Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 158

Wed, 21 Nov 2012

• 1. Re: [Areivim] Giving Tzadakah to Gentiles (was Is he a (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH and the New Religion (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: No "Nishmas" on Hoshanah Rabba (Micha Berger)
• 4. yizkor/ST (saul newman)
• 5. HaKafos (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Taam haMitzvah - Sotah Formula (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: yizkor/ST (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: yizkor/ST (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Taam haMitzvah - Sotah Formula (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: yizkor/ST (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Taam haMitzvah - Sotah Formula (Zev Sero)
• 12. Gerei Toshav (Chana Luntz)
• 13. HaKafos (was HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH etc) (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Insights into Halacha: The Chicken Bone 'N' Cholent Commotion (Prof. Levine)

On 16 November 2012 05:49, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote on
Areivim:
>> On Thu, Nov 15 2012 at 5:43pm, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> quoted:
>> : From http://tinyurl.com/y7bljd
> >: The obligation to give tzedakah includes giving to both Jews and
gentiles.
>
> >This isn't true. The chiyuv of tzedaqay is to give to Jews.
>
> >The chiyuv of pursuing darkhei Shalom requires giving to non-Jews. 
> >(Gitin 61a) Different mitzvah, even if equally obligatory.

And RZS replied also on Areivim:

>No, it doesn't.  I once made this mistake on Avodah, and REMT corrected me.
"Mefarnesin aniyei akum im aniyei yisrael" is *permission*, not an
>obligation.  Without that it would be assur, since it's talking about a
gabai tzedakah, who has raised funds for tzedakah, which this is not. The
gemara >gives him *permission* to expend tzedakah funds for a non-tzedakah
purpose, mipnei
>darkei shalom.   But only "im aniyei yisrael", not on their own.
>And the gemara in Bava Basra says explicitly that the donor whose money was
used for this gets no sechar.

If REMT did indeed say this then, with all due respect, I believe he is
wrong, or at least poskening like minority opinions.  But as this paragraph
involves a whole mixture of matters, let's try and break the assertions in
the above down and then I will try and deal with them one by one:

A) The scenario is "only "im aniyei yisrael", not on their own."

B) "Mefarnesin aniyei akum im aniyei yisrael" is *permission*, not an
obligation.  Without that it would be assur, since it's talking about a
gabai tzedakah, who has raised funds for tzedakah, which this is not.

C) "the gemara in Bava Basra says explicitly that the donor whose money was
used for this gets no sechar."

I will try and deal with each of these in turn:

A) Whether the requirement because of darchei shalom is only "with the poor
of Israel" is a machlokus rishonim.  Rashi indeed holds this way (Gitten 61a
d'h "im meisei Yisrael") as does the Moredechai (Gitten siman 464), and
according to the Bach (Yoreh Deah siman 151 si'if 11) so does the Rambam
(although others disagree regarding the Rambam, see eg Shiurei Korban
Yerushalmi Gitten perek 5 halacha 9).

However, the Ran (al haRif Gitten 28a), the Nemukei Yosef, the Rashba
(Chiddushei HaRashba Gitten 61a), the Ritva (Chiddishei haRitva Gitten 61a),
the Bach himself, the Shach ( Yoreh Deach siman 151 si'if katan 19) Taz
(Yoreh Deah siman 151 si'if katan 9) and the Biurei HaGra (Yoreh Deah siman
151 si'if katan 20) hold to the contrary, that even not "im Yisrael" the din
applies.  And so rules the Aruch HaShulchan in Yoreh Deah siman 251 si'if
13.  It is not surprising therefore that the Cheshukei Hemed (Brachos 12b)
describes this position as that of "rov haposkim".

B) Whether you say "Mefarnesin aniyei akum im aniyei yisrael" is
*permission*, not an obligation somewhat depends on what you mean -
regarding obligation of tzedaka in general - there are two aspects - there
is the obligation to give if somebody in front of you puts out their hand
and there is the overall obligation to give tzedaka in general, which does
not mandate any particular tzedaka Jewish or non Jewish, although there are
guidlines and hierachies.

Regarding the first aspect - ie if there is a non Jew in front of you
putting out his hand, I don't know where you get the idea that it is only
permission.  Certainly the Aruch HaShulchan Aruch HaShulchan Yoreh Deah
siman 251 si'if 13 does not read that way.  If you are deriving it from the
words "matir" in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 151 si'if 12 in the laws of
ovdei Avodah zara- then yes, that is a permission given since otherwise
there is a lo Sechaneim problem, but the Rema in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah
laws of Tzedaka siman 251 si'if 1 does not bring the word matir, and I don't
see it in any other context.  If you are in the business of giving out
tzedaka, and a non Jew comes, then you have to give m'pnei darchei shalom.

Is there the mitzvah of tzedaka in such giving?  Well that is less clear -
certainly the Taz Yoreh Deah siman 151 si'if katan 9 doesn't seem to think
so.  However the Cheshukei Chemed Brachos 12b held that where it is good to
give tzedaka before tephila, then according to the position of the Rov
Haposkim cited above, giving to non Jews is also within that category.  And
in Cheshukei Chemed Gitten 61a he again appears to hold (after outlining the
two positions ie that of Rashi et all and that of the others very briefly)
that if somebody made a neder to give tzedaka he does fulfil his neder by
giving to a tzedaka box in a hospital which was meyuchad gam l'nochrim (he
even seems to suggest that it fulfils the mitzvah of tzedaka d'orisa).
There are other sources that seem to point the same way, although less
clearly.

That there is some mitzvah involved, at least rabbinic, would seem to be
clear from Tosphos Shabbat 19a that the reason one can give a non Jew food
on Shabbas is due to the obligation imposed by the Chachamim mpnei darchei
shalom, making his sustenance up to a point upon us (unlike wild animals) -
so as to allow violation of rabbinic prohibitions, albeit not Torah
prohibitions.

C) I don't see where you see that the gemora in Baba Basra says that the
donor whose money is used for this gets no schar - although it might be
derived that there is less schar - at least to a non Jewish donor, than if
distributed to the poor of Israel - see 10b-11a.  If in fact there was no
schar, then there should have been no problem taking the donation of Ifra
Hermiz, and no need to bring in the concept of shalom malchus, since giving
to non Jews would always be a solution. Note that the Binyan Zion (Shut
Binyan Tzion siman 85) has a fascinating hiluk based on this  gemora in
which he holds that the issue vis a vis schar is whether one gives out of
rachmonos for the poor person (lower level, generating embarrassment in the
poor person) or whether one gives out of a knowledge that one has only been
given one's own wealth by HKBH so as to be able to pass on an amount to
which the poor is entitled (higher level, where the poor will not be
embarrassed knowing that in fact what he is getting is what HKBH determined
for him anyway, just that it comes via another).  He used this chiluk to
allow the acceptance of charity monies raised from non Jews as part of an
appeal for the Jewish poor in Eretz Yisrael on the grounds that these were
given based on the lower level of rachmonos and hence acceptable (in the
process he rejects various chilukim of the Taz which at least implicitly
rejects the position of the Tazthat I refer to above).

This is of course completely separate to the discussion of Darchei Shalom as
a separate type of l'chatchila mitzvah based on v'hayashar v'hatov which you
can layer on top of all this, as RMB has indicated.

>Zev Sero
>z...@sero.name

Regards

Chana

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:43:06PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: I see a pattern here, and the pattern applies in many other cases as
: well. For example, the great majority of the original Jewish immigrants
: to the US were of Sefardi minhagim; it is my understanding that the very
: first small numbers of Ashkenazi immigrants had no problem assimilating
: into that, but their numbers eventually reached a "critical mass",
: at which point the new ones simply established their own kehilos with
: their own minhagim.

... and the Sepharadim had assimilated to the point that there wasn't
an observant community to join.

: Rightly or wrongly, "minhag avos" beat out "minhag hamakom".

I think that's the implication from the sugyos in Maqom sheNahagu
(Pesachim pereq 4). Minhag primarily means minhag hamaqom. One keeps one's
minhag hamaqom until one is in a maqom that has a different minhag. (What
it takes to be in a new place is one of the key open questions behind
the question of whether a tourist observes YT sheini shel goliyos.)

The shifting of populations has taken on a new speed, so that people
are moving around at rates that few communities stay still long enough
to develop minhagim. Y-m has a few minhagim particular to itself, but
there aren't that many other such examples.

Which has created a situation in which people hold on to their old
minhagim for generations. Minhag avos, what was once a stopgap for people
moving to places that have no real community, has ended up dominating. Not
because we changed the rules of minhag, but because we live in a very
different world.

...
: Examples of this would include Chassidic practices being adopted in
: the Litvish world, such as pronunciation long ago, wearing of a kittel
: more recently, and upsheren even more recently. Also: Prof. Levine
: mentioned how the minhagei haGra became widespread in Eretz Yisrael,
: but in the last few decades I see them frequenly in Chu"l as well
: (such as omitting Tefillin on ChH"M, adding Morid HaTal in the summer,
: and saying HAshalom in Kaddish during AYT).

This is a different issue, secondary to the notion of minhag avos trumping
minhag hamaqom.

There is no real minhag unifying a qehillah. Concommitantly is also a
"tzom ... lishmoa es divrei Hashem" Or to put it less charitably,
Rupture and Reconstruction <http://www.lookstein.org/links/orthodoxy.htm>
closes:
    ... [R]eligious Jews seek to ground their new emerging spirituality
    less on a now unattainable intimacy with Him, than on an intimacy
    with His Will, avidly eliciting Its intricate demands and saturating
    their daily lives with Its exactions. Having lost the touch of His
    presence, they seek now solace in the pressure of His yoke.

People are seeking ways to feel more religious, more spiritual. Thus,
minhagim that come with explanations, be they Chassidishe ones or those
recorded in Maaseh Rav or explained by the CC in the MB, have grown
more popular.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:00am IST, RMS wrote:
:> Usually when we enlarge Pesuqei Dezimra, we add Nishmas before
:> Yishtabach. So, after saying more praise than usual, we end by
:> admitting that "ilu shiru malei shirah kayam" there is no way we
:> could have added enough.

:> Nice thought, but... How then do we justify Hashanah Rabba, where
:> we add peraqim of Tehillim, but no such disclaimer?

: That's a question if you assume that the reason you gave is the
: _only_ reason to add Nishmas. If you realize there are _many_ more
: reasons, then the question doesn't start.

I would think the reverse. Any one reason to say Nishmas should be
sufficient, and only if you rule out all of them would it make sense to
omit it.


(I'm reminded of the Gra's shitah on pesaqim made by chazal based on
science we no longer consider accurate. If this means we eliminated their
stated reason lehaqil, we have to be machmir -- because one reason to be
machmir is sufficient. If it means we eliminated one reason lehachmir,
we can't be meiqil -- because maybe other, undocumented, reasons to be
machmir still exist.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

why is  yizkor  on shmini atzeret  in israel  , but not in chu''l?    ie
 why is the pattern of the other  chagim different than here  ? is it due
to the levity of  simchat tora?   or are the other  two days  [ 8th of
pesach and  2nd of  shavuot]  given yizkor  because there is no other
 commemoration going on?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121120/afd199e0/attachment-0001.htm>

At 08:33 AM 11/20/2012, Ben Waxman wrote:

>If the three year cycle minhag ended in the 12th century and haqafot
>started in the 16th, then the two have nothing to do with each other.
Some Simchas Torah observances go back to the Middle Ages.   Even 
though there were no Hakofos as we know them today,  other things 
were done,  such as "dressing up" the Sefer Torah,  burning incense 
in front of the Torah,  and completing the reading of the Torah in 
Galus on Simchas Torah.

What I am referring to when I mean the celebration of Simchas 
Torah,  and I admit that I was not so clear before,  is the 
completion of the Torah yearly.  This was not done in EY and was done 
in Galus.  So my question is, "Why wasn't the triennial cycle 
reestablished in EY when the Jews returned to EY?"

All of this is in Ya'ari's book that I referred to before.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121120/49b00e32/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:55:20PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: The Y-mi Sotah 2:2 (vilna daf 10b) gives this explanation for the recipe
: for Mei Sotah (translation mine):
:     And why water and dirt?
:     Water -- from where she came.
:     Dirt -- to where she is going.
:     Writing -- before Whom she is destined to give [self-]judgement and
:     accounting.
...

I said yesterday I'd let the chevrah enjoy the thought. Now for what
I'm working on...

What do we suggest is the connection between Aqavia ben Mehalalel's 3
things and the mitzvah of sotah? It's not inevitable that a woman given
water with text dissolved in it and dirt floating on top is going to think
"Oy, I came from liquid, I'm going to the grave, and my soul will have
to stand in judgment -- what am I doing?" So how to we understand this
mitzvah makes this ta'am manifest?

I see a scale of various possibilities, each of the following options
overlaps with those immediately before and after it:

1- One could suggest it's mystical. The ingredients move kochos in higher
olamos. I'm too much of a rationalist to find refuge in it as a general
approach; I don't see how mysticism's emotional charge through realizing
one is confronting something greater than the human mind provide me
with a ta'am. It seems more like saying the ta'am is out of reach.

But regardless of general approach, how would it work when the ta'am
hamitzvah is so blatantly placed in cognative terms -- "histakel", "da
mei'ayin"?

2- There are levels of the soul which reach above those we are aware
of. Thus, the sotah's soul can be moved by impressions on a level her
conscious mind does not realize.

I'm thinking of those who apply this idea to davening, by someone
who doesn't understand the siddur. The idea that the person's soul
understands the Hebrew they are saying even if they are unaware of it,
and thus it still has value.

3- It needn't be a lofty, otherworldly explanation, once we invoke
unconscious processes. It could be that the person is shaped by
associations even if they are unaware of those associations.

It could be that water, dirt and scripture are Jungian symbols that have
inherent meaning just based on the unchanging elements of the human
condition, and thereby psychologically shape a person in ways they
don't realize.

4- RSRH's position is that mitzvos involve communication
from the RSBO via symbols. RSRH acknowledges natural symbols
(tears and laughter) as well as those established by convention.
See http://books.google.com/books?id=_821HGqz74QC&;pg=RA2-PA3 pp 3
onward. (A chunk is missing from the preview, though.) About those base
on convention, he gives a list of symbols and a variety of their possible
meanings, then writes (pg 12):
    We can gain clarity about all these queries only if we first seek
    to establish, independently of the pictorial representation, the
    intention of the one who executred the picture, and the context of
    time and place in which the picture originated.

    Indeed, depending on him who devised it, and on the person to whom it
    is addressed, one and the same symbol or symbolic act may represent
    to diametically opposed concepts.

The problem I have with this, which eventually alienated me from my
earlier love of Horeb, is that symbols are only of value to those who are
aware of them. Anyone who isn't aware of Hirschian Symbology would get
next to nothing out of performing most of the mitzvos. Expecially the osos
and edios, which are symbols established by HQBH or that reflect events
of history, rather than innate symbols self-evident to all people. It
would mean that the vast majority of shomerei Torah umitzvos left the
world with souls little changed by all that observance, because they
didn't have the symbology key.

So how would /you/ understand the association given in the gemara?

Personally, I believe #2 and #3, with the caveat that in my own
idiosyncratic metaphysics, there is no difference between forces in
higher olamos and more abstract ideas and ideals. IOW, the olamos are
"just" levels of abstraction acendinging from the physical to HQBH's Will
to Give. And thus #2 and #3 only differ in language, and differ from #1
in asserting (as the Nefesh haChaim cheleq 1 does) that the human soul
is the thing (RCV says it's the only thing) that connects the olamos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:26:05PM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: why is yizkor on shmini atzeret in israel, but not in chu"l? ie
: why is the pattern of the other chagim different than here? is it due
: to the levity of simchat tora?...

That was my understanding.
Yizkor is on SA rather that ST, breaking the convention of it being on yom
tov sheini, because people get too lightheaded on Simchas Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 20 November 2012 15:26, saul newman <newman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why is  yizkor  on shmini atzeret  in israel  , but not in chu''l?

It *is* on Shmini Atzeret in chu"l.


> why is the pattern of the other  chagim different than here  ?

Ah, so your question is why is it not on the last day.  The answer is
that it's not  triggered by the last day of yomtov, it's triggered by the
reading of "ish kematnat yado", which happens to be read on the
last days of Pesach and Shavuot, but the first day of Shmini Atzeret.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 19 November 2012 12:55, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The Y-mi Sotah 2:2 (vilna daf 10b) gives this explanation for the recipe
> for Mei Sotah (translation mine):
>     And why water and dirt?
>     Water -- from where she came.
>     Dirt -- to where she is going.
>     Writing -- before Whom she is destined to give [self-]judgement
>     and accounting.

I saw this in Mesech Chochma last year and didn't realise he was
quoting a Y'mi.

("Writing" meaning of course *this* writing, which is His Name, not
the concept of writing in general.)


> In all of the final quote, "you" is "at", lashon neqeivah. They are
> quoted as though still speaking of the sotah.

Isn't that just Aramaic?  The rest of their words are in the masculine.
"Mimakom shebata", not "shebat"; "lemakom she'at holech", not
"holechet"; "she'at atid", not "atida".   So I don't see how the mere
use of "at" means Akavia is talking to the sotah.  After all, the pasuk
they say he got it from isn't talking to a sotah.


> I included this derashah because RAbRP, RYdS and R' Levi turn AbM's
> thought into being about three aspects of our relationship to the
> RBSO. Rather than leaving "mei'yin basa, ule'an ata holeikh" as issues
> of self image without direct relationship to G-d. Anavah is not "ich
> bin gornisht", it's "Compared to the One in Whose 'Tzelem' I was created
> and the potential He gave me, ich bin gornisht."

Nice thought, but how do you see it in their words?  How are their
words inconsistent with the plain and most obvious reading?


-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 20 November 2012 17:26, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:26:05PM -0800, saul newman wrote:
> : why is yizkor on shmini atzeret in israel, but not in chu"l? ie
> : why is the pattern of the other chagim different than here? is it due
> : to the levity of simchat tora?...
>
> That was my understanding.
> Yizkor is on SA rather that ST, breaking the convention of it being on yom
> tov sheini, because people get too lightheaded on Simchas Torah.

But in EY they do say it on ST, and it does seem incongruous to me
to say Yizkor and Geshem after hakafos and at a time when the
cohanim are presumed to be in no state to duchen, but they do it.
That they say it without "ish kematnas yado" is understandable:
they never read that parsha (except of course on Shabbos P' Re'eh)
and yet Ashkenazi olim didn't want to give up yizkor, so they say it
anyway, on as close as they can get to the traditional day.  But if
the ST frame of mind is incompatible with it then Bnei EY should
have moved it to the first days, or to Shabbos ChM.  This says to me
that the reason Bnei ChuL say it on ShA is not because it was
moved from ST, but because SA is the correct day for it, because
it's when we read "ish kematnas yodo".


-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 20 November 2012 17:22, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> It's not inevitable that a woman given
> water with text dissolved in it and dirt floating on top is going to think
> "Oy, I came from liquid, I'm going to the grave, and my soul will have
> to stand in judgment -- what am I doing?" So how to we understand this
> mitzvah makes this ta'am manifest?

Like any symbolism except the most blatant, to be understood it
needs to be explained.  Bepashtus it's explained to her at the time,
just as so many other things are explained to her ("my daughter,
youth does much, drink does much, bad friends do much", etc.,
or the fact that she can confess and walk away with no penalty).


-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 18 November 2012 08:22, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Is it possible to have a ger toshav today?

And RZS replied:

>No.
>http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5114.htm#7

That is the Rambam, namely:

???"? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?
???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????, ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??
????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????.

Or my rough translation (in English):

Rambam Hilchot Issurei Biah Perek 14 halacha 8
And we do not accept a ger toshav except in the time when the Jubilee
applies, but today, even if he accepts upon himself all of the torah except
for one small part, we do not accept him.

But the Ra'avid writes there:

???? ????"?
??? ???? ?????? ???? ???'. ??? ????"? ?"? /?"?/ ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???
???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????
???? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????
??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????"? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??
??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????
????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?"? ?? ???
????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????
???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???
????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???
????? ??? ??? ??"?.+                     

Commentary of the Ra?avid on Rambam Hilchot Issurei Biah Perek 14 halacha 8
This opinion of the author [the Rambam] is obscure and closed and he does
not explain from where we do not accept a ger toshav except at a time when
the Jubilee applies. But what are these commandments of a ger toshav, that
we do not settle him in the middle of a city as is learnt out in the Sifrei
?with you he shall live and not in the city itself? and the commandment to
sustain him as it is written and your brother shall live with you, and he
acquires an Hebrew servant like a non Jew, and these are the commandments
that do not apply except in the time that the Jubilee applies and there is
in them leniencies and there is in them stringencies because in a time where
then Jubilee does not apply he may dwell even in the city itself because
there is no holiness of the land on it as there was, and he acquires a
Hebrew servant until the time he wants, and there is no time that is
specified, and these are those that are leniencies, but  we are not
commanded to sustain him and this a stringency, and the matter is close to
the reason, because in the time of the Juubilee the land rests and he is
able to earn a living without troubling the community and now we are not
able to fulfil it, and one who  makes a condition that he will not be
circumcised, and will not be immersed in a mikvah it is like he wants in all
times.
???? ????? ???? ??: ??
?"? ???? - ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????
?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???"?. ????? ????"? ??"? ???' ?????? ???? ????
?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? [?]
?"? ?' ??? ?? ???? ?"? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????"? ?? ????
?"? ??"?:

Mishna Brura Siman 304:24
A complete non Jew: - but if he accepts upon himself the seven mitzvos
behold he is a ger toshav and it is forbidden for him to do work for a Jew
even for one who is not his master and so it seems to me.  And see in the
Rambam perek 14 from Hilchos Issurei Biah that we do not accept a ger toshav
today when there is no Yovel and so a slave who does not want to accept upon
himself only the seven like a ger toshav also we do not accept him in a time
when the Yovel does not apply and the Ra?avid there disagrees on this.

Note that the Mishna Brura is commenting on the Shulchan Aruch headed "On
which servant is he commanded on his resting" - because based on the two
psukim that mention ger (Shemos 23:12 and Devarim 5:13) Yevamos 48b derives
that the ger referred to in Shemos is a ger toshav, ie one is not permitted
to ask one's servant, who has accepted upon himself the seven mitzvos bnei
noach, to do melacha for you, nor similarly ask a ger toshav - ie amira
l'ger toshav is an issur d'orisa.

Note that Rashi in Meseches Arachin seems to hold like the Ra'avad:

??"? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?
??? ?? ???? ???? ? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????
????? ?????? ????? ??????


Rashi Meseches Arachin 29a
[The laws of] ger toshav do not apply: which is that Yisrael is commanded to
sustain him, the ger toshav who accepts upon himself not to worship idols
and he eats nevelos.

But note this is complicated by the fact that Rashi in Yevamos 48b holds
that a ger toshav is required to keep shabbas himself (ie the prohibition is
not just on amira l'ger toshav) - "because to  be mechallel shabbas is like
idol worship".  However Tosphos there on Yevamos 48b (d@h "ze ger toshav")
and in Krisus 9a (d'h "ger toshav") strongly disagrees and holds it is only
a prohibition on amira l'ger toshav, which is generally the position taken
in siman 304 in Orech Chaim of the Shulchan Aruch.

The irony of all this is that the State of Israel relies a lot on non Jewish
labour on shabbas, and if in fact some or all of those are indeed gerei
toshav, then there are potentially issurei d'orisa involved in the whole
affair, because many of the exceptions allowed under amira l'akum (because
it is just d'rabbanan) do not apply when the issur is a d'orisa one - see
again SA Orech Chaim siman 304.  But on the other hand, if you do not
consider them gerei toshav (a la Rav Kook, Rav Hertzog, Rav Uzziel et al),
it is not clear on what basis one is permitted to derive benefit from their
presence in the land, whether on shabbas or not.
-- 
>Zev Sero
>z...@sero.name

Regards

Chana

At 08:22 AM 11/18/2012, R. Ben Waxman wrote:

>>According to Professor Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/TGO7Ip) the minhag of
>>haqafot is relatively late, 16th century. So according to your logic, we
>>should all simply drop it.

Well while hakafos as we know them may be 16th century (not clear), the
minhag of dancing on Simchas Torah in some form goes back to the geonim.
The Beis Yosef in Orech Chaim siman 339:3 in discussing the prohibition on
dancing on shabbas and yom tov notes: "and the Meharik writes in shoresh 9
(unaf 2) in the name of Rabbanu Hai Gaon that on the day of Simchat Torah it
is permitted to dance at the time that they say praises of the torah because
they are accustomed to permit because of honour of the Torah since there is
only in it because of a rabbinical decree".  

Now it is fair to say that as the geonim were in Bavel, and therefore had
the one year cycle, maybe they weren't doing this in places where they had a
three year cycle - but you also have a possible hint in Talmud Bavli Sukkah
48a: "It was taught in a braita:  [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely
joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom
tov haacharon." 

And there appear to be references to special piyutim being said and special
torches (of which people seem to have disapproved) in many sources - so the
evolution from piyutim and dancing to hakafos does not see that far to me.  

>The three year cycle and haqafot are two different issues.


Interestingly, the Sefer Chilukim Ben Bnei Marach v'Ma'arav (which is
believed to date to the geonim) does list that Bene Marach make Simchas
Torah every year and the Bnei Yisrael every three and a half years - it is
not clear to what extent the Simchas Torah refers to hakafos and Simchas
Torah as we know it.

The Abarbanel (who is a bit earlier than the 16th Century) - links it as a
kind if zecher to hakel (See Abarbanel Devarim perek 31) - again, though,
the hakafos aspect may not be there, but that nature of the celebration is.


And RYL notes:

>As far as simply dropping Simchas Torah,  I know of a number of women 
>who would be delighted to see this happen.  They feel that they have 
>no "stake"  in Simchas Torah at all.

This I certainly think is true - and I think it a real problem, a halachic
problem.  Because one of the d'orisa mitzvos of Yom Tov (which includes Yom
Tov acharon shel chag) is of simcha - and it is majority opinion that women
are obligated in simchas yom tov (see Rambam Hichot Hagigah perek 1 halacha
1, Sha'agat Aryeh siman 65, Mishna Brura siman 529:15).  And even if you
hold (unlike the above) that women are not obligated themselves in simchas
yom tov d'orisa (like Rav Zeira holds in Rosh Hashana 6b) but rather like
Abaye there and Kiddushin 34b (see Shut Rabbi Akiva Eiger Orech Chaim siman
1 who is mesupik) then the alternative as ruled by Abaye is not that women
are supposed to have no joy at all, but rather it is the obligation of the
men around her (husband's primarily, but for widows those in her place) to
ensure her joy - in either case (ie Rav Zeira or Abaye) based on an
interpretation of Devarim 16:14-15.

And yet most women I know regard Simchas Torah with emotions that range
between loathing and indifference.  The Taz (Orech Chaim siman 739 si'if
katan 9) suggests in the case of Sukkah that the reason the custom is for a
man not to sleep in the sukkah is because is diminishes the wife's simcha if
the husband does not sleep in the same room as her (the implication being
that the wife's need for simcha overrides a mitzvah d'orisa), but nobody
seems to be grappling with the problem in the case of Simchas Torah.


>This does not mean, of course,  that the observance of the second day 
>of Shemini Atzeres would not continue outside of EY.   They just feel 
>that they have no part in the dancing,  etc.  that takes place on 
>Simchas Torah and would be happy if the men would go to shul and 
>daven as they do on other Yomim Tovim and return home.

Agreed - or alternatively, you need to find ways that women can feel
included in the simcha, but what goes on at the moment is to my mind
extremely problematic halachically.

>YL

Regards

Chana

Approximately thirty-five years ago, several students attending a 
yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael engaged in a typical Shabbos nocturnal 
activity: the raiding of the yeshiva Cholent pot. Yet, as these 
bochurim followed the proper laws of scooping Cholent out from a pot 
on Shabbos, their innocuous actions on this Friday night unwittingly 
sparked a raging halachic firestorm between two of the pre-eminent 
Gedolei HaDor, Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, 
zichronom l'vracha...

Read the Full Article .. 
"<http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5298>The Chicken 
Bone 'N' Cholent Commotion"


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121121/5d0dffbd/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 158
***************************************

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..."