Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 120

Tue, 08 Sep 2015

• 1. What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? (Marty Bluke)
• 2. Re: What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Chitzonios and Tereifos (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Re: What am I missing? (Marty Bluke)
• 6. 13 Middos (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: 13 Middos (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch (Zev Sero)
• 10. Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Eating Before Shofar (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Eating Before Shofar (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: 13 Middos (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: 13 Middos (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch (Zev Sero)
• 17. How does Prozbul work? (Akiva Miller)

Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and
declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of
selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the
13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us
to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the
13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah
supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why
is saying the 13 middos so important?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150906/673bcf1b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and
: declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of
: selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the
: 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us
: to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the
: 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah
: supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why
: is saying the 13 middos so important?

Actually, the wording in the gemara is
    Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will
    pardon them.

The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're
supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people
in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else.

(I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast
to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah,
mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.)

I passionately recommend printing up <http://www.shemayisrael.com/13middos.pdf>
and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the
13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen
Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's
: not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of
: the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting
: for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina
: dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote?

Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was
written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published?

Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law
and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't
practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed.

However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews
had a lot of autonomy in Poland.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose
tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham."

Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient
internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but
doesn't look it to an outside observer?

If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed
that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the
one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and
RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150906/1a02f5c4/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Ben Waxman asked:
> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned
> out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would  be
> reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small,
> why should I sign the prozbul?

If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money
and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your
money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so
that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is
an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled
by shemita.

I passionately recommend printing up
<http://www.shemayisrael.com/13middos.pdf>.

It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos
in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon.

Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout
selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit
and recommit to emulating them.

As the gemara (RH 17b) says 
    Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure
    (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them.

Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             How wonderful it is that
mi...@aishdas.org        nobody need wait a single moment
http://www.aishdas.org   before starting to improve the world.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Anne Frank Hy"d

On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>
> As the gemara (RH 17b) says
>      Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure
>      (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them.
>
> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them.

That's not what Rashi says there.  "She'im yazkirum".

-- 
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

On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic,
> something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding
> paragraph

Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic.  Theurgy, as R Micha calls it.
Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we
say them and invoke that promise.

Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores
to stop a plague.  This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a
magical power that the holy ketores has.  The Malach Hamaves told
Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe
told Aharon to use it.

"There are more things in heaven and earth..."


-- 
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

On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was
> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published?

No.

> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law
> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't
> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed.
>
> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it

Yes, it absolutely was.


> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland.

Poland?!  It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy.  No book could
be published without the censor's approval.  The censor's stamp on the
MB is dated 23-Dec-1882.


-- 
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

The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais 
Yaakov Movement.   However,  she was not the only one who was 
responsible for the success of the movement before WW II.

Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools 
for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such 
schools.  However,  WADR to Sarah Schneirer,  she had a very limited 
academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This 
was the case for most girls who lived when she did.)  Thus others 
were needed to assist her in  the development of the Bais Yaakov 
Movement.  One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander.  Up until today 
I knew very little about him.  I did know that there had been an 
article in the Jewish Observer about his life,  but I did not have 
access to it.  Today a friend mine,  who has a complete collection of 
all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. 
Deutschlander. I have put it at 
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf

Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the 
development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all 
of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the 
school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and 
girls.  Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the 
grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement.

Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development 
for the Bais Yaakov movement.  See her article about Sarah Schneirer 
at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf

Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement 
should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth 
Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939.  I have put this document 
at 
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_mov
ement_poland.pdf

Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had 
children.  To the best of my knowledge,  he never married,  yet he 
taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, 
something that would be considered scandalous today!

Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married,  I find him being 
characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov 
Movement"  somewhat amusing. >:-}

YL

Please 
<http://cts.vresp.com/c/?HalachicallySpeaking/8a90639f50/9f413a18f
c/257f0ce891>
click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating 
before Shofar.

----------
 From the article

Custom of Some Gedolim

The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during 
the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He 
did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did 
not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l  [4] and Harav Yisroel 
Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios.


[1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251.

[2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189.

[3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita.

[4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79.

I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that
puzzle me.   All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays,
the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening
(after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that
it's difficult to daven properly without it.  In the Tzemach Tzedek's
words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order
to eat".  If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast,
you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah.

And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until
2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more
than ever,  Lubavitchers fast until kiddush!  I don't understand it.
If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day?  And if
you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about
breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh
Hashana without thinking about lunch?



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

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic.  Theurgy, as R Micha calls it.
: Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we
: say them and invoke that promise.

: Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores
: to stop a plague.  This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a
: magical power that the holy ketores has..

Where is this made explicit?

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them.

: That's not what Rashi says there.  "She'im yazkirum".

Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks
about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for
tefillah, anyway?

In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're
committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's,
the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this
gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..."

Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words
that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah
would be very problematic.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was
:> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published?

: No.

Source?

:> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law
:> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't
:> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed.

:> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it

: Yes, it absolutely was.

Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up
in teshuvos on agunah.

:> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland.

: Poland?!  It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy.  No book could
: be published without the censor's approval.  The censor's stamp on the
: MB is dated 23-Dec-1882.

In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland.

And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having
courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did.
At least, azoi shteyt YIVO
<http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Poland/Poland_from_17
95_to_1939>
    The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de
    jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities,
    school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period.

Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real
or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to
have such a law.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic.  Theurgy, as R Micha calls it.
> : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we
> : say them and invoke that promise.
>
> : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores
> : to stop a plague.  This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a
> : magical power that the holy ketores has..
>
> Where is this made explicit?

It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that
ketores stops plagues.  Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to
have, just take some ketores and go there.  And when Aharon got there
the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so
obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else.
How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?

Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it,
because how else could he possibly have known about it?  Now if it
was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues,
then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles?
This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's
no reason why it should be so, it just is.  In other words, magic.

>
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them.
>
> : That's not what Rashi says there.  "She'im yazkirum".
>
> Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks
> about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for
> tefillah, anyway?

"Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to
pronounce words.   For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're
basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the
"seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos.



> Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words
> that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah
> would be very problematic.

But that is what the gemara seems to say.


-- 
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

On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was
> :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published?
>
> : No.
>
> Source?

There is no source that it was banned then.  Why would you even
imagine that it would be?     There is no such note in any edition
of the Shulchan Aruch.

In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come
up until the late 18th century.  http://t95.el.sl.pt




> :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law
> :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't
> :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed.
>
> :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it
>
> : Yes, it absolutely was.
>
> Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up
> in teshuvos on agunah.

Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795.   Of course they ignored
the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they
had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem
they had to note that this was written before it became illegal.


> :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland.
>
> : Poland?!  It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy.  No book could
> : be published without the censor's approval.  The censor's stamp on the
> : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882.
>
> In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland.

What Poland?  There was no such place as Poland.   It was Russia,
and there was no autonomy.



> And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having
> courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did.
> At least, azoi shteyt YIVO
> <http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Poland/Pola
> nd_from_1795_to_1939>
>      The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de
>      jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities,
>      school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period.

Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government".   What period could
this paragraph possibly be talking about?  The period when there was a
Poland and a Polish government.  IOW not the time we are discussing.
And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is
explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence.


> Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real
> or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to
> have such a law.

Yes, it did.  Catherine's law that I mentioned above.  And it also
had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to.

If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's
stamp.

-- 
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

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> Listen hear for discussion on point
> http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en
> Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775

Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and
it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to
01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give
over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the
ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you
declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..."

(02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani
lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to
Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you
would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in
practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul."

But how does it work?

He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not
include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very
limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as
collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din,
as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need
to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi
Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta.

So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's
practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for
unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in
this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then
Shmitta will not cancel them.

But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You
have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans
over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were
already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the
lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and
exempt from Shmitas Kesafim.

It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan
was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the
responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it
is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not
only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no
need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because
the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply
to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically
at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also
occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana.

ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei
Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which
contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman
Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It
contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and
simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one
adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I
can render it:

"[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting
together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar
lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the
seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both
in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people.
[V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis
l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka]
with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that
is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you
permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al
inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna]
Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will
collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not
collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then
since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can
collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to
today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want.

[next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard
his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay]
that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can
collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas
Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal.

[next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes
l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754
[poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]"

(end of pruzbul)

I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite
aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that
requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite
likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I
think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it
seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model,
which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected.

RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah"
which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not
the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the
lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as
"MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the
beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the
*pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it
seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the
loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency
works.

If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the
"collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works.

And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold
that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the
document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan.

Thank you
Akiva Miller
(now at AkivaGMiller at gmail)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150907/1ce8ca9b/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.)