra 19:18) prohibit bearing grudges or taking revenge? The answer is
that the Torah prohibition only applies to monetary matters. Support for
this in found in the following teaching. Prohibited revenge occurs when a
person asked to borrow tools from a neighbor and was refused. If the
neighbor then asks to borrow tools from him on another occasion and he
refuses because he had been refused by the neighbor---that is revenge.
Prohibited bearing of grudge occurs when a person asked to borrow tools
from a neighbor and was refused. If the neighbor then asks to borrow tools
from him on another occasion and he responds: "I will lend it to you
because I am not like you"---that is bearing a grudge. But doesn't the
prohibition also apply in cases of personal insult as it was taught: Those
who have been insulted and yet do not insult in revenge..
 ..they that love Him shall be as the sun in its might? That refers to a
 person who was insulted and yet does not respond---even though he still
 bears grudge. However Rava stated that whoever forgives those who insult
 him has all his sins forgiven? Rava is referring only to the case where
 the one who insulted him has asked for and received forgiveness for the
 insult. Therefore the prohibition only applies to monetary matters>>
 
The last sentence in your translation does not appear in the Gemara.  I assume it is the translator's interpolation, and it strikes me as inaccurate.
 
The Gemara is working hard to find a heikhei timtza for R. Yochanan?s
statement that a talmid chakham who does not take revenge like a snake is
not a real talmid chakham.  It rejects the possibility that the statement
refers to monetary matters, as the Torah forbids revenge in this area.	It
then rejects the possibility that it refers to taking revenge for a tzaara
d?gufa, because we have already learned in Shabbos 68b about the virtue of
*ha-ne?elavin v?ein olvin* (which is the Gemara R. Micha quoted in a
subsequent post).  The Gemara then narrows down the application of the
statement to a case where the talmid chakham suffers tzaara d?gufa but
receives no apology.  The Gemara?s conclusion is that it is virtuous for a
talmid chakham to take revenge for a personal slight where no apology has
been offered.
 
RMB has already clarified that there are Rishonim who explain this
statement of R. Yochanan to be referring to slights to kevod haTorah rather
than personal slights.	However, there is no hint to that qualification in
the words of the Gemara in Yoma.  I have to admit that I was comforted by
this Gemara when I first saw it, as I find myself able to forgive very
quickly where I detect remorse.  On the other hand, I find it very
difficult to forgive where the perpetrator goes along his merry way without
remorse.  Clearly, according to the Rishonim you cite, I still have some
work to do.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser                                        
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100221/645bcc44/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 53
**************************************

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..."