Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 81

Sun, 11 Jun 2017

• 1. Re: Redemption (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: tfillin check (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Redemption (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Redemption (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: Support? (Ben Bradley)
• 8. Re: Redemption (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Redemption (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: Redemption (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: Redemption (Zev Sero)

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos
: >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad.

: Where is there any issur on taking revenge?  Against fellow Jews,
: yes, of course.  But generally?

"Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur".

The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any
Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an
observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are
chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for
them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos
is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim".

But in any case, the notion that
    hene'elavim ve'inam olevim
    shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim,
    aleihem hakasuv omeir,
    "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso"
(Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a
chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take
offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav".

Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir
al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This
appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od".

:-)BBii!
-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 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When
> something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell
> the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about
> the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was
> really cheilev.

But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need 
to be kashered.   Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the 
mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively 
tamei.  In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos 
touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be 
kosher are retroactively tamei.


> But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely,
> are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk
> to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the
> case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome.

That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position 
on risk assessment.


> And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin....

Now *there's* mysticism!  To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. 
  The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it.

But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos.  A 
gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found 
to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah.



-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : >In Yevamos...
> : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his
> : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews.
> :
> : Actively sought and found?!  He simply gave a historical fact
> 
> "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke;
> he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the
> issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...")

No, he wasn't.  Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution 
to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking 
of this problem.  It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all 
that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No 
connection to any practical problem.


> : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there
> : never were any descendants.  Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this.
> 
> That's Ravina.

No, it isn't.  It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' 
descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any.

Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a 
nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael.


> Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu".
> Which is inconsistent with Ravina.

It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the 
general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a 
nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were 
ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk.  The women's children still aren't a 
problem, because there weren't any.

But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't 
say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the 
men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in 
general.



-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote:
> The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any
> Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8.

Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with 
the same object?  The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". 
It's impossible that they should apply to different objects.


 > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only
 > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim.

I don't believe so.  The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are 
the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

.

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not
> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge,
> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min
> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge.

Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in
pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world.

Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains:
"You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he
has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone,
since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great
anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones."

> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav.

I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source?

> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because
> Kel Nekamos Hashem.

I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD"
actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is
often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood.
Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is
intended, when only the rashei taivos appear.

It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples,
but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an
experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh
apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem
mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300
hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both
numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than
"yikom".

In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean
it's appropriate for us.

RZS continues in another post:

> But there is no issur on taking revenge.  There is only an
> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are
> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want
> revenge against yourself.  But the objection to revenge in
> itself does not come from any Jewish source.

Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo
sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18)

Akiva Miller

Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the 
Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other 
places.

I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he 
often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat 
haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? 
This one stands out.

On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> I don't understand the question.  The Rambam always gives reasons and 
> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example.  He's spent the 
> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons 
> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third 
> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha 
> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. 

R' AM wrote:

'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor"
regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he
cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep
distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha
forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this
"needed" comfort from someone else.'

Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with
strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse,
due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised.

Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is
one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong,
then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with
aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I
think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility,
as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh.
Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it
vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given
circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would
apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid
shoteh.

If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :)

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170610/21a3b7fb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote:
: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any
: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8.
: 
: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase
: with the same object?  The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei
: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different
: objects.

See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag.
<http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=47445&;rid=159>

Gut Voch!
-Micha

On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I don't understand the question.  The Rambam always gives reasons and 
>> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example.  He's spent the 
>> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons 
>> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third 
>> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha 
>> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. 

> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the 
> Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other 
> places.
> 
> I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he 
> often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat 
> haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? 
> This one stands out.

He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few 
words as he needs to.  He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he 
say?  How could he express that any more concisely?

BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, 
after all.  But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Who says it was?
As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the 
Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my 
point - their return, if it happens will be something completely 
different than what happened with the rest of the tribes.  Even if we 
take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, 
they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, 
individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups.
>
> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of 
> assimilation.  The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where 
> they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite.  But 
> even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all.  
> Jehu could have reunited the kingdom.  And there were people from the 
> northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first 
> posted by Jeroboam I were removed.  But having two separate exilic 
> populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. 
That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our 
exile to have ended successfully?

The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or 
weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how 
many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 
10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of 
"good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't 
speak well of our history.

Ben

On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> .
>
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>
>> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because
>> Kel Nekamos Hashem.
> I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD"
> actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is
> often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood.
> Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is
> intended, when only the rashei taivos appear.

You're mistaken about the Hebrew.  Yikom is not "uphold".  That would be 
yakim.  Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun.  There 
is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God 
avenge his blood.

> It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples,
> but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an
> experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh
> apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem
> mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300
> hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both
> numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than
> "yikom".

Yinkom is a mistake.  Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the 
future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom.

> In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean
> it's appropriate for us.

Consider Bamidbar 31.  In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom 
nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim.  Take the vengeance of Israel 
against the Midianites.  In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael 
latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan.  To take the vengeance of Hashem against 
the Midianites.  Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here.  When we take 
vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance.

I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating 
Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY

They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather 
than repeat all of them here, have a look.

> RZS continues in another post:
>
>> But there is no issur on taking revenge.  There is only an
>> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are
>> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want
>> revenge against yourself.  But the objection to revenge in
>> itself does not come from any Jewish source.
> Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo
> sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18)
It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor.  It says lo tikom v'lo titor 
*et bnei amecha*.  Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your 
own people.  Detaching the first part of that from its object is 
unjustifiable.  It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the 
object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat.

Lisa

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> But when I see "HYD"
> actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is
> often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood.
> Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is
> intended, when only the rashei taivos appear.
>

"will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom"
(double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will
avenge".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170611/578a0218/attachment-0001.htm>

On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:

>> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not
>> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge,
>> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min
>> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge.

> Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in
> pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world.

Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"?  That 
implies wanting something from Me.

>> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav.

> I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source?

Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha.  When 
Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and 
Yaakov sat up and smiled.

>> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because
>> Kel Nekamos Hashem.

> I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD"
> actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is
> often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood.

Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge.  There's no such word as 
"yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh.  Perhaps 
you are thinking of yakim.

> experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh
> apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem
> mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300
> hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both
> numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than
> "yikom".

For a non-existent word that's pretty good.  I'm relieved that it 
doesn't outnumber the correct word :-)

> In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean
> it's appropriate for us.

It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be 
ashamed of.

>> But there is no issur on taking revenge.  There is only an
>> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are
>> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want
>> revenge against yourself.  But the objection to revenge in
>> itself does not come from any Jewish source.

> Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo
> sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18)

Es benei amecha.


[Email #2. -micha]

On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote:
>: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any
>: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8.

>: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase
>: with the same object?  The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei
>: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different
>: objects.

> See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag.
> <http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=47445&;rid=159>

This doesn't answer the question.  Lo sikom has the same subject as lo 
sitor.  It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* 
object.  So how can we pry them apart?

Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then 
how is nekama against him even possible?  Netira would seem to be a 
necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as 
lo zu af zu).


[Email #3 -mi]

On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" 
> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will 
> avenge".

Is yinkom even a valid form?  AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that 
have it in Av Harachamim are in error.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)