Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 64

Mon, 20 Apr 2015

• 1. Re: Tachanun During Nissan (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Eilu va'eilu (Avi Goldstein)
• 3. Re: The Legacy of RSRH, Zt'L ()
• 4. Re: Eilu v'eilu (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: Eilu v'eilu (Saul Mashbaum)
• 6. brochos from the amud (was: tefillat haderech) (Sholom Simon)
• 7. Re: Eilu v'eilu (Micha Berger)
• 8. HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l (Micha Berger)
• 9. The Legacy of RSRH, ZT"L by Rav Shimon Schwab (Prof. Levine)
• 10. hidur (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: hidur (Micha Berger)

On 04/19/2015 01:36 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Common practice in Nusach Ashkenaz is to skip Tachanun even for all of the Sefira days of Nisan,

This is not just nusach Ashkenaz, it's the universal minhag, originating in
Masechet Sofrim 21:3.  It's actually the chapter title of Shulchan Aruch OC 429,
and AFAIK there is no dissenting opinion or minhag.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

It has always been my understanding that eilu va'eilu means that both (or
more than two) are, within the sphere of Torah, "true" as long as they
emanate from a valid drashah. As the Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim, Perek
2, a Sanhedrin can overturn the ruling of a previous Sanhedrin if that
ruling was made based on the yud gimmel middos or based on sevara.

The Rambam states that the new ruling becomes normative. So, for example,
if a Sanhedrin ruled that yeush shelo mida'as is yeush, that is now the
d'oraisa rule. If a later Sanhedrin overturns the ruling, then the new
ruling becomes normative.

Both, however, are "true," because the Torah has shivim panim; the Torah is
multifaceted and can countenance more than one truth.

The Rambam seems to hold that Moshe Rabbeinu was merely given the methods
by which to darshan; he was not given the various possible halachic
outcomes. The Ritva (Eruvin 13b) states that at Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu was
shown 49 possibilities for each halachic situation. Either way, it is up to
klal Yisrael to determine what the halacha is, but all the possible
outcomes are divrei Elokim Chayim.

Avi Goldstein

 
From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah"  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

The following is taken in part from Rav  Shimon Schwab's Essay The 
Legacy of RSRH, ZT"L that appears in Selected  Writings pages 88 -93.

Rav Hirsch is usually accepted as the exponent of  the
Torah im Derech Eretz philosophy. This principle is
explained by his  grandson, Dr. Isaac Breuer, as follows:

"He was strictly opposed to  compromise or
reconciliation, or even a synthesis: he demanded full  and
uncompromising rulership of the Torah. 
[snip]
There are two schools of thought and they are  both
legitimate. One is "Torah Only" and the other is Torah im
Derech  Eretz. All Torah-conscious Jews work for the same
goal. There are various  methods and various avenues of
approach. They all lead up to the ultimate end  of:

"Yisgadal v'yisgadash  Shmei rabah"

 
 
>>>>
 
See the wonderful pamphlet by R' Shimon Schwab, "Eilu ve'Eilu," explaining  
the broad outlines of the differences between these two hashkafos, "Torah  
im Derech Eretz" and so-called "Torah-only."  I try to re-read this 48-page  
pamphlet every year.
 
 
 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/these_and_those.pdf
 
I am grateful to RYL (Prof. Levine) for making this pamphlet available  to 
the public as a pdf.  However I note that he is often highly critical of  
the charedi world, and I believe that R' Hirsch would emphatically not have  
agreed with him.  He would have honored and cherished the talmidei  chachamim 
who devote their lives to limud haTorah, and would have educated his  
balabatim to take pride in the zechus of financially supporting the "black hat"  
yeshivos.
 
In the so-called "Torah-only" world they may have disdain for balabatim,  
but we who believe in TIDE can respect and honor that world of sustained and  
focused Torah study without internalizing an inferior self-image.  We  
believe in Yisachar and Zevulun even if Yisachar lacks proper respect for  
Zevulun.  We believe in twelve shevatim, we believe in twelve paths through  the 
sea.  And we believe that without the shevet of full-time lomdei Torah  and 
talmidei chachamim, the rest of Klal Yisrael would have no  kiyum.
 
I would also note that R' Hirsch would certainly not have shared RYL's dour 
 view of present-day Eretz Yisrael.  True, all the flaws and failings of  
Zionism are abundantly on display in the modern Medinah.  But at the same  
time, it takes an almost willful blindness not to see the incredible  miracles 
that have been taking place there over the past sixty years or so. Not  the 
least of these miracles is a flourishing of Torah scholarship, be'eichus  
uvekamus, the likes of which has not been seen since the churban Bayis  
Sheni.  We owe at least a small measure of gratitude to the Zionist  government 
that helps provide the infrastructure for the Torah community to  flourish, 
and a huge measure of gratitude to the Ribono Shel Olam for allowing  us to 
live in a time in which the beginning of kibbutz galuyos is taking place  
before our eyes.  The sight of thousands of men, young and old, from all  
corners of the world, streaming into the Mirrer Yeshiva each day, gives us  a 
little foretaste of what it will be like to visit the Third Bais  Hamikdash.
 
Again, I urge everyone to read Rav Schwab's wonderful pamphlet,  "Eilu  
ve'Eilu." 
 

 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/these_and_those.pdf
 



--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150419/01af0829/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Joel Rich asked:
> Question: If one doesn't view eilu v'eilu as multiple truths
> but rather one truth and one nice try (but we don't know which
> is which), ...

I didn't understand that 2nd view, so he suggested to look
> here for some more specifics:
> http://nishma.org/articles/commentary/slifkinrevisted3print.pdf
> especially starting around page 11.

On page 4 of that article, the author offers this explanation of the concept of Machlokes L'Shem Shamayim:

> ... every individual striving mightily to gain truth and an
> understanding of God's Will can only achieve what is possible
> within the parameters of his/her own individual being. Since the
> fullness of Torah extends beyond the comprehension of any one
> individual, machloket must necessarily ensue. It is not simply
> that machloket emerges because of the inherent limitations of
> the human condition. It is only through the enunciation of
> machloket that human beings effectively are able to express the
> fullness and truth of the Divine wisdom of Torah. ... Within
> this category of disagreement, the existence of differing views
> is not a problem. It is actually positive. It is the natural
> consequence of a limited humanity trying to encounter the
> unlimited nature of God and Torah.

Elsewhere in that article, I understood him to say: Because both Hillel and
Shammai worked within the rules of how Torah is to be understood, their
differing views are equally valid and equally true (notwithstanding the
detail that for purely practical reasons, halacha l'maaseh has to go one
way or the other).

This much fits very well with what I've been taught: Hashem deliberately
wrote and designed the Torah in such a way as to allow both Hillel and
Shammai to reach those differing views, and when they did reach those
views, and (lovingly) refused to yield to the other, they accomplished
exactly what Hashem had intended.

But RJR referred us specifically to page 11, and on that page, the author brings the two views that RJR had initially posted:

> One significant question in this regard, though, that should be
> presented is: whether kalpei Shemaya, from the perspective of
> Heaven, one view may really be correct or not? How one answers
> this question will affect whether one considers any position in
> a machloket l'Shem Shamayim as ultimately able to be labeled
> incorrect. Effectively the question would be: are all positions
> in the disagreement theoretically, equally part of truth and a
> decision rendered between the opposing views solely because of
> practical necessity? Or is there a truly correct position ?
> albeit only able to be ascertained by Heaven ? but we still
> accept all positions as part of Torah, albeit some are mistaken,
> as they all are equally the best that humanity can achieve and
> the mistakes only arise from the actual limitation of the human
> being?

With all due respect, but it seems to me that this second view is illogical
and mistaken. How can there be a view which was obtained by legitimate
methods of learning the Torah, without any personal agenda, and the best
that humanity can acheive -- and yet be one which Hashem did NOT want us to
arrive at? If there is a view that is NOT truly correct, yet the
incorrectness can be ascertained only by Heaven, then why did Hashem design
the Torah in a manner which allowed us to reach that mistaken conclusion?

If only He would have made one little change, if only the pasuk had said
this instead of that, then we'd have darshened that pasuk differently, and
would have avoided that mistake. But since He did not make that change, but
rather He wrote the Torah as we have it, and Toras Hashem Temimah, then I
believe that the conclusions reached cannot possibly be mistakes, but
rather, this is exactly what we mean by Eilu V'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim.

(Of course, I am referring only to drashos made with the proper tools, and
in the proper manner, such as those made by Hillel and Shammai and others
of similar caliber. I am not referring to people who are of lower caliber,
or who were working with broken tools. And I'm certainly not referring to
people who deliberately distort Torah for their own purposes.)

But then, as I was reviewing this post, my mind turned to the Tanur Shel
Achnai. R' Eliezer had a minority view, and R' Yehoshua was in the
majority. I've got to believe that both views were firmly grounded; this
machlokes was surely just as L'Shem Shamayim as any between Hillel and
Shammai. I'd *like* to say that Klapei Shmaya, both views were Truth.

But then what can I do with Hashem's response of "Nitzchuni banai"? It sure
sounds to me like this Judge was not impartial. He was rooting for R'
Eliezer! And yet He wrote a Torah that allowed for R' Eliezer's mistaken
interpretation. Why would He do that?

To paraphrase RJR's question from the very beginning of this post, Tanur
Shel Achnai seems to be an example of "eilu v'eilu": At the time of their
dispute, it was possible that both views were Truth, but we didn't know
which was which, so for practical purposes they took a vote. But later,
Eliyahu Hanavi revealed the fact that it was NOT multiple truths, but
rather one truth (R' Eliezer) and one nice try (R' Yehoshua).

TO RECAP: In the beginning of this post, I explained my logical basis for
believing that every true Eilu V'Eilu is a case of multiple Truths. At the
end, I brought an example of an Eilu V'Eilu which was "one truth and one
nice try (but we don't know which is which)". I cannot reconcile the logic
and the example. All I can do is to ask again: Would Hashem really write a
Perfect Torah which allows for mistaken interpretation? Why would He do
that?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/553464ea69a2864ea0cc6st01vuc

RMB:

Rav Moshe Feinstein discusses the halachic process and the role of
   poseiq in his introduction to Igros Mosheh. (The introduction itself
   deserves serious study.)  He writes about "ha'emes lehora'ah umichuyav
   lehoros kein af al pi im be'etzem galyah kelapei shemaya galya she'eino
   kein hapeirush - the true ruling, and one is obligated to teach
   accordingly, even if in essence is it revealed in heaven that this
   isn't the correct explanation!" The ideal is following the pesaq as
   according to the process.

This passage in IM is cited by R. Shalom Rosner in a systematic discussion
of the subject of eilu v'eilu in the course of a shiur on Ktuvot 57a at
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/720210/Rabbi_Shal
om_Rosner/Kesubos57.
Rashi in Ktuvot 57a invokes the principle of eilu 'v'eilu, (read and
explained by R. Rosner stating at about 18:30 in the shiur) and R. Rosner
elucidates this principle, starting at about 21:30 in the shiur, until
about 29:40. For anyone interested in a very clear explanation of the
various shittot about what eilu v'eilu means, I can't recommend this shiur
highly enough.

Very briefly, R. Rosner cites three approaches in the sources

1. Illustrating the truth - The Ran in Drashot HaRan drasha 5 - In this
approach, which severely limits the principle of eilu v'eilu, the Ran
states that actually only one of the opinions is true. The other opinion is
'divrei Elokim chaim' only insofar as it serves to illustrate and elucidate
the other opinion, which is the real truth, as the dark enables us to
appreciate a candle. The Chida in Petach Einayim, his commentary on Eiruvin
where the principle of eilu v'eilu is cited by the Gemara, takes this
approach as well. R. Rosner emphasizes that this is a minority opinion, and
personally finds it hard to accept, as he explains in the shiur.

2. Levels of truth - R. Moshe in the hakdama to IM, and R. Yaakov to
Bereishit 26, the Netziv in his Hakadama to Haamek Sh'eila, his commentary
to the Sheiltot). Using R. Moshe's terminology. there is Emet Shamaymit,
and Emet L'Horaa. Both are correct, and in this world we are obligated to
follow the emet l'horaa even if it deviates from the ultimate, heavenly
truth.

3. Multiple truths (Ritva in Eiruvin, Maharal) - Both opinions are true,
reflecting different perspectives of the subject at hand (IMO, this is
similar to the previous explanation, without establishing a hierarchy
between the truths expressed by the different opinions). R. Rosner states
that the Rashi in question on Ktuvot 57a takes this approach.

R. Rosner's explanation of the shittot is very lucid  and concise. He
refers in his shiur to Ktuvot 57 to a previous, more comprehensive shiur he
gave on the subject, but I don't know if that shiur is available online.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150420/79b301db/attachment-0001.htm>

>R' Zev Sero asked:
>
> > I actually had meant to post about this, since I've been
> > wondering for some time why it is that the world's minhag is for
> > each person to say their own bracha on hallel and sefira, after
> > hearing the chazan's bracha. Doesn't the usual rule of "berov
> > am" mean that everyone should be yotzei with his bracha?

R' Akiva Miller wrote:

>In theory (="l'halacha"), yes, you are correct. But in practice 
>(="l'maaseh") Rov Am gets beat by our lack of kavana. Rov Am is an 
>important hidur, but the ikar is to insure that one is yotzay, and 
>that is more easily insured by saying it oneself. (It's like if one 
>is forced to choose between an esrog which is definitely kosher but 
>only barely so, vs. one which is beautiful but *might* be pasul. To 
>me, it's a no-brainer that one would choose the barely kosher one.)
>
>This explanation fits my previous post well: We are all yotzay with 
>someone else's bracha on the shofar and megillah, but NOT because of 
>Rov Am, only because the bracha is somewhat risky because I'm 
>relying on someone else.

Slight change of topic: I'm still trying to wrap my head around the 
idea that we don't seem to have a chashash of a brocha l'vatalah.  I 
mean, you have a sh'tz up there, saying a brocho out loud -- and he's 
intentionally trying to be motzi _some_ others (whoever has missed a 
day) and everybody says amen, and then they say the brocho 
themselves.  No chashash for an issur d'oraissa?  Shomea k'onen 
doesn't apply at all?  What if you are in the shul and you're not 
thinking about the issue of being yotzie, you're just thinking about 
which day it is, and/or you simply have stam kavanah.  No chashash 
for an issur d'oraissa?

Apparently not because almost everybody does that.  But I don't get it.

(To satisfy my own comfort level, my preferred action to is to focus 
and have kavanah to be  yotzie with the brocho, say amen, and then I 
don't have any chashash here).

-- Sholom 

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:48:03AM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote:
: This passage in IM is cited by R. Shalom Rosner in a systematic discussion...
: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/720210/Rabbi_
: Shalom_Rosner/Kesubos57.
...
: Very briefly, R. Rosner cites three approaches in the sources
: 
: 1. Illustrating the truth - The Ran in Drashot HaRan drasha 5 - In this
: approach, which severely limits the principle of eilu v'eilu, the Ran
: states that actually only one of the opinions is true. The other opinion is
: 'divrei Elokim chaim' only insofar as it serves to illustrate and elucidate
: the other opinion...

: 2. Levels of truth - R. Moshe in the hakdama to IM, and R. Yaakov to
: Bereishit 26, the Netziv in his Hakadama to Haamek Sh'eila, his commentary
: to the Sheiltot)...

: 3. Multiple truths (Ritva in Eiruvin, Maharal) - Both opinions are true,
: reflecting different perspectives of the subject at hand (IMO, this is
: similar to the previous explanation, without establishing a hierarchy
: between the truths expressed by the different opinions)..

My opinion differs from yours.

The Maharal is saying that what RMF calls emes shamamis (I think that
conjugation is yours, no?) is actually too rich to fit in this universe,
and certainly in a human mind. Therefore, two shitos can be correct
descriptions of the Truth, because each are incomplete.

Rather than invoke the 5 blind men and the elephant, I think it's more
useful to use a mashal of an object and a shadow. Because a shadow is
only 2D, information is lost. It could make you think the two opinions
are describing differnt thing, but they don't.

If you shine a light directly at the fact of a cube, the shadow is
a square. If you shine it at a corner, the result is a hexagon. Beis
Shamma could hold "hexagon" while Beis Hillel holds "square", and both
are describing the same cube.

It all depends on which direction you face the cube from. The difference
is in the approach chosen, where one stands at the foothills when answering
"mi ya'aleh beHar Hashem", not the emes kelapei shamayim.

None of which involves separating abstract truth from law, as RMF does.
The Maharal places eilu va'eilu entirely within our understanding of
that abstract truth.

RSR's analysis differs from the two I've discussed in the past, RMHalbertal's
and R' Michel Rosensweig's. E.g. See v32n8
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol32/v32n008.shtml#13>
E.g. RMH describes the Ritva and the Ran as sharing what he calls "the
Constitutive view" of what pesaq is (halakhah is constituted by pesaq, and
there is no one pre-existing reality), and thus the notion of one right
answer doesn't fit. Rather, his peshat in the Ran is more like RMF's
opinion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?
: that the Rashi in question on Ktuvot 57a takes this approach.
: 
: R. Rosner's explanation of the shittot is very lucid  and concise. He
: refers in his shiur to Ktuvot 57 to a previous, more comprehensive shiur he
: gave on the subject, but I don't know if that shiur is available online.
: 
: Saul Mashbaum

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


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?

Today's blog post.

    ... Can't we find children who would have helped him and still know
    the gemara? Do we have to choose? I hope not; I believe not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l
Posted on April 20, 2015 - 1 Iyyar 5775 by micha

When someone passes away, I try to find a life-lesson from their lives
that I can incorporate into my own. This is rather easy with regard
to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, as the rosh yeshiva left the Centrist /
Modern Orthodox / Religious Zionist community with a cheshbon hanefesh,
an accounting of our communal soul. Things that he saw we as a community
need to look at and improve.

See "By His Light: Character and Values in the Service of God" by R'
Reuvein Zeigler, notes of shiurim by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, pp 220-252,
which is available on-line at Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash, as the email shiur from the series "Developing a
Torah Personality" Lecture 12: Centrist Orthodoxy: A Spiritual Accounting.
<http://etzion.org.il/vbm/english/archive/develop/12develop.htm>
Listing the rashei peraqim (subtitles):
    * The Shift To the Right
    * The Need for Soul-Searching
    * Commonalities and Differences With the Right
    * Shaking Our Confidence In General Culture
    * The Complexity of Experience
    * Literary, Psychological and Historical Sensitivity
    * Attitudes Toward Zionism
    * "Torah Only" or "Torah And"
    * The Possibility of Integration
    * Theory and Practice
    * Dialectical Tension or Tepid Indifference?
    * Instilling Passion
    * The Need for Spirituality
    * Diffusion and Dilution
    * The Ascendancy of the Moral Over the Intellectual
    * "Do Not Fear Any Man"

Here's one piece near the end, that stays with me each time I read the
article:

    ... Perhaps much of what I have said in relation to culture, quoting
    Arnold and Yeats and others, seems very rarefied. People may be
    asking themselves, "What does this have to do with us? We have to
    deal with children in elementary school or high school; this is not
    our concern." Nevertheless, I have related to culture at its apex,
    because the kind of vision which is maintained at the pinnacle has
    an impact, and should have an impact, upon what is done at lower
    levels. In this respect, the awareness of the evaluation of culture
    does have practical consequences for whatever level of education we
    are dealing with.

    Granted that, our challenge is to see to it that indeed we maintain
    our position with depth and gusto. Given our constituency, of
    course, we cannot instill many of our students with the optimal
    level of love of Torah; we know from where they come. But, within
    our overall community, and surely within its leadership, such a
    level should exist. Woe unto us, if the only choice lies between
    tepid compromise and arrogant kana'ut.

    A couple of years after we moved to Yerushalayim, I was once walking
    with my family in the Beit Yisrael neighborhood, where R. Isser
    Zalman Meltzer used to live. For the most part, it consists of
    narrow alleys. We came to a corner, and found a merchant stuck there
    with his car. The question came up as to how to help him; it was a
    clear case of perika u-te'ina (helping one load or unload his
    burden). There were some youngsters there from the neighborhood, who
    judging by their looks were probably ten or eleven years old. They
    saw that this merchant was not wearing a kippa. So they began a
    whole pilpul, based on the gemara in Pesachim (113b), about whether
    they should help him or not. They said, "If he walks around
    bareheaded, presumably he doesn't separate terumot u-ma'asrot, so he
    is suspect of eating and selling untithed produce..."

    I wrote R. Soloveitchik a letter at that time, and told him of the
    incident. I ended with the comment, "Children of that age from our
    camp would not have known the gemara, but they would have helped
    him." My feeling then was: Why, Ribbono shel Olam, must this be our
    choice? Can't we find children who would have helped him and still
    know the gemara? Do we have to choose? I hope not; I believe not. If
    forced to choose, however, I would have no doubts where my loyalties
    lie: I prefer that they know less gemara, but help him.

    If I can refer again to my experience over the last several decades,
    I think that one of the central points which has reinforced itself
    is the sense, in terms of values, of the ascendancy of the moral
    over the intellectual -- with all my love for and commitment to pure
    learning. But, when all is said and done, you have to be guided not
    by what you love; you have to be guided by Torah. And the Torah
    tells us what is good:

        He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires
        of you: only to do justice, and to love goodness, and to walk
        modestly with your God. (Mikha 6:8)

See <http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/legacy_RSRH.pdf>The
Legacy of RSRH, ZT"L

  <http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/legacy_RSRH.pdf>The 
Legacy of RSRH, ZT"L

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150420/ef01e5ba/attachment-0001.htm>

<<It's like if one is forced to choose between an esrog which is definitely
kosher but only barely so, vs. one which is beautiful but *might* be pasul.
To me, it's a no-brainer that one would choose the barely kosher one.) >> -
changed topic from tefillat hadrech

There is a famois R Chaim that if one can use both etgrogim then one should
first use the beautiful but *might* be pasul since if one uses  the
minimally kosher one then one has accomplished the mitzvah and there is no
reason to choose a second one.
I have seen some that disagree with R Chaim claiming that it is possible to
take a better etrog for hidur even after having minimally done the motzvah.
This has applications mehadrin of chanukah

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150420/f3407aac/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:46:52PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> It's like if one is forced to choose between an esrog which is definitely
:> kosher but only barely so, vs. one which is beautiful but *might* be pasul.
:> To me, it's a no-brainer that one would choose the barely kosher one.) >> -
...
: There is a famois R Chaim that if one can use both etgrogim then one should
: first use the beautiful but *might* be pasul since if one uses  the
: minimally kosher one then one has accomplished the mitzvah and there is no
: reason to choose a second one.

This presumes you can afford both, or have access to a friend who will
give you a matanah al menas lehachzir of whichever you aren't buying. The
post you're replying to is "if one is forced to choose".

My own dilemma. Say I earmark $X (Y NIS, in your case) to spend on
my esrog. And say the price of a definitely kosher (or at least, just
as sure to be kosher) but not very hadar esrog is half that or less.
Should I buy myself a mehudar, or should I buy two esrogim and give the
other to someone hitting on hard times? Shouldn't the asei (tzedaqah,
dei machsero) trump a "mere" hidur mitzvah (esrog)? And yet, we know
many great rabbanim who didn't follow this calculus. What am I missing?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?


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



_______________________________________________
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.)