Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 156

Mon, 24 Nov 2014

• 1. Re: man-made climate change (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: heter mechira - lo techanem (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Geirut (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: The Sons of Noach (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Tzarich Iyun: Mayim Achronim (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Is Thanksgiving Kosher (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: Av Harachmim this Shabbat (David and Esther Bannett)
• 8. Re: The Sons of Noach (Zev Sero)
• 9. The Rosh - Commentary on Chumash (Michael Orr)
• 10. Re: oldest sefer torah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Talking to Angels (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: The Sons of Noach (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: heter mechira - lo techanem (Eli Turkel)
• 14. jacobs ladder (Eli Turkel)

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:30:01PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: As I read Rashi on that pasuk, it seems that Hashem did NOT build
: self-correcting mechanisms into nature. Rather: "...when the olam has
: yir'ah of Him, then the world is fixed so that it cannot falter... but
: when the b'rios do not have yir'ah of Him and they sin, then He will
: overturn them and destroy them."

I think the problem is the habit of nevi'im and chazal to emphasize
points by speaking in absolute terms about something that exists in
shades.

There are equilibria that are also attractor states. For example,
a ball sitting in a valley. A marble placed on one of the slopes on
the sides of the valley will role down to that equilibrium. However,
a coin balanced on its edge could also be in equilibrium, but it's not
an attractor -- any slight shift from being on balance will push
the coin to one of two more stable equilibria: heads or tailes.

Still, if you push the ball up the side of the hill and over the
top, the ball would roll down the other side.

Self correcting mechanisms come in "more" or "less". Hashem could create
a world that is self-correcting to a great extent but not so great that
people can't push the system over the top of the hill, beyond the reach
of the attractor.

A navi, because they often speak in guzma, could say "bal timot"
and mean it's very hard to get it to falter, not that it cannot. Or,
he could mean actually that faltering is impossible. I have no way to
know how to decide. Perhaps the fact that otherwise we would have a
setirah should be taken as indication.




RAM mentions Rashi's peshat. It's non-obvious. If we didn't have Rashi,
I would assume peshat is that Hashem's ability to create a world this
complex, one that that heals when wounded, is a source of yir'as
Shamayim.

Metzudas David has "kol hayamim asher gazar haMqaom la'amod al omdekha".
Which doestails with Rashi -- "bal timot" whenever Hashem wants it to.
And, following Rashi, when it that? When people have yir'as Shamayim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:35:40PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: I just heard today in a shiur that Rav David Lau (chief rabbi) found this
: year a ger toshav to sell the land to for shemittah thus overcoming the
: problem of lo techanem (probably the major objection to heter mechirah)...

I thought it was because Gittin 48a implies that the sale to a non-Jew
wouldn't take the land out of the laws of shemittah if a Jew is working
the field, which is the pesaq of the Rambam according to a diyuq by the
Kesef Mishnah. (Shemittah 84:29) The heter requires holding like Rashi
(Sanhedrin 26a) over the Rambam. The Gra does. But still, it's not
open-and-shut that the sale does anything.

Especially if shemittah bizman hazeh is deOraisa, which demotivates
pasqening lehaqeil.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:18:31AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger quoted an editorial, which in turn gave a translation
: of Rav YI Herzog's Heikhal Yitzchaq 1:21:c...  Rav Herzog wrote:

:> Know that even though the law going back to the tannaitic era [that
:> is, the first centuries CE EF] was that ex post facto they are all
:> [valid] converts, I have a serious concern nowadays.

:> Earlier in Jewish history, a transgressor would be persecuted and
:> held in contempt by his own people, and thus when a gentile
:> accepted Judaism, even if he was primarily motivated by marriage,
:> he knew that his standing within Jewish society would be very low
:> if he did not observe the Torah. That is not the case today, when
:> there are so many non-observant people who not only have no
:> difficulty as a result, but even stand at the head of the nation
:> and its communities. Therefore, we should be concerned that there
:> is no real commitment to observe the commandments....

...
: What conclusion does he expect us to reach from his comparison of
: then and now in the second section? As I can see it, the only point he
: seems to be making is that a proper l'chatchila conversion is much more
: difficult nowadays. Rav Herzog does NOT seem to cast any new aspersions
: on the ex post facto validity of the Jewishness of an insincere convert,
: even nowadays.

I believe he is saying that until the Emancipation, a Jew who converted
for ulterior motives, and really didn't want ot be meqabel ol mitzvos
still de facto would end up basically observant. Because "a transgressor
would be persecuted and held in contempt by his own people." The bedi'eved
conversion has a bedi'eved qabalas ol mitzvos.

Not so today, when someone can convert to Judaism (whether geirus
lehalakhah or not aside) and feel no such pressure to observe, even for
less-than-ideal motives.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:05:20PM -0600, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
:> In it, R' Donny Fuchs gives his position which contradicts takes on
:> Tosafos (and the idea that Notzrut, or at least the state of church
:> teachings in Rabbeinu Tam's day, is shituf), and for that matter halakhah
:> pesuqah WRT entering a masjid, without providing sources.

: That's actually a gross misreading of Tosfot.  Tosfot never suggest
: that Christianity is shituf.  Only that causing a non-Jew to swear
: by "God" is permitted, even though the non-Jew is "meshatef"
: something else to that name.

Isn't what I described the Rama's take on Tosafos, in Darkhei Moshe
YD #156? (Not just his conclusion, but he believes his conclusion
is leshitas Rabbeinu Tam?)

I am also not sure how the understanding I gave (whether or not also
the Rama's) is not a necessary precondition and inherent in Tosafos's
conclusion. If trinitarianism is polytheism to the extent of being
assur to benei Noach, how could we be permitted to cause them to
swear in the name(s) of the trinity? (Sanhedrin 63b d"h "asur le'adam"
<http://dtorah.com/otzar/shas_tosfot.php?ms=Sanhedrin&;df=63b>) R' Tam
says, "gam daatam le'osei shamayim, vaa"p shemishtafin shem Shamayim
vedavar acheir..." Is that not a discussion of shituf between the Creator
and Yeishu?

What is not mukhrakh from Tosafos is that shituf is a mutar belief for
Benei Noach in general, rather than a non-Jew may swear in the name of
shituf. The nafqa mina lemaaseh would be the permissability of selling a
cross (not a crucafix, which also has a tzurah representing oso ha'ish)
to a ben Noach. I only know of meiqilim in the chassidish world: Rav
Moshe, RYBS and RYSE all hold Notzrus is AZ. But that's a question of
the permissability of trinitarianism, not its classification as shituf.

BTW, DoubleAA's answer (which is not the top-voted one) at
<http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/89> had an interesting
discussion of what the gemara originally said on the subject
before censorship, complete with pictures of manuscripts. Teaser:
    The Meiri (Ta'anit 27b) is clear that he had the uncensored text in
    front of him, though he understands Notzri to refer to the people
    mentioned in Jeremiah 4:16. This explanation is troubling because
    I haven't found anyone else (after checking Rashi, Radak and both
    Metzudot) who understands Notzri in that verse as a nationality as
    opposed to a job description, and secondly it seems odd for Shemuel
    (~750 years after Jeremiah) to reference such an obscure people who
    may not even have been around anymore. (See Christians, No???erim,
    and Nebuchadnezzar's Daughter Lawrence Zalcman, The Jewish Quarterly
    Review, New Series, Vol. 81, No. 3/4 (Jan. -- Apr., 1991), pp. 411-426
    who identifies the Meiri's group as the Mandaeans.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On 11/24/2014 06:03 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Those who are concerned with ruach raah / tumah / kedushah (if those
> don't refer to the same thing in this context, then please correct me)
> would be sure to use a proper keli, to use a reviis of water, and to
> cover the entire hand (or at least the entire fingers), wouldn't they?

On the contrary.  Mayim Acharonim is the "chelek adam rasha", as we say while
washing it, and should therefore be as little as possible.   Rather than being
*from* a keli it should be washed *into* a keli.

R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Michael J. Broyde:

> The relevant issue is whether it is appropriate to distinguish
> between "secular society", "Gentile society" and "idol-worshiping
> society" in modern American culture. The validity of this
> distinction -- which was not generally made by the decisors of
> Eastern Europe two hundred years ago for the society of that time
> and place -- is extremely relevant to a broad variety of halachic
> issues related to contemporary American society.

I totally agree that these distinctions are extremely important for anyone
who wants to discuss this topic intelligently. In addition, I would point
out that his list of three societies could be inadequate for some purposes,
and that clearer definitions must be made. Specifically:

1) "Secular" might mean "secular" to the *exclusion* of religion, meaning
people who are not religious. This would include people who are atheist or
agnostic, but would exclude the faithful of any relgion.

2) "Alternatively, "secular" might mean "general society", including everyone, both the faithful and faithless of any and all religions.

3) It seems to me that R' Broyde's list omits a category of "religious
society" in general, which would include both Jews and gentiles, and
perhaps idol-worshippers as well.

Unfortunately, I feel that R' Broyde himself blurred these distinctions two paragraphs later, when he wrote:

> It is my opinion that this article clearly establishes that:
> (1) Thanksgiving is a secular holiday with secular origins;

This makes sense only if "secular" is used in the sense that it is not tied
to any particular religion. But "secular" in this quote cannot possibly
mean that it is not tied to religion at all. This is evident in R' Broyde's
quote from Washington, which ties Thanksgiving to G-d:

> Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day
> of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to
> the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent
> author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; ...
 
and he brings further evidence with a quote from Jefferson, which *separates* Thanksgiving from any particular religion:

> Thomas Jefferson strongly objected to [Washington's] pronounce-
> ments. He wrote: "... Every religious society has a right to
> determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects
> proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this
> right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the
> Constitution has deposited it."

I will now quote R' Broyde's other conclusions:

> It is my opinion that this article clearly establishes that:
> (1) Thanksgiving is a secular holiday with secular origins;
> (2) while some people celebrate Thanksgiving with religious
> rituals, the vast majority of Americans do not;
> (3) halacha permits one to celebrate secular holidays, so long
> as one avoids doing so with people who celebrate them through
> religious worship and
> (4) so long as one avoids giving the celebration of Thanksgiving
> the appearance of a religious rite (either by occasionally missing
> a year or in some other manner making it clear that this is not a
> religious duty) the technical problems raised by Rabbi Feinstein
> and others are inapplicable.
>
> Thus, halacha law permits one to have a private Thanksgiving
> celebration with one's Jewish or secular friends and family.

Earlier in this post, I suggested various meanings for the word "secular" in this context. I will now do the same for the word "celebrate".

I will agree that there are a great many Americans for whom Thanksgiving is
nothing more than a day on which they stay home from work and enjoy a nice
meal with friends or family. They make it a point to eat turkey, but they
do so without even the slightest thought to what significance the turkey
might have, or what significance the meal might have. On this day, they
might use the word "thanksgiving" many times, without ever using the word
"thanks" even once. Religiously, these people are "celebrating" nothing
more than a day off; it seems similar to R' Broyde's description of the
celebration of the king's birthday or coronation.

There are others, however, who will make it a point to use the word
"thanks" at some point in the meal. It seems self-evident to me that almost
any such reference will implicitly (or, more likely, explicitly) be an
acknowledgement of gratitude to "that great and glorious Being" of 
Washington's quote. In other words, it seems to me that any such thanks
will render the "celebration" into a religious one, albeit unconnected to
any particular religion.

Having made this distinction, I'd like to suggest a clarification of R' Broyde's views. Namely, when he wrote

> (3) halacha permits one to celebrate secular holidays, so long
> as one avoids doing so with people who celebrate them through
> religious worship

it is clear to me that he meant that we cannot join with non-Jews to offer
thanksgiving to *their* god or in *their* manner. For us to thank *our*
G-d, in *our* manner, at *our* tables, would be okay. It is also clear to
me that all four of R' Broyde's concluding points are based on the views of
Rav Henkin. I recommend all interested parties to review R' Broyde's
article (at http://www.tfdixie.com/
special/thanksg.htm), paying particular attention to all the places
where he cited Rav Henkin.

Akiva Miller

PS: I think R' Broyde's analysis of Halloween, at the bottom of that
article, can shed some light back upon Thanksgiving. He concedes that to
the overwhelming majority of those who collect candy on Halloween, it has
even less religious significance than the Thanksgiving turkey.
Nevertheless, because Halloween's origins are specifically pagan, it
remains forbidden for us, unlike the more generically religious origins of
Thanksgiving.


____________________________________________________________
Heavy rains mean flooding
Anywhere it rains it can flood. Learn your risk. Get flood insurance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5473435db26e4435d6d12st01vuc

On 11/24/2014 04:39 PM, via Avodah wrote:
Yekkes say Av Harahamim only during sefirat ha-omer


The massacres of Jews  in Western Germany by the Crusaders was during 
sefirat ha-omer, mainly toward the end. As a result, many additional 
mourning customs were added during sefira and Av Harahamim was written 
and was said on the Shabbat before Shavuot, Because of the many 
persecutions after that, the need for a prayer like Av Harahamim was 
felt strongly. first  It was said first on the Shabbat before Tish'a 
b'Av and later at many other times. After the Shoah, R' Zvi Yehuda Kook 
started saying Av Harachamim every Shabbat.

Nusach Ashkenaz siddurim such as Roedelheim mention saying it before 
Shavuot and Tish'a b'Av. About two hundred years ago, in an effort to to 
increase sales of siddurim, they stated that this is the custom in 
Ashkenaz but in Poland it is said more often (with details about the 
more happy Shabbatot).

At the same time we find, in parentheses, the addition of Shema Yisrael 
and Echad Eloheinu when taking out the Torah while it still says that 
the Hazan takes the Torah and says Gad'lu.  Later editions left out the 
parentheses. Similarly, in nusach Ashkenaz siddurim for Poland etc., we 
find the addition of Mizmor Shir Chanukat habayyit in pesukei d'zimra 
while "Roedelheim" to this day does not have it.

And, so as persecution continued and kabbala spread, the siddur grew.


bivrakha,


David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141124/1c607bff/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/24/2014 11:05 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> I am also not sure how the understanding I gave (whether or not also
> the Rama's) is not a necessary precondition and inherent in Tosafos's
> conclusion. If trinitarianism is polytheism to the extent of being
> assur to benei Noach, how could we be permitted to cause them to
> swear in the name(s) of the trinity? (Sanhedrin 63b d"h "asur le'adam"
> <http://dtorah.com/otzar/shas_tosfot.php?ms=Sanhedrin&;df=63b>) R' Tam
> says, "gam daatam le'osei shamayim, vaa"p shemishtafin shem Shamayim
> vedavar acheir..." Is that not a discussion of shituf between the Creator
> and Yeishu?

The whole point of the Tosfos is that they *don't* swear in their AZ's
name.  Rather they swear by "God and the Saints"; they don't regard the
saints as gods, and by "God" they mean the Creator.  Although by "God"
they *also* mean their AZ, that doesn't matter.  The Torah doesn't say
not to cause them to *think* the name of an AZ, it just says not to cause
them to *say* it, and they don't.

I noticed that at the back of the full size edition of theMaor Mikraos
Gedolos, (1990), ?there is aperush of the Rosh on Chumash.? This wasa
surprise, as I had not previously heard of it.?In trying to find
information on this perush, I am now surprised to findthat it does not
seems to be mentioned elsewhere.? Does anyone have an explanation?? Is the
authorship in question, or was this arelatively recent discovery?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141124/23216220/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:19:40PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: All the sources I saw say that a Sefardi can make a bracha on an Ashkenzai
: sefer Torah
: and that is standard practive in Israel.
: It is not uncommon also to see a mixed shul with both types of sifrei Torah.

So is switching off nusach based on who is sha"tz, but there is little
pre-need support for that.

But meanwhile, you got me to look things up...

Sepharadim tend to omit the qotz deRabbeinu Tam. This would actually
pasl the tefillin or ST according to Ashk pesaq. Assuming the sofer
included it as a hiddur, we removed problems of being yotzei befi'eved.

However, lechat-khilah the Ashkenazi shouldn't be using sta"m that
has:
   - rounded top right corner on the beis,
   - even legs on the gimel,
   - a straight leg on the dalet, nor
   - a rounded bottime right corner on the mem.

Tzitz Eliezer 14:3:4, IM OC 5:2, although they don't list the specific
tzuras ha'os differences I did above.

OTOH, the Yalqut Yosef (685:12) says there is no problem. (And he mentions
the tzadi's inverted yud that Zev wrote about.)

Getting away from kesav, what about the spelling of "petzua daka[h]"?
Implied in ROY's teshuvah is that it's not a problem.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:19:10AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >and I'm counting tzadi and tzadi peshutah
: >separately) done differently. Ayin, tzadi, shin and possibly tes have
: >the crowned head entirely to the left of the upright line, instead of the
: >usual zayin-like intersection BY uses on crowned heads. Which is in common
: >with Vellish. I do not know why Ari does not do the gimel similarly.
: 
: He does.  The Ari holds that *all* the Shaatnez Getz letters, except nun and
: obviously zayin, are done like a vov and not a zayin.

The SA haRav OC 36 says as Zev assumes. The BY and R' Chaim Vital
(Sha'r haKavanos) say it's a zayin. In Belz (the example I know of,
I assume it's not only them), they round the corner that connects the
the head to the down-stroke on all these letters, and then have the
downstroke touch on the left of the curve. Thus being not at the right
end of the head, but still at the head's bottom-right "corner", as a way
to be yotzei both shitos. But the Matzas Shemurim (Hil' Tefillin) and
Mishnas Chasidim (Mes' Tiqun Tefillin 1:9-10) say that this compromise
doesn't sufficiently vav-like -- including on the tes.

So lemaaseh, Zev appears correct -- no Chassidishe group that uses Kesav
Ari holds that the tes has a normal zayin on the left side. But if we're
talking about the Ari's own kesav, when R' Chaim Vital says that the
Ari's tes is made using a zayin, who am I to definitively say otherwise?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:51pm GMT, R' Akiva Miller wrote:
: I am trying to get a clearer understanding of the definition of a
: "god" in the context of gods which are assur to believe in or to pray to.

: For example, I have never really understood why some gedolim have
: objections to singing Shalom Aleichem. It seems clear to me from the Torah
: that we are allowed to ask humans for a bracha (but see postscript),
: and so I do not understand why there would be a problem to make that
: request of a mal'ach.

...
: I guess I also need a better understanding of "shituf". I perceive a
: mal'ach as a creation of Hashem, and therefore a subject of Hashem, and
: therefore limited by whatever limitations Hashem chooses to impose --
: no different than humans. But this sounds very similar to how the sun,
: stars, et al, were perceived by those in the first generations after Adam
: HaRishon. If so, it might confirm my suspicions that talking to mal'achim
: is not actual avodah zara, but problematic because it too easily *leads*
: to actual avodah zara.



On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:01pm GMT, R' Akiva Miller added:
: I have found the Siddur Beis Yaakov of Rav Yaakov Emden on-line
: (at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42978&;st=&pgnum=306)

:> V'gozer al hamal'achim (v'aino bakasha mayhem she'assur) l'varcho
..
: This seems to put a whole new coloring to his attitude to Shalom
: Aleichem: The piyut is not forbidden, but it must be understood as a
: directive and command *towards* the angels, and not a request *of* them.

I see two possible differences:

1- Humans have bechirah chofshi. To make a request of a mal'akh means
making Hashem's tool an entity in its own right. RYE's chiluq fits this
quite well, because forcing a mal'akh to do something is keeping it on
the level of spiritual automaton, object rather than subject.

(I know there are shitos that ascribe some form of bechirah to at
least some mal'akhim in at least some situations. But I doubt those
are the same baalei mesorah who prohibit saying "Borkhuni leShalom".)

2- Even though the Rambam said that AZ began with worshipping the Borei's
entourage, many of aku"m's gods were actually mal'akhim even well past
the of Enosh. I posted my theory the the Eigel and Rechavam's religion
were keruvim-worship, via Sumarian and Egyptian religions. (Since turned
into a blog post at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/angels-and-idols>.) The
difference is that the later generations either forgot there was a Borei
or placed the Borei beyond the reach of worship (too transcendent for
such things) and only worshipped the angel(s).

I think this is related to the idea that other nations are ruled by
sarim, rather than directly by HQBH. It's a middah keneged middah.

Also, I recently received a devar Torah which said that the set of
mal'akhim that rule over a nation depends on that nation's beliefs.
Problem is, I can't find it. Ring a bell with anyone?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:01:43PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >                                     (Sanhedrin 63b d"h "asur le'adam"
: ><http://dtorah.com/otzar/shas_tosfot.php?ms=Sanhedrin&;df=63b>) R' Tam
: >says, "gam daatam le'osei shamayim, vaa"p shemishtafin shem Shamayim
: >vedavar acheir..." Is that not a discussion of shituf between the Creator
: >and Yeishu?

: The whole point of the Tosfos is that they *don't* swear in their AZ's
: name.  Rather they swear by "God and the Saints"...

That's what he says BEFORE the first ve'af al pi (not the one quoted above):
    [In Rabbeinu Tam's] nowadays they all swear by their saints,
    and they do not ascribe divinity to them.

    And even though they might mention sheim Shamayim among them AND
    THEIR KAVANAH IS FOR DAVAR ACHER, mikol maqom this is not the name
    of aku"m and their intent is also to the Maker of Heaven. And
    even though they are meshatfin sheim Shamayim and something else...

AIUI, by the end of the sacond vaa"p the "davar acheir" couldn't still
be the saints discussed two "even"s ago. And, AIUI, the Rama's teshuvah
understands Rabbeinu Tam accordingly.

:                                                      Although by "God"
: they *also* mean their AZ, that doesn't matter.  The Torah doesn't say
: not to cause them to *think* the name of an AZ, it just says not to cause
: them to *say* it, and they don't.

And actually the Noda biYhudah (Tinyasa YD 148) says Rabbeinu Tam is
speaking of swearing in the name of the Borei and oso ha'ish, and it's
permissable because an oath isn't avodah. So, you could side with the
Noda biYhudah, or with the Pischei Teshuvah (YD 147:2) as to how to
understand Tosafos.

And lulei demitztafina hayisi omer that the NbY's take on the Rama's
explanation of Rabbeinu Tam is dachuq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:35:40PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>: I just heard today in a shiur that Rav David Lau (chief rabbi) found this
>: year a ger toshav to sell the land to for shemittah thus overcoming the
>: problem of lo techanem (probably the major objection to heter mechirah)...

> I thought it was because Gittin 48a implies that the sale to a non-Jew
> wouldn't take the land out of the laws of shemittah if a Jew is working
> the field, which is the pesaq of the Rambam according to a diyuq by the
> Kesef Mishnah....
> Especially if shemittah bizman hazeh is deOraisa, which demotivates
> pasqening lehaqeil.

1) Heter Mechirah is based on shemittah today being derabban - held by
most achronim including CI

2) Whether land owned by nonJews is exempt from laws of shemittah is
machloket of bet yosef and mabit
most poskin including minhag yerushalayim holds like BY that it is exempt.
CI paskened like Mabit.
Note that machkloket of BY and Mabit is on the Rambam. So according to
BY everyone holds that land owned by nonJews is exempt from Shemittah

3) Rav Kook insisted that the land be worked by nonJews and that was
followed by the present rabbanut under R. David Lau

Bidiieved almost everything works (including shamur and neevad) even
according to CI. Hence it effects the farmer more than the consumer.
Hence, his main argument for the consumer involved the problem of selling
the land (lo techanem),
"ein shaliach ledvar avera" and that there is no "gemirat daat" and
finally that the sale is not legal according to Israeli law.

What the rabbanbut has done in recent years is to overcome the last set
of objections, through changing Israeli law.
selling to a ger toshav, explaining to the farmer what he is signing,
avoiding the use of a "shaliach"
and finally insistiting that at least the "malachot de-oraita" be done
by a non-Jew

kol tuv
-- 
Eli Turkel

according to yalkut shimoni
sar of bavel went up 70 steps and went down
sar of mede 52 steps
sar of yavan 180 steps
sar of edom went up and didnt come down

comment
actually the galut after the first temple was not 70 years in bavel.
The 70 years ended in the reign of Darius and so most of the 70 years was
under the Persians (Medes?) and so the 70 and 52 years overlapped (wont
discuss again the 52 years of the Persian empire)

The empire of Yavan presumably started with the defeat of the Persans by
Alexander the Great (331 BCE). 180 years later is 151 BCE.
judah entered the temple in 164bce
and so the midrash assumes that yavan ended only 13 years later

a treaty with rome was made in 161BCE so that was not considered the end of
Yavan and the beginning of Rome (conquered by Rome in 63BCE). Simon became
king in 140. The closest I could find is that Jonathan became high priest
in 153BCE.
Otherwise I have no idea where the 180 years for Yavan comes from

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141124/0ac7c8e6/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)