Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 146

Tue, 02 Aug 2011

• 1. Limits on Mesira? (Isaac Balbin)
• 2. Davening for Others (Micha Berger)
• 3. diff between small nick in koneh vs veshet (Alan Rubin)
• 4. "God who knows the future" (David Riceman)
• 5. Tu B'Av (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Rosh Chodesh Av - A Seudah With Meat? (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Freeing a Slave (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Freeing a Slave (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Freeing a Slave (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Freeing a Slave (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Freeing a Slave (Micha Berger)
• 12. Ein mafsikin b'massa'os (meso...@aishdas.org)
• 13. The Seven Stages of Apostasy (Prof. Levine)

R' Hershel Schachter in his shiurim, as I recall, discusses the particular
type of prison in which an offender may find their incarceration. Speaking
about the American system, he differentiates between State and Federal
prisons. In essence, if an offender may find themselves in a prison where
it is likely that the offender will be subject to sexual abuse by prison
inmates, then it is questionable whether one is permitted to enact the
dictum of Uviarto HoRo Mikirbecha given such a consequence. I'm happy to
stand corrected if my recollection of this difference is inexact.

Assuming that it there is such a concern, how does this reflect on the RCA
statements on the reporting of potential sexual offenders to the
authorities? The Aguda statement is clear. Despite the not so clever
wording and the explanation of Rabbi Shafran, a careful reading indicates
that they do not permit handing someone over to the authorities in any case
unless a Rabbi is consulted.
In Australia, the Organisation of Rabbi's of Australia (ORA) basically
takes the stance of the RCA. In one state, NSW, one Rabbi dissented and it
sounded very much to me that he had been listening to R' Schachter's
shiurim, as above. In Australia, in the case of certain crimes, such as
child killing or abuse of minors, the inmates themselves mete out a
dishonour code and are known to provide their own brand of justice. 

I spoke to R' Schachter about this a few weeks ago, and need to revisit it to accurately ascertain the parameters of his views.

It seems to me that in the meanwhile, there would appear to be a very good
case for Rabonim to be proactive in pushing for a review of the prison
system to isolate certain criminals so that they do not receive extra
punishment via inmates. I wonder if either lay bodies associates with the
Rabbinate or the Rabbinate themselves have a Chiyuv of Lo Saamod Al Dam
Reacho, to actively campaign against such behaviour?

One cannot be truly committed to Ubiarto HoRo unless one also actively seeks to promote Lo Saamod. 

Due to the relative quiet lately, I'm forwarding these two posts from
R' Chaim Brown that intrigued me to consciously try to generate some
converation.

http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Thursday, July 21, 2011
tefilah and the war with Midyan

1. When Moshe Rabeinu criticizes those who fought against Midyan for
leaving alive the women, he poses his criticism as a question to them -
"Ha'chiyisem kol nekeivah?" To be fair, I could punctuate that sentence
a little differently and end it with a !? or a ?! instead of a plain ?,
but the point is that Moshe could have omitted the ? entirely and used
just a ! How about something like this - "Hamisu kol nekeivah!"

I had a moment before ma'ariv after the ta'anis and saw a beautiful vort
in the Divrei Chaim (the real one). We know that the difference between
teshuvah m'yirah and teshuvah m'ahava is the latter turns aveiros into
zechuyos while the former does not. Moshe Rabeinu threw in the ? because
ain hachi nami, through teshuvah m'ahavah the very same women that were
the source of aveirah could have been spared. Rather than be a source of
cheit or a reminder of cheit, they would have been a source of zechuyos.

2. On the topic of the war against Midyan, [37]see Havolim who writes
about the need to couple military might with tefilah. Contemporary gedolim
have encouraged each person to adopt an individual soldier to daven for. I
want to share with an insight of the Maor vaShemesh on the same theme.

After the battle and Moshe's collection of a percentage of the spoils
both from those who fought and those who stayed behind and shared in
the booty, the leaders of Bnei Yisrael came to Moshe and wanted to
contribute additional spoils of the war to the Mishkan. Ramban quotes
the Midrash that the purpose of this gift was as an act of contrition,
to obtain kapparah. Although there were no overt sins committed in the
war, the leaders were concerned for hirhurei aveirah, lest the people
sinned in thought even if not in deed.

Why did the leaders wait until after Moshe collected the "tax" from the
spoils? If indeed they were worried lest they had sinned, should they
not have stepped forward immediately after the battle finished?

I don't want to get involved in the nitty-gritty of his explanation
(the Maor vaShemesh loves remazim and gematriyos, topics that don't lend
themselves well to blog posts/translation), but the general idea of the
Maor vaShemesh is that the collection of a portion of the spoils as a
"tax" for the kohanim was a hint to the people that they did not deserve
to fully enjoy the spoils of war. There was something slightly off in
their avodas Hashem during the war, and hence something slight they had
to forfeit from the booty. Once the people realized the significance of
their having to surrender a portion of their booty, the leaders stepped
forward to make amends in a sincere way and offered an additional gift.

But why did those who stayed behind in the camp have to surrender a
portion of their booty as a "tax"? They were not exposed to the heat of
battle or the women in the camp of Midyan -- surely they were not guilty
of any wrongdoing either in deed or even in thought?!

The answer is that those who stayed behind had an important job to
fulfill -- it was their responsibility to daven for those who went to
fight on the front lines. If those in battle were guilty of wrongdoing,
even hirhurei aveirah, it meant that those who stayed behind were guilty
as well of not properly fulfilling their mission of davening to protect
the troops. An amazing idea -- I can share responsibility for anothers'
wrongdoing because I didn't daven hard enough for him!

How another person's tefilos can effect my ruchniyus (what about my
bechirah?) is an interesting philosophical question, but sof kol sof
that's how things work. The lesson here is that the spiritual ailments
of others are our ailments as well, for it is our Torah and our tefilos
that are falling short in serving as a shield to protect our community
from spiritual harm. You don't need to wait for a war either to daven
for another Jew.

   Anonymous great unknown said...
          Kohen Gadol is responsible for Golim l'Arei Miklat because he
          didn't doven well enough.

          There is also R' Meir's tefilla - with a little prompting from
          Brurya - that led to the lowlifes in his shchuna doing tshuva.
          Once again going back to my kiruv days, I was told by an adam
          chashuv in Bnei Brak that it would be appropriate for me to
          doven for my talmidim.

          10:33 PM

   Anonymous Anonymous said...
          as to the second paragraph:

          -does teshuvah m'ahavah work on the level of klal, or only
           of yachid?

          -weren't the dead by plague the kapparah for the national sin
           (reconciling Hashem completely with the survivors)?

          -with those 24,000 dead (& dead too to teshuvah), the living
           can acquire zechuyos??!

          even if teshuvah m'ahavah works 1) for the klal, 2) after
          devastating kapparah, & 3) beside the blood of fellow Jews
          no guiltier than they, wouldn't the sin-transform operate for
          these men of Israel only? wouldn't only their part in the sin
          be reversed, independently of the participation of midianite
          women (be the latter living or dead)?

          11:41 PM

   Anonymous chaim b, said...

          G.U. - I was going to post the example of K.G. and arei miklat
          this morning now that we are moving towards Masei, but you
          beat me too it.

          I thought R'M was a little different. There his helped effect
          their teshuvah, but it wasn't his absence of tefilah that led
          them to sin.

          10:38 AM

   Anonymous Anonymous said...

          what of one who quits the Torah for love of nonobservant living,
          "departure m'ahavah" (as distinct from a} he who quits for
          fear of missing out on secular living, "departure m'yirah",
          & b} he who simply fizzles)-- would his mitzvos become aveiros?!

          ...mai nafka minah?
          (according to the views that such souls are not cut off
          forever,) the different cheshbons for gilgul, gehinnom, etc.

          11:40 PM

   Anonymous great unknown said...
          I was using R.M. as an example of A's tefillot manipulating
          the bechira of B.

          12:01 AM

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

Thursday, July 28, 2011
tefilos on behalf of someone else

Last week [the post above -micha] we touched briefly on the power of one's
tefilos to affect another person's ruchniyus. The Maor Va'Shemesh writes
that even those who did join in the physical battle against Midyan shared
responsibility for the soldiers' hirhurei avirah during battle. Why are
those who remained behind responsible for the aveiros of the soldiers?
Because had they been davening better for the soldiers' success, there
would not have been aveiros!

We find the same idea in this week's parsha. One who murders b'shogeg
must remain in a city of refuge until the death of the kohen gadol. The
Mishna says that the mothers of the kohanim used to deliver food to
these refugees so they wouldn't daven for the death of their children.
What did the kohanim do wrong to deserve this? The gemara explains that
they should have davened that there be no killings on their watch (see
Maharal, Gur Aryeh, on Rashi 35:25!)

(Parenthetically, the Targum Yonasan says the K.G. should have davened
for this on Yom Kippur, opening the door to the question of why a K.G.
appointed after Y.K. who dies before the next Y.K. responsible. I'm not
so bothered if the details of derush don't match the halacha 100%, but
see the notes in the Gan Ravah which discusses this.)

Another example: The gemara (Brachos 10) tells us that Brurya told her
husband, R' Meir, that rather than pray for the demise of the sinners
in the neighborhood, he should daven that they do teshuvah.

Question: Hakol b'yedei shamayim chutz m'yiras shamayim - commitment
and belief must be arrived at through free will, bechira chofshis. How
then can one person's tefilos influence whether another person will do
teshuvah, will do aveiros or mitzvos?

There are two basic approaches to the issue:

1) Tefilah has an indirect effect. Most of the meforshim I have seen
take this approach. Bechira does not take place in a vacuum. There are
always obstacles which prevent us from being truly free to make any
choices we like. Temptation, a lack of ability to focus on what is
important, jobs and stress which sap energy and concentration all tilt
the scale. Another person's tefilah cannot cause me to choose to do the
right thing, but it can cause Hashem to remove some of the obstacles
that might be preventing me from framing the issue properly and being
truly free to choose.

2) Tefilah has a direct effect. This approach is developed by R'
Dessler in Michtav m'Eliyahu. Every cheit in effect is a chilul Hashem,
as it minimizes Hashem's glory in the world. Onesh is not punitive or
vindictive, but rather is meant to restore that glory to its proper
place by showing that those who act improperly suffer consequences. But
what if Hashem's glory could be restored in some other way? That's
exactly what happens when someone else is inspired to daven for a
chotei. Instead of sin desecrating G-d's name, sin becomes a vehicle
for people to draw close to Hashem.

There seems to be differences in the way this idea is presented in
different essays in Michtav. In my simplified version the chotei
escapes punishment because the chilul Hashem he/she caused is rectified
in some other way, namely by arousing tefilos of others. In other
places R'Dessler seems to stress that tefilah must also impact the
chotei. By becoming aware that he/she has served as an inspiration to
tefilah, the chotei him/herself is inspired to do better. In yet other
places Michtav relates this idea to his concept of nekudas habechira.
We do not actively engage in choosing every action we do. Most of what
we do is by rote and habit - e.g. I did not really have to exercise my
bechira chofshis in deciding not to eat treif for lunch today. On the
other hand, someone who is used to eating a Big Mac for lunch and then
becomes a ba'al teshuvah may really have to exercise bechira and choose
to not go down that road again. Which situations require active bechira
varies by person. Somehow tefilah can change someone's nekudas
habechira so they are not forces to choose how to act in scenarios that
might trip them up. I'm not clear on how this works or how it fits
together with the other points R' Dessler makes.

Along similar lines as this topic, Chassidishe seforim in many places
mention that a tzadik has the power to elevate tefilos of others even
where those tefilos are inadequate or would otherwise be rejected (one
example: see Tiferes Shlomo, Parshas Pinchas, on "Vayakreiv Moshe es
mishpatan...:) I don't fully understand how this works. How can someone
else help my tefilos do their job if the words are undeserving? Maybe
somebody can explain it.

Chaim Manaster asked

> can you explain why a small nick in the veshet produces a traifa (which will not survive 12 months)
> whereas it won't in the koneh unless it is rov

It can difficult to relate rabbinic rules on what constitutes traifa
to our understanding of pathophysiology but let me venture the
following:

A nick in the trachea is only going to harm the animal if it allows
blood and fluid into the trachea which runs down into the lungs. If it
allows air into the trachea that is not a problem, it is a normal
function of the trachea to transmit air to the lungs and indeed in a
tracheotomy an incision is made in the trachea precisely for this
purpose. At any rate I would guess that even a large nick in the
trachea will not kill an animal unless there is significant damage to
blood vessels. I frequently take fine needle aspiration cytology
specimens from the thyroid gland. Very occasionally the needle can
enter the trachea. This does not cause any ill effects and the patient
usually does not notice.

The problem with even a small nick in the oesophagus is that it can
lead to life threatening infection in the surrounding tissue. Ruptured
oesophagus is a serious medical emergency.

Alan Rubin

I happened accross a curious Ramban recently (Parshas Shlah, ed. Chavel, 
p. 242):" God, who knows the future, commanded him to send one man from 
each tribe of Israel, and that they be leaders, because God wanted all 
of the aristocrats (gedolim) to share equally in this matter, so that 
maybe they would remember and return to God (ulay yizkru v'yashuvu el 
hashem)."

But doesn't that last clause imply that God didn't know the future here? 
The naive reading of this passage is that the Ramban agrees, if you'll 
pardon the anachronism, with the Ralbag, who says that God can't know 
all the details of the future because that would deny human free will.

Is there somewhere else where the Ramban makes his position clear?

David Riceman

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 36: 10 - 12

10 As God had commanded Moshe, so did the daughters of Tzelafchad do.

11 Machlah, Tirtzah, Choglah, Milkah and No'ah, the daughters of 
Tzelafchad, became wives to the sons of their uncles.

12 They became wives to [men] from the families of the sons of 
Menashe, son of Yosef, and so their inheritance remained in the tribe 
of their paternal families.

ka'asher tziva ... Scripture recounts that all the daughters of 
Tzelafchad married
within the tribe of their father, in accordance with the instruction that
had been given to them. This confirms the interpretation cited above on
verse 6, that this instruction was given only as "good advice," and had they
decided on a different choice they would have suffered no loss and would
not have been acting against the law. They, however, chose in consideration
of the national interest, and this was reckoned to their credit.

When the first generation that entered the Land had died, the limitation
on marriages between the tribes was lifted, and the national authority
of the Torah announced this on chamisha assor B'Av, the fifteenth of Av.
This yom sh'hutaru shevatim lavo zeh b'zeh  was established as a 
permanent holiday,
on which popular festivities were held (Bava Basra 121a).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110801/a556a592/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=3945

Rosh Chodesh Av - A Seudah With Meat?

There are various Minhagim when to begin not eating meat before Tisha 
B'Av.  Some say we stop eating meat as far back as 17 Tammuz.  Some 
don't even meat on Shabbos during the nine days.  The minhag of 
Ashkenazim is not to eat meat starting from Rosh Chodesh Av.  What 
about  Seudas Rosh Chodesh itself when there is a minhag to eat a 
fleishig seuda?

The Maharil and the Seder HaYom (from the times of the Arizal) both 
say that we do not eat meat even for the Seudas Rosh Chodesh.  The 
reason, says the Seder HaYom is that we eat meat on Rosh Chodesh 
because, as the first day of the new month, it is a day of 
Simcha.  Not so Rosh Chodesh Av which is a month of Puranus, 
troubles.  Also it is the day that Aharon HaKohen was niftar.  This 
is also the opinion of the Arizal in Shaar HaKavanos.

However the Shiyarei Knesess HeGedola writes that the minhag in 
Turkey, at the time, was to eat meat and drink wine during the Rosh 
Chodesh Seudah, even in Av.  This is also the opinion of the 
Chida.  The Toras Chaim says that if it is your minhag to 
consistently eat a celebratory seudah with meat and wine each Rosh 
Chodesh, you should do so on  Rosh Chodesh Av as well.  The Darkei 
Chaim V'Shalom takes this a step further and says you should only eat 
meat if you are noheg like the Talmidei Baal Shem Tov and make a 
public seudah every Rosh Chodesh.  (See Minhag Yisroel Torah 551:6)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110801/73ca3753/attachment-0001.htm>

It seems that in the Y-mi, shikhrur avadim is a good thing. See Pesachim
2:2, vilna 15a. There is a mishnah that says that a Jew who uses chameitz
as collateral for Pesach to secure a loan from a non-Jew may not use
the chameitz after Pesach. Collateral does not sufficiently remove it
from his reshus, and so he violated bal yeira'eh.

However, when it comes to freeing an eved, Rav says either the owner or
the lender could free the eved, and R' Yochanan holds only the owner. So,
the gemara cites that mishnah as a question on Rav. R' Yudan [ie Yehudah]
answers that "qal hu beshikhrur". And he quotes another mishnah: Someone
who makes his slave a security -- if [the borrower] sells him, he is
not sold, if he frees him, the [slave] is not freed.

Freeing a slave is a value which motivates a qulah.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 1/08/2011 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> It seems that in the Y-mi, shikhrur avadim is a good thing. See Pesachim
> 2:2, vilna 15a.

I'm using the version at: http://mechon-mamre.org/b/r/r2302.htm which
appears almost identically at http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/r/r3504.htm
(daf 23b).  Does this differ from the version in front of you?


> There is a mishnah that says that a Jew who uses chameitz
> as collateral for Pesach to secure a loan from a non-Jew may not use
> the chameitz after Pesach. Collateral does not sufficiently remove it
> from his reshus, and so he violated bal yeira'eh.


> However, when it comes to freeing an eved, Rav says either the owner or
> the lender could free the eved, and R' Yochanan holds only the owner. So,
> the gemara cites that mishnah as a question on Rav.

1. It's a braisa (in psachim it's abbreviated as "mtny'", but in gittin
it's spelled out in full as "masnisa").

2. It says the opposite; the Jew is the lender and the goy is the borrower;
the chametz originally belongs to the goy, and the mishnah says it remains
permitted.  Therefore this would seem to prove R Yochanan's position, that
collateral belongs to the original owner, not to the lender.



> R' Yudan [ie Yehudah] answers that "qal hu beshikhrur". And he quotes
> another mishnah: Someone who makes his slave a security -- if [the
> borrower] sells him, he is not sold, if he frees him, the [slave] is
> not freed.


1. If he frees him he *is* freed.  At least in the version I'm looking at.
2. The borrower?!  Surely the lender.


> Freeing a slave is a value which motivates a qulah.

What?!  How did you jump to *that* conclusion?  Seriously, how do you
see any sort of value statement in R Yudan's answer?  It's not there in
the words.  Nor is it supported by any of the following discussion.  And
of course it contradicts an explicit

Also, how is this a kulah?  It's easy on the slave, but hard on the lender!
I see nothing on the page about leniency, merely a value-free statement
that an eved is easy to free.  That's just like saying nitroglycerin is
easy to explode; that's neither a kulah nor a chumrah, but merely a neutral
statement of fact.  Were you misled by the word "kal"?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 05:50:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Freeing a slave is a value which motivates a qulah.
>
> What?!  How did you jump to *that* conclusion?  Seriously, how do you
> see any sort of value statement in R Yudan's answer? ...

Because we don't make exceptions to the rule to enable things we don't
want done.

...
> Also, how is this a kulah?  It's easy on the slave, but hard on the lender!
> I see nothing on the page about leniency, merely a value-free statement
> that an eved is easy to free...

The word on the page is "qal".

-Micha

On 1/08/2011 10:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 05:50:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Freeing a slave is a value which motivates a qulah.
>>
>> What?!  How did you jump to *that* conclusion?  Seriously, how do you
>> see any sort of value statement in R Yudan's answer? ...
>
> Because we don't make exceptions to the rule to enable things we don't
> want done.

What exception?!  Where do you see an  exception?!



>> Also, how is this a kulah?  It's easy on the slave, but hard on the lender!
>> I see nothing on the page about leniency, merely a value-free statement
>> that an eved is easy to free...
>
> The word on the page is "qal".

Yes.  What has that got to do with "qulah", other than deriving from the
same shoresh?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:55:10AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Because we don't make exceptions to the rule to enable things we don't
>> want done.

> What exception?!  Where do you see an  exception?!

That's the whole point of the answer. We can't ask a question from an
eved to chameitz bepesach, because the case of shikhrur eved is a special
qulah. And the gemara notes that in fact the collateral holder doesn't
have enough baalus to sell the eved, which is the norm we can compare
to the lack of baalus over the chameitz.

>>> Also, how is this a kulah?  It's easy on the slave, but hard on the lender!
>>> I see nothing on the page about leniency, merely a value-free statement
>>> that an eved is easy to free...

>> The word on the page is "qal".

> Yes.  What has that got to do with "qulah", other than deriving from the
> same shoresh?

Bavli Aramaic uses "qulah", the Y-mi dialect uses "qal".

Similar logic is found on Taanis 4:1 (18b) where the Y-mi also dismisses
a comparison between two cases by saying that one is a special qulah,
"qal hiqilu alav mipenei ta'aniso".

Here, it's not spelled out in as many words, but clearly from the flow
the same point. As the Qorban haEdah (d"h "qal hu beshikhrur") "hiqhilu
chakhamim beshikhrur, daa"p delo shelo hu legamrei..." And the Penei Moshe
(same d"h), "... shani beshikhrur" -- note, "shani", an exception --
"shehiqilu bo ..."

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The following is a mesorah conversation that I believe really belongs
here. So, without further ado...

-micha

From: *Elazar M. Teitz* <r...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:50 AM

The question of where to stop for sheini when Masei is read alone is
because of those who are of the opinion that ein mafsikin b' massa'os.  The
only reason of which I am aware for this minhag is because of a connection
between the 42 masa'os and the Shen shel mem-beis osiyos, which should not
be divided.

However, Masei only lists 41 masa'os. The 33 p'sukim from 33:5 through
33:37 each contain one massa, starting in Ram'seis and ending in Hor Hahar,
and the 8 p'sukim from 33:41 through 33:48 each contain one, from Hor Hahat
to Arvos Moav.  I assume that the forty-second was the crossing of the
Yardein.  If so, since even reading them in one aliya will not equal 42, why
the insistence on it?

I am not arguing against the minhag; indeed, it is the minhag in our
k'hilla (although not in the Gra shul in Sha'arei Chesed, as I discovered
this Shabbos). I'm just trying to understand it.

EMT

----------
From: *Micha Berger* <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:18 AM

... and as far as I can tell oriiginates with the Baal Shem Tov. Which
would explain why the Gra shul doesn't follow this minhag, but makes
it interesting that Elizabeth does -- and, for that matter, that the
MB advocates it.

From: *Areivim* <arei...@sba2.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:04 AM

RMB:
> ... and as far as I can tell oriiginates with the Baal Shem Tov.

First source is Tzeror Hamor (quoted by the Mageb Avrohom 428:8) which
was one of the meguroshei Sfard in 1492 another is the Rema miPano also
over 400 years ago. (also Noheg katzon Yosef) So well before the Basht.

Nice suggestion - but incorrect.

BTW the PYH asks beshem "Ari bemistorim" (no idea) how come the maso'os of
parshas Chukas are not listed here?

SBA

----------
From: *R. Rich Wolpoe* <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:43 AM

another is the Rema miPano also over 400 years ago?

Rema miFano. [The A is for ayyin]
Shalom, RRW

----------
From: *Poppers, Michael* <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

RSBA replied to REMT:
> However, Masei only lists 41 masa'os. The 33 p'sukim from 33:5 through
> 33:37 each contain one massa, starting in Ram'seis and ending in Hor Hahar,
> and the 8 p'sukim from 33:41 through 33:48 each contain one, from Hor Hahar
> to Arvos Moav.  I assume that the forty-second was the crossing of the
> Yardein.  If so, since even reading them in one aliya will not equal 42, why
> the insistence on it?

Perhaps another answer: there are 42 "vayis'u"s...and before anyone says
that Ra'm'seis would accordingly be counted twice, see Ba'al haTurim on 33:3
re why "b'nei Yisrael" are only mentioned the 2nd time she"yis'u
meiRa'm'seis."

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

----------
From: *Areivim* <arei...@sba2.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Addendum: Divrei Yoel al HaTorah (by the SR zt'l) asks this (plus another
15-20 questions on this topic).

And BTW, he mention sthat the meforshei rashi also ask this question..

1) There are only 41 maso'os mentioned and 2) "Vaysu meRaamses is mentioned
twice. Why?

One of his explanations is citing the Targum Yonoson on 'Vo'eso es'chem al
kanfei nesharim' - that the clouds carried the bnei yisroel from
Raamses to the makom hamikdash where they ate the korban Pesach and then
returned them to Raamses.

Therefore there were actully 2 maso'os leaving Raamses - making a total of
42 maso'os.
==
And I have found who the Ari bemistorim is.
Written by a son of the late Gerrer rebbe [the Pnei Menachem], Reb Yehuda
Aryeh Alter z'l (SIL of RM Klein) who was tragically killed in a traffic
accident many years ago.

BTW the DY also writes: "raui lehavin mi nasan shemos lemekomos
halalu...midbar tziyeh ushemama, velo avar bo ish me'olom..."

SBA

------------------------------
From: ** <T6...@aol.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:10 AM
To: meso...@lists.aishdas.org

This gets off Mesorah material, but I am sure that there were many
travelers in the desert, caravans that passed through, and they named
the places where they could rest, probably oases and wadis that had
water in the winter. The Sinai is not all endless sand like the Sahara.
There are many desert plants and animals there, and Bedouins, and in the
Middle Ages, several monasteries. An interesting short article about
the Sinai: http://www.sharksbay.com/new/english/TheSinaiDesert.html

"The Sinai desert is the natural land bridge between Africa and Asia and,
with its unique dramatic landscape and the fascinating culture of the
Bedouins, is one of the most impressive areas of the world"

--Toby*

------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:18 AM

> This gets off Mesorah material, but I am sure that there were many
> travelers in the desert, caravans that passed through, and they named the
> places where they could rest, probably oases and wadis that had water in the
> winter.  The Sinai is not all endless sand like the Sahara.

You were apparently not listening that carefully to last week's haftorah.
See Yirmiya 2:6; the Gemara also learns from this pasuk that anyplace
that Adam Harishon determined should be settled, was, and vice versa.
The implication is that Midbar Sinai was a complete wasteland.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

------------------------------
From: <T6...@aol.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:33 AM

In a message dated 8/2/2011 9:20:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gershon.du...@juno.com writes:
> You were apparently not listening that carefully to last week's haftorah.
> See Yirmiya 2:6;  the Gemara also learns from this pasuk that anyplace that
> Adam Harishon determined should be settled, was, and vice versa.  The
> implication is that Midbar Sinai was a complete wasteland.

 But it is */not/* a complete wasteland.

You could just say the Gemara is wrong, or I guess you could try to find a
different understanding of what a "wasteland" means here.


It is not settled territory and would not support farms and cities, but it
supports travelers, and travelers certainly named oases, springs, mountains
and wadis that they visited as they traveled.

--Toby Katz

The following is from RSRH's essay Av II

"But if you will not hearken unto me and will not do all of these 
Commands and if
you will scorn My Laws, and if your soul will spurn My Judgments so
that all of My Commandments are not carried out, and so that you
renounce My Covenant-"  (Levit. 26, 14-15)

This warning is commented upon in the Sifra as follows; "Many do
not study the Law, but they fulfill it. Concerning these men, this
Scriptural quotation says: 'You will not hearken and you will not do.'
 From this we learn that one who does not study the Law will also not
continue to fulfill it.

"Many neither study the Law nor fulfill it; but they do not scorn
those who fulfill it. Referring to these men, these Scriptural verses say:
'If you will scorn My Laws.' We learn from this that one who neither
studies the Law nor fulfills it will ultimately also scorn those who fulfill
it.

"Many do not study the Law and do not fulfill it, and they also
scorn others who fulfill it; but they do not hate the sages, who teach it.
Concerning them, these verses say: 'and if you will spurn My Judgments-.'
Here we learn that one who neither studies nor fulfills the
Law, and scorns those who fulfill it, will also come to hate the sages,
who teach it.

"Many neither study the Law nor fulfill it, and hate the sages, who
teach it; but they do not oppose the observance of the Law by others.
Concerning them, these Scriptural verses say: '-so that all of My
Commandments are not carried out-.' From this we learn that one
who neither studies the Law nor fulfills it, and scorns those who fulfill
it, and hates the sages who teach it, will ultimately oppose the observance
of the Law by others.

"There are many who neither study the Law nor fulfill it, scorn
those who fulfill it, hate the sages and oppose the fulfillment of the
Law; but they nevertheless acknowledge that the Law was revealed on
Sinai. Concerning this category of people, this Scriptural passage says:
'all of My Commandments.' This is to teach that one who does not
study the Law and does not fulfill it, who scorns those who fulfill it,
who hates those who teach it, and who opposes the observance of it by
others will ultimately deny the entire Revelation of the Law at Sinai.

"A man can have fallen into all of these errors, but so far he might
not have denied the existence of God. Concerning this, the Scriptural
passage concludes with: 'so that you renounce My Covenant.' This
teaches that one who has fallen into all of these errors will ultimately
also deny the existence of God entirely!"

Hence the tradition recorded in the Sifra perceives in the individual
verses of this Scriptural warning the outline for the history of the
development of apostasy against God and His Law, an apostasy which
began innocently but continually grew.

This development passes through the following stages, as explained
in the Sifra: the study of the Law is abandoned; the Law is no longer
fulfilled; those who live according to the Law are scorned; the sages,
who teach the Law, are hated; observance of the Law by others is
~posed; the Divine Revelation is denied; the existence of God is
denied.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110802/5cffa9f9/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 146
***************************************

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..."