Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 065

Sunday, August 7 2005

• Re: Is the World Good?
• Re: Is the World Good?
• Davening at Kevorim and Catholics
• Chassidim, Misnagdim, and now Mussar
• TIDE Redux
• The Upgrade of Chassidus
• timtum halev/macholos assuros
• Re: [Areivim] Lo TeXhoneim -- decision by Rabbanut Rashit
• Haschalas Gemara
• chassidim/misnagdim/mussar comparison
• chassidim vs. non-chassidim
• Chassidim-Misnagdim - another difference
• Re: [Hirhurim - Musings] Women Learning Gemara
• halachot of nine days
• women learning Gemara
• Re: [Areivim] giving away land and expelling Jews
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's halachic analysis of whether soldiers may refuse orders (revised)
• Is The World Good?
• Is the World Good?
• chaverim
• Re: Haschalas Gemara
• Har Habayit
• RE: Avodah V15 #64

Micha Berger wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 09:59:27PM -0500, brent wrote:
>: Where is there is source at all in Torah that considers this world good?
>: It is called, "Emek HaBachah" (Valley of Tears), "Olam HaChoshech"
>: (World of Darkness) and other such terms...
...
>In any case, what about "gam zu litovah" and "kol man de'avad Rachmanah,
>letav avad"? Don't they describe every event in this world as good? (Albeit
>not necessarily to our liking.)

*Eiruvin (13b)*Our Rabbis taught: For two and a half years were Beth
Shammai and Beth Hillel in dispute, the former asserting that it were
better for man not to have been created than to have been created, and the
latter maintaining that it is better for man to have been created than
not to have been created. They finally took a vote and decided that it
were better for man not to have been created than to have been created,
but now that he has been created, let him investigate his past deeds38
or, as others say, let him examine his future actions.39

***Tosfos(Eiruvin 13b):* *It is better if man hadnג€™t been created. ג€¦
*Alternatively we can say that the view of Eiruvin (13b) that it would
be better not to have been created applies to the average person while
concerning the righteousג€”happy is he and happy is his generation.

*Shaloh (Beis Dovid 17ג€“19): *Concerning the dispute (Eiruvin 13b)
as to whether it was better for man to be createdג€”one can raise an
objection against those who state it is better to be created. Koheles
(4:2ג€“3). ג€œI praise the deadג€”who have already diedג€”more than I
praise those who are still alive. And better than both of them is he
who has never beenג€¦ג€ This is clearly according to the view that it
would be better not to be createdג€¦? The explanation is that Gג€‘d
created the world for the sake of man and He made man to be upright,
entirely good and to be an illuminating force. From this aspect if man
hadnג€™t succumbed to evil and was entirely good everyone would agree
that it would be good to be created. The dispute is only now that man
has been debased through his free will and has undermined the intent of
creation. Is it now better to be created or not?

*Mesilas Yeshorim(Chapter 1ג€”Obligations in this world):* It is a very
important principle that man was not created for the sake of life in
this world but rather for the World to Come. This world is only a means
to obtain the World to Comeג€”which is the true goal of man. That is why
there are many statements of our sages comparing this world to a place
of preparation while the World to Come is the place of tranquility. That
is why this world is compared to an entrance hallג€¦ No intelligent
person can possibly believe that the purpose of manג€™s creation is
existence in this world. Just look at what life is like in this world
or what constitutes happiness. Manג€™s life is seventy perhaps eighty
years. It is a life filled with many types of suffering and sickness,
pains and worries and after all thatג€”death. Rarely does a person have
true pleasure and peace of mind. Even such a person when he gets to the
age of 100 already has ceased to function.

*Radvaz(**3:555): **Question: One of the leading Torah scholar did not
shed a tear when his son diedג€”Is that appropriate behavior? Answer:*
This is a bad trait indicating insensitivity and a bad character. This
a cruel attitude which is characteristic of philosophers who say that
this world is an illusionג€”a big jokeג€¦ Donג€™t be seduced by their
erroneous way of seeing the world which is based on this premise that
the world is an illusion. In contrast, we who have received the Torah
we must believe and know that this world is very important to those who
utilize it properly and act appropriately. This world is the means that a
person acquires the World to Come and the immortality of the soul. That
is why this world is called the world of deeds. Consequently it is a
mistake to treat it as an illusion and to ascribe its suffering to the
poor way it is conducted. It is an error to complain about the misery
of temporal existence as the majority of the ancient poets. Instead a
person should focus on his own deeds and lament and mourn his failure
to act properlyג€¦. One who weeps, mourns and sheds tears over the loss
of a relativeג€”and surely over the death of the righteousג€”emulates
the pious, the prophets and men of good deedsג€¦.submission to manג€™s
Maker. Man, when confronted with tragedy, should grieve for his sins that
brought it upon him. It is not for nothing that the Rabbis rule that he
first three days after the death of a relative are for weeping, seven
days for mourning and thirty days for abstained from washing clothes and
cutting the hair. If it were not a good thing they would hardly have
prescribed it for three days. Abraham, Jacob and David wept when they
lost a relative. Consult the work Toras HaAdam by Ramban and you find
enough to answer your question. Nevertheless it is not proper to mourn
too much over the death of a relative as the Talmud says.

Daniel Eidensohn
**

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:27:51PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 09:59:27PM -0500, brent wrote:
: >: Where is there is source at all in Torah that considers this world good?
...
: >In any case, what about "gam zu litovah" and "kol man de'avad Rachmanah,
...

: *Eiruvin (13b)*Our Rabbis taught: For two and a half years were Beth
: Shammai and Beth Hillel in dispute, the former asserting that it were

You're answering a different question, "Where is there a source at all
in the Torah that considers the world bad?" 

The two are not mutually exclusive on two levels: (1) sources could exist
both ways, and (2) the world can actually be described as both, depending
on perspective.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
> I guess I just don't know enough about Catholicism to pinpoint what could
> be bothering these people. As you described what the yidden davening
> said it doesn't seem to be a problem. "Ask for them to intervene",
> "ask her to beg for rachamim for them", it seems that they're asking
> Rochel Imanu to daven for them. As far as I know no one holds that's a
> problem. And if this is similar to something that the Catholics do,
> well maybe they are imitating us. After all, we are around longer, no?

The difference is we aren't speaking to a woman. We are praying, call
it what you will, but when people scream out to an invisible entity it
is praying just like praying to any other intermediary.
Catholics pray (or ask) Mary to help them and we ask Rachel to help us
by praying on our behalf. It really is no different than praying to a
malach, even by saying "barchuni l'shalom" we are asking the malach to
open the shefa from Hashem above. Anytime we ask an etherial entity to
do something it is prayer, "a rose by any other name..."

brent 

> My Belzer chevrusa (we learn "Sidduro shel Shabbos" together) explained
> to me recently that the Chassidim themselves recognize that the primary
> role of Rebbes in our day is social cohesion as opposed to hadrachah in
> Avodas Hashem and in Dveykus. I do not see how the difficult change-over
> to the "next task" can be accomplished, but it will be truly wonderful
> if and when it does!

The Klausenberger Rebbe (Shefah Chaim volume 4 #248) wrote concerning this:
    "Our grandfather the Ateres Tzvi once said while fish were being
    prepared and they were flopping around after their heads had been cut
    off. "In this same manner will the chassidic rebbes dance and jump
    -- without a head -- before the coming of Moshiach." In my humble
    opinion in understanding the words of the sages and their mysteries
    -- that the intent of our grandfather was positive concerning our
    times. These times which we see the lowliness of the generation. A
    time when there are no great people to ask or seek counsel from. The
    question spontaneously wells up in the heart concerning the value
    of the chassidic movement which was founded by the Baal Shem Tov. I
    have personally said many time commented concerning the well known
    frightening letter that the Gra wrote erev Yom Kippur -- how could
    he speak so harshly against those great tzadikim? In fact the dispute
    between the Gra and the Chassidim was similar to the dispute between
    Yosef and his brothers... They asserted that offspring that are
    no good, severely diminish the forefathers retroactively for many
    generations. And surely it has a bad impact on the future. Perhaps
    then this was the reason for the strong opposition of the Gra and
    the misnagdim when they saw with ruach hakodesh up until the time of
    our generation. They wanted to reject chassidus because they knew how
    degenerate it would become in the generation just before the coming of
    Moshiach. In contrast the Baal Shem Tov and his followers -- despite
    the fact that they all foresaw the degeneration in chassidus which
    would develop -- but they also saw its benefits. In fact it is quite
    obvious that chassidus has in fact been the main factor in saving
    Yiddishkeit even in our generation -- even though we are well aware
    of its lowly state. In fact there would be little left of Yiddisheit
    if it weren't for chassidus with its special clothing and the close
    attachment of the chassidim to the community and their rebbe. This
    external social cohesion is the basis of the vital strength of
    chassidus. The strength of chassidus has significant influence
    on the non-chassidic world also. This then was the intent of our
    grandfather's statement. He wanted to indicate the tremendous value in
    chassidus even just before Moshiach and that we should not fall into
    despair when we see the lowliness of the generation. The rebbes --
    even though they are mindless creatures without heads -- nevetheless
    they jump about and still have some vitality and provide social
    cohesion. They retain the strong spirit that sustains Yiddishkeit."

Rav Sternbuch's comment when shown this was - that the litvaks today
are similar to the chassidim in their running after gedolim.

Daniel Eidensohn

Rabbi Mayer Schiller has written a very important essay on TIDE. For the
most part, we are in agreement, except for two points. The essay can be
found in PDF at: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/TIDE.pdf>

or, in a series of jpegs at:
<http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/08/tide-redux-very-important-essay-by.html>

KT,
YGB

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[YGB -  " ] 8/05/2005 04:36:28 AM
Date: 	Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: 	Anonymous <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
To: 	ygb@aishdas.org

I believe the change over will come when A) it becomes common knowledge
that this sort of shift is what is intended and is possible, even in
our times, and for average people. I once asked a mashgiach in a Gerrer
yeshiva what the Beis Yisroel means when he says (in almost every piece)
'shabos/yomtov/etc helft zi, m'ken tzikimen' 'shabos/yomtov/almost
anything helps, and one can arrive'. He didn't know. B) Information
on concrete ways of going about it that are of practical use is widely
available and socially accepted. In our generation this means imho an
emphasis on emotional processing (cf Sedona method, Focusing and other
emotional based therapies) which affect nefesh habehamis, which is the
site of emotions. These approaches therefore need to be placed in a proper
Torah context, as opposed to being 'free-standing'. Clearing up repressed
negative emotions allows the heart to begin to open, and this opening of
the heart - to the experience of (Divine) love - is what allows nefesh
to hook up to the higher levels. 'Veata yodea sherefuas hanefesh hu
tikkun hamidos' 'And you know that healing the soul is tikkun hamidos'
Rambam Shmone Prokim 1

>>R Saul Mashbaum wrote:
> R. Asher Weiss in Michat Asher - Vayikra - Parshat Shmini has an
> interesting chakira on kashrut and timtum halev: What is the cause, and
> what is the result? Is food non-kosher because it induces timtum halev,
> or does timtum halev derive from the non-kosher nature of the food?...

R. Raphael Moshe Luria in his sefer Beis Ginzi (Parshas Vayikra),
cites the Zohar and the Ohr HaChaim that say that eating non-kosher
food is almost impossible to gain a kapara for, unlike almost any other
aveira. This is because the cheftza shel issur remains part of the body
until death.

To me this seems to imply that the food itself is metamtem.
hmmm... OTOH maybe it is the issur that gives the food this quality. Now
I"m not sure.

brent kaufman 

"Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <zivotoa@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> It is good that in Chicago you heard of this "problem" for the first 
> time and reached a decisive answer so quickly. We thank you.
> Lo Sechonen (LS) was one of the major issues dealt with by the propoents 
> of the HM (heter medira not Harry Maryles) from day one. And they 
> nonetheless supported it. LS is only a permanent sale. HM is a 
> temporary. and other answers.

There are many places in Shas where Tanaaim argue about whether a Non-Jew
can make a Kinyan in Israel in order to remove one's obligations of
Maaser. Both the Yerushalmi and the Bavli discuss it.

Yerushalmi :(Demai 88)

    Those who say a Goy CANNOT make a Kinyan, explain the Pasuk of
    "VeHisnachaltem Osam Livneichem Achreichem LaReshes Achuza," (Vayikra
    25: 46) compares Achuza to Avodim. Just as is the case by an Eved who
    only we, Yisraelim can "buy" Goyim as property and Goyim cannot be
    "buy" us (only our labor) so, also, land. We can be buy from them
    and they cannot buy from us.
    Those who say a Goy MAY buy land in Israel base it on the Pasuk
    "VeHaaretz Lo Simcar LeTzmisus" But if the sale is made it IS valid.

Bavli (Gitin 47A):

    Those that say a Goy cannot buy land, get it from the Pasuk of "Ki
    Li Kol HaAretz". Li ( to G-D) is the holiness of the land therefore,
    no Kinyan can be made by a Goy to remove the land's intrinsic Kedusha.
    Those who say a Goy MAY buy land, interpret the words "Reshis
    D'Gancha" to mean only "Your grain" (i.e. grain owned by a Jew) is
    governed by the laws of Kedushas HaAretz not the grain of an Akum
    (Goy).

The Rambam (Terumos 81:10) and the Raavad (there Halacha 13), the Shulchan
Aruch (Yorah Deah Ch 331:3) and others Paskin that a Goy does NOT have
a Kinyan.

The words of the Rambam:

    "A Goy that buys land in Israel does not remove from it's Mitzvah
    obligations; it retains it's holiness. Therefore, if a Jew buys it
    back from the Goy, it is not considered a Kivush Yachid but he has
    to be Mafrish Terumos Umasros, and bring Bikurim; It is all Min
    HaTorah and it's as if he never sold it to him."

The Kesef Mishneh interprets the Rambam this way: All this applies after
he bought it back from the Goy. But, while the Goy owns it, it indeed,
Patur LeChol Hadeyos ( according to all the above mentioned Shitos)
in all matters of Kedusha. So, the Kesef Mishneh Paskins that fruit of
a goy is NOT subject to the strictures of Shmitah.

Indeed, the Rambam Paskins (Hilchos Shmittah VeYovel Ch 84 Halacha 29)
that a Goy that buys land in Israel and plants during Shmittah, that
those fruits are Mutar. Their fruits are not subject to Shmittah laws as
they serve "Sin" and are therefore, not commanded on the laws of Shmittah.

Also, the Bais Yosef gave another reason to be Matir the Peiros of a
Goy during Shmittah. From the Pasuk "VeHaysah Shavas HaAretz Lachem"
Lachem VeLo Nachrim. From this it can be seen that only land of a Jew
is subject to the laws of Shmittah.

Today, Shmittah is Midirabbonan according to many poskim and according
to all of them, a Goy CAN make a kinyan in Israel in order to remove
from it the laws of Shmittah.

So what's the problem with Heter Mechirah?

According to the "Mabit" and Mahrit" the Rambam is to be interpreted
differently. They say that the Rambam only meant that before Biur, Goyim
do not have Gzeiras Sphicham on them. But Kedushas Shvi'is (Shmittah)
they do have.

The Ridvaz in his Teshuvos elaborates on this issue but Paskins like
the Bais Yosef and concludes with the following: "It is certain (
Barur KaShemesh) that it is permissible to buy and eat grain and fruit
purchased from Goyim in Israel without Kedushas Shvi'is.

This is the basis of the Heter Mechirah that is used in Israel to this
very day.

But...

Many Gedolim are against this practice for other reasons (of which I,
HM, am not aware) and for that reason, the Heter Mechirah authorized by
R Kook, was only given BeShas Hadechak (during times of great need when
literally when Pikuach Nefesh was involved during the pioneering years
of Israeli Statehood.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.

HM

[R Zvi Lampel:]
> More accurately (and emphasized by R' Reuvain Feinstein in this context):
> What is not someone /else's/, you don't take (verses something which is
> hefker, for instance, which is not your yet, but which you do take).

I've heard 2 understandings of hefker which seem to differ on the question
of whether something can actually be ownerless.

The seemingly more common approach is that I can mafkir something, it
is now truly ownerless, and you can later take possession and become the
owner. The other approach is my being mafkir it just makes it available
for you to take ownership but until you do, it's still mine. One could
construct cases where there would seem to be a nafka mina. Has anyone
heard this 2nd approach. If so, any philosophical basis/mkorot for the
different approaches?

KT
Joel Rich

RYGB:
> In response to the legitimate complaint that I neglected Mussar, I 
> have expanded the table.

When I first looked at the table I assumed that the misnagdim column
was really explaining the yeshivish/mussar oriented view already.

I would love to see you add TIDE to the chart!

> My Belzer chevrusa (we learn "Sidduro shel Shabbos" together) explained
> to me recently that the Chassidim themselves recognize that the primary
> role of Rebbes in our day is social cohesion as opposed to hadrachah in
> Avodas Hashem and in Dveykus.

What, then, is similar between today's chassidus and the original Chassidus?
I don't mean only in theory.

brent kaufmna

The selection below is from page 138 of "A Jubilee of Watching, The Story
of HaRav Chayim Eliezer Samson," by Rachel Samson Rabinowitz. Perhaps it
should be added to the list that R. Bechhofer posted about the differences
between Chassidim and Misnagdim. :-)

    Ray Meir Shapira, the Lubliner Rov, came to the United States on
    behalf of the Yeshiva of Lublin, which he had founded in 1924. When
    he visited Baltimore, Rabbi Samson helped him with fund-raising. In
    gratitude, Ray Shapira autographed a copy of his sefer, Ohr Hameir,
    and gave it to Rabbi Samson. Ray Shapira had particularly enjoyed a
    conversation they had about the difference between the Litvishe and
    Chasidishe methods of learning. Rabbi Samson referred to the story
    chazal teach about the fiery power of study of Reb Yonasan Ben-Uziel,
    which was intense enough to burn a bird flying above him.41 "The
    Chasidishe student," Rabbi Samson said, "would be simply enraptured
    by the awesomeness of the story, whereas the Litvishe student would
    become absorbed with the intricacies of whether Reb Yonasan Ben-Uziel
    would be liable for any damages for the life of the bird."

Yitzchok Levine 

SBA wrote:
>Much, MUCH more can be found in the 3rd part of Vayoel Moshe - 
>"Maamar Loshon Hakodesh" - which is actually based on a teshuva 
>that the SR z'l wrote to Rav Pinchos Hirshprung zt'l of Montreal.

>Is it really possible to debate and discuss this topic seriously without
>studying these 50 [large] pages quoting Shas and Poskim? I doubt it.

Actually, I had already studied them and quoted them in the blog post.
Despite intentionally avoiding most acharonim/poskim (e.g. the Tzitz
Eliezer) in my post on this subject, I still quoted the Satmar Rav
(who considers it assur for women to learn even Rashi al ha-Torah).

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

With regard to the issue of wearing new clothes, I found the following
paragraph on <http://www.yoy.org.il/article.php?id=4a> (Yeshivat Ohr
Yerushaliym)

"Clothing worn briefly after washing before the Nine Days may be worn
again during the Nine Days. Many people prepare clothing this way
in advance. Some say that if clothing is used to wipe a dusty floor
it can be worn. Our minhag is to wear clean clothing on Shabbos,
even Erev Tishah B'Av. However, new clothing should not be worn even
on Shabbos. Tablecloths may be used even if they are freshly washed.
Clothing worn on Shabbos may then be worn during the week, however, one
should not put on and take off clothing on Shabbos just for this purpose."

"One should not wear freshly laundered (or new) clothing during this
time. The minhag is to be lenient regarding undergarments, socks, and
pajamas. Some poskim are lenient regarding unstarched shirts as well.
Some poskim say that a fresh handkerchief may be used only if the old
one is dirty and no longer usable. Some poskim allow the use of clean
towels during this period. Sheets should not be changed unless a guest
has arrived and needs one."

Are the above considerations namely 1) being able to wear a freshly
laundered garment if it was first used to clean a dusty floor 2) poskim
are not machmir and allow one to wear non starched shirts considered
"halacha l'maise" because unfortunately I did not prepare enough shirts
this year for the nine days, I can get by, but if the above could be
used halacha lamaise that would be useful.

Could the "learned" members of this forum please provide a response

Regards,
Rael Levinsohn

[RSBA:]
> Much, MUCH more can be found in the 3rd part of Vayoel Moshe - "Maamar
> Loshon Hakodesh" - which is actually based on a teshuva that the SR z'l
> wrote to Rav Pinchos Hirshprung zt'l of Montreal.

> Is it really possible to debate and discuss this topic seriously without
> studying these 50 [large] pages quoting Shas and Poskim? I doubt it.

Would SBA be kind enough to cite key passages from the referenced part
of Va'yoel Moshe to illustrate the Satmar Rov's arguments and evidence -
for those of us who do not have the sefer?

Yitzchok Zlochower

On 8/7/05, brent <fallingstar613@hotmail.com> wrote on Areivim:
> Can someone explain the incident in which Shlomo HaMelech gave cities
> in EY to the king of (I forgot wich country - Lebanon, I think) in
> exchange for lumber for the BhM.
> How is this different?

The incident is in Melachim I: 9:11. The pshat is as you say; however,
according to many meforshim (e.g. Ralbag in Melachim; Radak and Metzudas
David in Divrei Hayamim), Chiram, the king of Tyre (Tzor) gave Shlomo
cities in exchange. In fact, Divrei HaYamim II: 8:2 does record that
Chiram gave cities to Shlomo, but it does not say that there was any
quid pro quo.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I had written on Areivim:
> There is a din of mored b'malchus even for a king such as Achav, who
> is a poshea yisrael.

On 8/7/05, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote 
> What about 'venosi be'amcho lo so'or' - be'oyseh maaseh amcho?

Tzitz Eliezer chelek 19 siman 50 deals with this. Apparently, the
Urim v'Tumim siman 17 tumim s"k 3 says that v'nasi be'amcha applies to
Yannai haMelech, but the Tzitz Eliezer distinguishes between a nasi and
a king based on Zevachim 102a & Menachos 98a which state that Eliyahu
ran before Achav in order to give him kavod. The Maharsha in Zevachim
says that this is true even though Achav was a rasha. (Note that the
Uv'T was asking a question on Tosfos and the T'E answered the question;
this might imply that the Tosfos assumed like the TE.)

The TE suggests a possibility that the Hasmonean kings such as Yannai
did not have the din of a king because they were subservient to Rome,
in contradistinction to Achav.  According to this, the Uv"T would
agree that v'nasi be'amcha applies just to the Hasmonean kings but not
to real kings such as Achav.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[Micha:]
> I have heard "olam hasheqer" but not "olam hachoshech".

The closest to "olam hachoshech" in the Torah is from Yishayahu, Ch.60,
vs. 2. "Ki hinei hachoshech y'chaseh eretz..." "For behold, darkness
shall cover the earth; And gross darkness the peoples..."

I believe it is figurative of trial and tribulation, but it's not a very
pleasant picture.  To be fair to the text, however, it is followed by
"v'alayich yizrach HaShem uchvodo alayich yeira'eh," "But upon you the
L-rd will arise; And His glory shall be seen upon thee."

Hence, I would say that it appears the World is ultimately good. The
operative word here is "ultimately."

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> In any case, what about "gam zu litovah" and "kol man de'avad Rachmanah,
> letav avad"? Don't they describe every event in this world as good? (Albeit
> not necessarily to our liking.)

Rav Volbe has used these terms to refer to this world, at least in his
sefer "Ben Sheshes L'Asar".

gamzu L'tvoa and ... L'tav avad. Note the lamed. "For" good, or "towards"
the good - not that "zu" itself is tova. The holocaust wasn't good. Good
came out of it maybe (the kapara that was intended). But I don't believe
a person could ever say that it was good itself. It was in fact, bad.
But its purpose was so that positive things could happen because of it.

brent kaufman

On a well known blog there was discussion of a post mashiach world
including chaverim and amei haaretz. Does anyone know how this actually
worked in the past? (How did you identify whether the person you were
dealing with was one or the other) KT joel rich

On 8/5/05, Rich, Joel <JRich@segalco.com> wrote:
> I've heard 2 understandings of hefker...
> The seemingly more common approach is that I can mafkir something, it
> is now truly ownerless, and you can later take possession and become the
> owner. The other approach is my being mafkir it just makes it available
> for you to take ownership but until you do, it's still mine. One could
> construct cases where there would seem to be a nafka mina. Has anyone
> heard this 2nd approach. If so, any philosophical basis/mkorot for the
> different approaches?

 From the little I've learned in Bava Kamma, the second approach couldn't
work. If you are mafkir something in Reshut haRabbim, you aren't liable
for any damages it does (except for bor, which the Torah is m'chayev
you especially when you are mafkir it).

In his reply, Brent wrote:
>As for the chiyuv kareiss, I'm sorry, please read his words before
>accusing me of something incorrectly. The only part that is a chiyuv
>kareis is the Azara area. Not only may a tameh mais go onto most of the
>Har but a mais itself may be brought there.

Let's be exact, for those who think that entrance to all of the area of
Har Habayit is prohibited under all circumstances:

Rambam, Avoda, Hilchot Bet Hab'chirah, Chapt. 7 -
para. 7: one should not enter [even in the post-destruction period]
except to those areas which are permitted.
para. 15: and it is permitted to bring in a corpse to the Temple Mount
and of course, a tamei met may be there [up to the cheil boundary,
see para. 16]

and the Rambam visited some portion of Har Habayit himself.

and to jump forward, Rav Yehiel Michel Tuchachinsky wrote, in his
monumental Ir HaKodesh v'haMikdash, Sec. 5, p. 80: that in this pre-Ben
Davidic period, we will be able to build synagogues on the Har Habayit,
once we have the permission of the authorities [and he was writing during
the pre-state period] as the area is quite large - 250 cubits to the
south are free all along the east-west axis of 500 cubits.

it is but a matter for engineers as RavShe'ar Yashuv Cohen once wrote
but I think it is more a psychological hurdle.

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Israel

Regarding "Emunas Chachamim" for Christians - see Mathew 23:1-3,
Christians are commanded to listen to the Rabbis. I have successfully used
this citation in various "discussions" with Christian religious leaders.

Ari Kahn

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


[ 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         ]