Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 049

Wednesday, May 30 2001

• Re: R' Akiva's talmidim
• Siege on Yerushalyim and Sefirah (connection)
• Re: kiyum ha'olam
• Re: Birchos ha-Shachar on Shavuos Morning
• halachic like beis Shammai in future?
• Hirhur/Machshava
• Halacha and Torah
• Rabbi Bechhofer's principle
• Re: Hirhur/Machshava
• Showering on Yom Tov
• Re: Hirhur/Machshava
• Re: Showering on Yom Tov
• Re: Hirhur/Machshava
• concern re Tefillin and aliyas for goyim - brochos
• Re: concern re Tefillin and aliyas for goyim - brochos
• 1- Administrivia; 2- Mainstream hashkafos

In a message dated 5/25/01 9:09:41am EDT, linaseli@netvision.net.il writes:
>> See the Pri Chadash Al Asar.

> Could you kindly summarize? Thank you.

The Pri Chadash asks the question you asked, since they all died what Simcha 
is there, he answers that the Simcha is about the new 5 Talmidim that by them 
it did not happen.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky - FAM" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
> what is the source that the siege lasted 430 days?

I believe Rav Wolfson mentioned that  the Malbim on last weeks haftarah goes
thru the cheshbon. Acc. to the Navi the seige lasted 2.5 years but in the
middle Bavel left to attend to Mitzrayim. The 430 days is counted from when
they came back and resumed the seige.

Note: I have not seen any of this inside and am only going by how I
understood Rav Wolfson. Any mistakes are mine.

In a message dated 5/25/01 9:09:24am EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> You stated that the Netziv says that the kiyum ha'olam before matan Torah
> was due to 7 mitzvos benei Noach. How does that fit with the idea of
> the 26 ki le'olam chasdos saying that HKB"H was zan es ha'olam bechasdo
> prior to matan Torah?

See MaHaRShA on the Gemara (Psachim 118a) the Diuk of *Zan* without *Torah*, 
(even after Zan they need Zchus for Kiyum).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/25/01 9:09:22am EDT, Yzkd@aol.com writes:
> In the Siddur the Baal Hatanya rules not to say.

My point was to ammend the M"M in footnote 16 which attributes that opinion 
(among others) to the S"A Horav, that in the Siddur he changed his ruling.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:01:41AM -0400, Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: So if I give you an azhara to regard BS on par with BH do I also need to
: give you an Azhara to make Abaye on par with Rava?

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Actually, there is a reason why bidavka Beish Shammai.

Your dvar torah is wonderful!
Permit me to elaborate....

Question:
What is the FIRST Machlokes to have any survival {kiyyum}
Answer:
The machlokes between all the zuggos re: smicha...

Question:
Aside form this exceptional case, what are the FIRST  machlokessen to
survive a generation?
Answer:
Those between Hillel and Shammai

Q: So What?
A: Pirke Avos makes this into THE paradigm for machlokes lesheim Shamayim
The bas kol was probably telling us a chiddush - otherwise why bother with a
bas kol?! - that you CAN have a machlokes, you can have two opinions and
BOTH can be Torah
BUT
only one opinion can be Halachah

Otherwise there is no precedent in history to have an opinion that is Torah
ledoros and not kehalacha

The case of Beis Shammai is FIRST, and UNIQUE.

No doubt imho, the Zohar was referring to this.

The machlokesen of Abbaye and Rava are similar, but they did not have a bas
kol endorsing Abbaye with an eilu v'eilu.  

Q: Were there machlokessen BEFORE BS and BH?
A: Yep but all were resolved and did not survive (see Rambam Mamrim) -except
of course that one machlokes 

The entire idea of eilu v'eilu is really a break with the way Torah USED to
be.  The Zohar is admonishing us that BS is Halachah le'ossid lavo.
Bepashtus, the kiyyum HAS A PURPOSE unlike other arguments - e.g. Tzadukkim
vs. Peirushim.

Until BS, no rejected shita survived. There is a reason a tachlis for
this survival, or avoiding total rejection. The Zohar illustrates this,
but I do not take it literally...

Q: Why don't you take this Zohar literally?
A: Typically we don't live in the future. And how can we pasken NOW for
a future Beis Din? Each Beis din has to pasken for its own generation.
There are a lot of technical issues with taking this too literally.
There are no issues with understanding this conceptually. Conceptually,
BS shitos have intrinsic Torah value, even though we do not pasken like
BS (well typically anyway). It is a lot like Toras Ben Sorreir uMoreh
according to the shita lo haya v'lo nivra.

While the Torah DOES articulate Ben Sorrer uMoreh literally, it is not
for us to understand it that way.

Good Shabbos and Good Yom Tov
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Not to let another VIDC pass w/o comment :-)

While in general Hirhur and Machshava are interchangable, we find that
WRT Hirhur there is issue wether it be "Kdibur" OTOH WRT Machshava
there is issue wether it is "Kmaseh" indicating Machshava is to efect
a Davar Hachutz Mimenu, while Hirhur refers to efecting ones self,
this also explains the famous Stira that while *Machshava* Ra'ah Ein
HKB"H Mitzarfa L'maseh, we find that *Hirhurei* Aveira Koshim M'aveira
(of course according to Rashi's Pshat it is no Stira).

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Shlomo Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
>RRW asks
>> Perhaps non-Halachic Torah is ipso facto invalid?
>> Illustrations: Do we learn the Apocrypha? Do we learn Torah from Tzadukkim?
>> Karraim?
>> What is NOT kehalacha and yet is still Torah?

> Torah is TaNaCh, Mishnah, Gemara and Poskim. This is codified in SA in
> YD for "birkas haTorah" and in HM as "dvar mishna" concerning a dayan
> who errs.

> Poskim expand this to include Midrash and Kabbalah.
> See the Rambam and SA in the Laws of Talmud Torah...

Let's be specific:	

How come The houses of Tazaddok and Baisus, and Kussim, etc. are outside the
pale of Halachic Judaism -- while Beis Shammai though rejected - is not!? 

When Chazal rejected Seforim from Tanach, they became "not Torah".  There
are machlokessim re: what is in and out even as late as R. Akiva and his
generation, somewhat later than BS and BH.

So - if the Book of Jubilees is outside Torah because it is outside of
Halachah...
Then how is it that BS is outside of Halachah and not outside of Torah??!!


The meta-issue is: just how wide IS Torah anyway?

Good Shabbos and Good Yom Tov
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

PS Refer to my other post
I can show ONE case of Eilu v'eilu BEFORE Beis Shammai, can you show me
number TWO?!

From an alert reader:
>Rabbi Bechhofer's principle - you finally made it!:)

>The Divrei Chaim (of Zanz) never said his reasons for assuring machine
>matzos in order that no one should argue on his reasons and be matir.
>Gut Shabbos



At 04:58 PM 5/25/01 +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>To compare the Chazon Ish to Sanhedrin in his ability to make takonos
>is rather problematic. If he is not being compared to Sanhedrin the
>reference to hilchos mamrim seems irrelevant. No rav or community can
>make psak binding on another community. The Rambam states this very
>clearly in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah....

I did not see anyone comparing the CI to a Sanhedrin or Novi, I assume I 
missed it, that was not my intent. I meant to bring a parallel from the 
Rambam Mamrim, not a direct proof.

>> I suggest that Rabbi Bechhofer meant that Rabbi Karelitz's prohibition
>> of performing sheruth leumi is now minhag bnei Bnei Brak, and therefore
>> is binding.

I guess I missed this too - I have been distracted by other e-mails these 
past few days. My apologies. This was not my intent either.

>In summary. 1) are we talking about psak or a takana?

1. Psak.

>                                                      2) Is the authority
>based upon the posek being recognized as vastly superior or on sevara

2. Yes.

>3) Is the authority because of the posek or because it was accepted by the
>majority of poskim[?]

3. No.

>                   4) Is the authority primarily because the posek is
>your rebbe or your rav?

4. No.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

At 11:44 AM 5/25/01 -0400, R' Yitzchok Zirkind Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>While in general Hirhur and Machshava are interchangable, we find that
>WRT Hirhur there is issue wether it be "Kdibur" OTOH WRT Machshava
>there is issue wether it is "Kmaseh" indicating Machshava is to efect
>a Davar Hachutz Mimenu, while Hirhur refers to efecting ones self,
>this also explains the famous Stira that while *Machshava* Ra'ah Ein
>HKB"H Mitzarfa L'maseh, we find that *Hirhurei* Aveira Koshim M'aveira
>(of course according to Rashi's Pshat it is no Stira).

It is the stirah I am addressing. A hirhur is an emotional thought that 
erupts within a person (me'lashon "Har"). A machashava is an intellectual 
thought. Thus, for example, a daydream is a hirhur while scheming is a 
machashava.

V'al pi zeh...

I'm planning to give a shiur on Shavuos night on the topic of showering on
YT.  Rabbi Michael Broyde, in his article in the RJJ Journal (Spring 2000)
lays out the reasoning as to why it should be muttar.  I also heard a shiur
from RHS when I was in his shiur in which he implied (but did not say
outright) that it should be muttar.

Does anyone know of any poskim who permit it?  What did RYBS say?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

See Sdei Chemed for Arichus on this Stira.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

> I'm planning to give a shiur on Shavuos night on the topic of showering on
> YT.  Rabbi Michael Broyde, in his article in the RJJ Journal (Spring 2000)
> lays out the reasoning as to why it should be muttar.  I also heard a shiur
> from RHS when I was in his shiur in which he implied (but did not say
> outright) that it should be muttar.

See S"A Horav 511:1

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

[Resend. I accidentally approved a partial email. -mi]

In a message dated 5/25/01 2:23:26pm EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> It is the stirah I am addressing. 

There is an Arichus on this Stira in the Sdei Chemed.

>                                    A hirhur is an emotional thought that 
> erupts within a person (me'lashon "Har"). A machashava is an intellectual 
> thought. Thus, for example, a daydream is a hirhur while scheming is a 
> machashava.

By Limud Hatorah we find the Term Hirhur.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

I am surprised that no one raised the question (at least the irony) of 
someone who is non-Jewish saying 'asher bochar bonu mikol hoamim vinosan lonu 
es Toroso'!

At the very least that would be a falsehood and then also - would there not 
be a problem of saying shem shomayim livatolo, etc. concurrently?

Mordechai

Mordechai wrote:
> I am surprised that no one raised the question (at least the irony) of 
> someone who is non-Jewish saying 'asher bochar bonu mikol hoamim vinosan 
> lonu es Toroso'!
> At the very least that would be a falsehood and then also - would there not be
> a problem of saying shem shomayim livatolo, etc. concurrently?
     
Which of the sheva mitzvos does it violate?

Besides which, these Lubavitchers are specifically asking if these people are 
Jews.  I don't think the onus is on them if a Non-Jew lies and then commits an 
aveirah (not that I know what aveirah we are talking about).

Gil Student

Sometime Friday afternoon (EDT) our disk filled up. As my laptop a"h is
no longer with us (*), I didn't know about the runaway program that was
filling it until this morning. (* I'm sure my laptop just gave up the
fight after the desktop computer's petirah last fall.)

What this means to all of you is that little new email came in before we
ran out of disk space to hold it all. Some people got that "mailbox is
full" message. If email were a more reliable protocol, every submitter
would have.

Hopefully, you saved your posts, and are able to resend them.



On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:20:57PM -0400, Howard Schild wrote:
: What defines which are the generators of what is called the "mainstream"
: Torah? [I am talking about after the time of the gaonim and davka
: after/during the era of Acharonim] Do we decide the mainstream by simply
: counting who has the highest population group...

I think you're asking for a rigorous halachic definition of a sociological
term. "Mainstream" does simply mean "accepted by a significant segment of
the population", but that doesn't give the term any halachic or aggadic
significance.

Yes, the gemara (Talmud Bavli) is mainstream -- it is clearly accepted
by all of observant Jewry as /the/ central repository of TSBP. Medrash
happened not to get that acceptance; although historians of halachah would
argue that at least amongst Ashkenazim perhaps it should have.

What I took Mordechai Phyllostac@aol.com to mean when he wrote:
> I find it quite interesting to see how such ideas become so widespread       
> among the masses to go unquestioned by many and become thought of a          
> standard / mainstream Torah as if cited in the gemoro......similar to        
> other inyonim recently discussed here, e.g. re the classical position   

It is interesting to note the number of new ideas that are entering the
mainstream that weren't there a century ago. And, because Sha"s is
mainstream, people naturally assume the ideas come from Sha"s. Which
ignores the fact that they're only newly in the mainstream, as ideas
from the gemara would have been accepted by the masses a long time
ago.

Speaking of which, look at the Aruch haShulchan on Tikun Leil Shavu'os.
The minhag apparantly wasn't in the Litvisher mainstream a mere 80 years
ago. Nowadays, it's a given.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]