Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 088

Monday, July 17 2006

• Re: Avodah V17 #87
• How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• tzedakah for non-Jews
• Re: tzedakah for non-Jews
• Re: Capital punishment
• Re: Capital punishment
• Israeli News on NY Erev Shabbos
• Fwd: Chesed Leumim
• Re: Capital punishment
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: Yoma Daf 29 - What is Parsa, Mil, Ama?
• Yoma Daf 29 - What is Parsa, Mil, Ama?

> From: Jacob Sasson <jsasson@nyu.edu>
> I think the Yalkut Yosef has had a far great impact on its constituency
> than the MB.                   The MB may have had an impact in the study
> of halacha but not as much in psak. How many poskim pasken like the MB?
> The Yalkut Yosef (or the psak of R' Ovadia Yosef), on the other hand,
> has become the final say on matters of jewish law and practice for many
> communities both in Israel and abroad.

There are a number of yeshiva comunities that give psak like the MB. Most
poskim will bring and deal with the MB if he comments on the matter. ROY
said at the sium hashas last year in yad eliyahu that after one finishes
the daily daf one should learn an amud (maybe a daf- i don't remember)
of MB.

I understand that there are communities that use ROY in EY, but even
leshitaso, that Maran is koveah in EY, that doesn't help in chu"l where
Maran is not koveah.

Gut Voch
reuven

> The deaths of RMF and R' Yaakov Kamineyzky probably did more to define
> the end of an era than anything else. As the death of Rebbe defined the
> end of the Tanoim, etc

Rav Volbe ztz"l, never one to say something that wasn't thought out well
in advance, said at R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's shloshim in Lakewood East,
that people have to a large degree forgotten what a "Gadol b'Torah"
is and that there are no longer any Gedolim in the US. This obviously
caused an uproar and after the talk everyone rushed around him to ask
what he meant, he replied that he said what he meant, finished. That
was unsettling for many people and not everyone agrees with him but
that was his opinion.
(Yes, I'm sure he knew of the Gemara of "Yiftach b'doro k'Shmuel
b'doro... And still...)

cbk

> Darkhei Shalom is, according to R' Aharon Lichtenstein, part of
> "vehalakhta bidrakhav". I even tend to spell "Shalom" capitalized in
> this instance, as it seems to me that we're using it in a context where
> it qualifies as a sheim Hashem.
> It is thus deOraisa.

Another question about RAL's understanding of this matter:
If he believes that giving tzedakah to a non-Jew is the mitzvah of
vehalachta bidrakhav (VHBD), then why did the Gemara need to attribute
it to darchei shalom. Why come on to darchei shalom if it is already
part of the mitzvah of VHBD?

cbk

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 06:46:18PM -0500, CBK wrote:
: If he believes that giving tzedakah to a non-Jew is the mitzvah of
: vehalachta bidrakhav (VHBD), then why did the Gemara need to attribute
: it to darchei shalom...

I wasn't clear. RAL is saying peshat in "darkhei Shalom", not tzedaqah
in particular. Shalom is Hashem's derekh, therefore darkhei Shalom is
an aspect of VHBD. There is no "coming onto" one or the other, one is
part of the other. The gemara attributes it to DS, *which is* VHDB.

Gut Voch!
-mi

"cbk" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
> 1) Why then is only the BD blamed and called Chavlonis, and not also the
> malchus and Kohain Gadol? All of these institutions are in ' positions
> of leadership, teaching, and carrying out justice.

Ein hachi nami, it's their fault too. Cf the KG's role in arei miklat.
But in the kind of society the mishna is probably talking about (late
bayit sheni, as transmitted to the tanaim several generations later),
they don't expect much from the KG (usually either a tzduki or some
corrupt person who bought it), or the king (usually a romaniser).
The spiritual welfare of the people rests in the hands of the BD, the
only legislature and government that matters.

> 2)Why did the Sanhedrin leave the Lishkas HaGazis because there were
> too many capital cases, as is commonly learned?

Precisely because of that. There were a lot of murderers who had to be
executed, and the Romans wouldn't let them do so; their only choice was
to remove the obligation.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 01:45:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>1) Why then is only the BD blamed and called Chavlonis, and not also the
:>malchus and Kohain Gadol?...

: Ein hachi nami, it's their fault too. Cf the KG's role in arei miklat.

Actually, since the Sanhedrin has no such role, it would seem that it's
his job possibly to the exclusion of theirs. Then there's the egla arufa,
also not the ziqnei ha'ir. It would seem that the members of the Sanhedrin
do not necessarily have a special job to guide society away from these
issurim qua members of Sanhedrin. Teach the din, yes. A fan of R' Dr Haym
Soloveitchik's might even suggest that the Sanhedrin's role is textualist
and therefore the other gov't structures are in more mime-setting roles.

...
:>2)Why did the Sanhedrin leave the Lishkas HaGazis because there were
:>too many capital cases, as is commonly learned?

: Precisely because of that. There were a lot of murderers who had to be
: executed, and the Romans wouldn't let them do so; their only choice was
: to remove the obligation.

But if they're supposed to carry it out, why would they connive to avoid
it? Rather, it looks like they had a moral imperative -- to minimize
capital punishment -- that they couldn't carry out any other way.

3) Does anyone know if we can take statements about Sanhedrin and
generalize them to other legal systems? Sanhedrin's purposes in penology
are numerous: ivi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha, obtaining kaparah for the
cheit, etc... But I'm not sure if a court that is only the qiyum of
uvi'arta (IIUC the 7 mitzvos benei Noach) would have the same priorities.

Thoughts?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

At "shalashudis", the rav mentioned that he is glued to the news media,
as we all are. On Friday afternoon (NJ time, EDT), the radio promised a
live interview with an Israeli politician. The rav decided it was assur
to listen to the poitician speak into a microphone or telephone on his
Shabbos, and turned to another station.

I asked if maybe the poitician is permitted to give the interview, as
hasbarah to the US could have real piqu'ach nefesh implications. (Reading
jpost.com wouldn't necessarily have the same argument.)

This raised a general question: If someone holds that piqu'ach nefesh
is dokheh (as opposed to matir) Shabbos, may you get ancillary hana'ah
from side effects?

In our case, even if the politician is allowed to give hasbarah on Shabbos,
if it's because it is dokheh Shabbos, it is still chilul Shabbos --
just of a permitted sort. Thus, may I get hana'ah?

Is the issur han'ah tied to the action being a melakhah, or to it
being assur?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter

From Areivim:
> R' Ahron explains that if one thinks about Torah in mundane terms he
> is being 'moel'. If one thinks about the Avos in mundane terms (the
> example he gives is Yakkov Avinu and his relationship with Rochel Imeinu)
> then the person is being 'moel'

WADR, RAK's POV on this issue can be contrasted with many statements that
we find in the Talmud, Medrash, Rishonim and Acharonim that due offer
a critical view of the actions of the Avos, Imahos and Moshe Rabbeinu
throughout Chumash. Here are a few:

1)Chazal criticize Avraham Avinu for either leaving EY or drafting
Talmdie Chachachim.

2) Various ages are given as to when Avraham Avinu recognized Malchus
HaShem, ranging from 3 to 48. As RAL has argued, these views merely
represent the difference between a child like's instinctive recognition
of a fact and an adult's recognition of the same after subjecting it to
all sorts of tests-one can find Maameri Chazal supporting these POVs

3) Ramban or Rashbam criticize how Avraham and Srah acted via the
expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael and view it as having historic relevance
to Jewish-Arab relations.

4) Netziv points out that Rivkah and Yitzchak's relationship was marked
by Rivkah's inability to speak in an open manner with Yitzhak because
she deemed herself unworthy to be of the same spiritual level, thus
causing her to work around Yitzchak's favoritism of Esav.

5) We know nothing about Moshe Rabbeinu until he ventures out of the
royal house of Egypt and observes the Egyptians oppressing the Jews. It
is at that point, and not earlier, that Moshe understands his past and
his responsibilities as a leader, in the absence of any other Jewish
leadership. It cam be argued that Moshe Rabbeinu was raised as an
assimilated court Jew until this point.

6) Klal Yisrael in Mitzrayim are viewed as having maintained certain
nationalistic traits vis a vis dress, language,etc but otherwise were
quite assimilated with Shevet Levi remaining iimmune from slavery and
even acting as slaveholders. The Meshech Chachmah points out that the
Geulah could not begin until Shevet Levi freed their slaves.

5) Klal Yisrael are described in the Mishnah as having tested HaShem
10 times. One of these occurred at the banks of the Red Sea. Ibn Ezra
ascribes this incident to the fact that Klal Yisrael were escaped slaves
who had no concept of how to fight at all.

7) Moshe Rabbeinu spoke to, as opposed to hitting the rock. All of
the Mfarshim offer various reasons as to why he was punished for
this incident. Rambam in MN views it as an unacceptable outburst of
anger. Ramban rejects this as "hevel, hevalim", concedes that this
episode is one of the deepest secrets of the Torah but then reluctantly
and seemingly offers a similar answer. The Gra views it as a violation
of Kedsohim Tihu-something that Moshe Rabbeinu should have been able to
figure on his own.

IIRC, R D B Levy and R D D Berger have written extensively on the fact
that there are numerous methods of understanding the actions of the Avos,
Imahos and Moshe Rabbeinu-all of which are within our Mesorah and which
may or not conflict with each other.

WADR, these episodes indicate that Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim
did not hesitate to evaluate the actions of the Avos, Imahos and Moshe
Rabbeinu. In fact, if one views many Sifrei Drush such as RYBS's Chamesh
Drashos and Teshuvah Drashos, one find this POV utilized with respect
to Chazal also ( i.e. especially with regard to the pivotal Tannaim
of R Yochanan Ben Zakkai and R Akiva).

Steve Brizel
<Zeliglaw@aol.com>

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:46:29AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: No. A BD that executes more than one person in 7 years is not Hovlanit
: because it should have found an excuse to acquit him...

The SA ha'Asid (Sanhedrin 52:18) writes as you do, that the Sanhedrin
fell flat on preventing the violations.

However, the Rambam in Peirush haMishnayos says it's a directive
for proper derishah vechaqirah. It doesn't change the the obligation
that if they were to try their best and fail, they still have to
execute. But they are obligated to work hard to avoid it.

BTW, R' Yosef el-Qafeh's (Kapach's) edition, the Rambam reads "1,000
on sequential days". RYeQ writes that the Rambam as we have it (even
1,000 in one day) would be in violation of the issur against trying two
capital cases on the same day (mishnah, Sanhedrin 45b, which the Rambam
himself has in Sanhedrin 14:10).

-mi (with thanks to R' Joseph Perlman at the Kollel Iyun haDaf)

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

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:16:43PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: My contention is that they had thrice yearly rabbinical conventions
: called 'aliyah leregel. Hence, too great differences would be unlikely
: to develop.

I think our difference of opinion is that you and I are approaching this
from opposite directions.

You are writing as though things started out uniform, and therefore the
question is how far the shevatim could diverge.

My assumption is that the reason for localizing the shevatim, and for each
having its own derekh and its own legal system is to foster diversity.
They are described by Chazal as having very distinct lifestyles; and
a seafarer doesn't approach the world the way a farmer would. I am
looking at it from the assumption that the differences are inherent in
the nachalah system, and that it's conformity that would have to develop.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

R' Reuven Koss:
> There are a number of yeshiva comunities that give psak like the MB. Most
> poskim will bring and deal with the MB if he comments on the matter. ROY
> said at the sium hashas last year in yad eliyahu that after one finishes
> the daily daf one should learn an amud (maybe a daf- i don't remember)
> of MB.

This discussion reminded me of something I've been meaning to post for a
while. We had a discussion a while back about the MB vs. the AH, and the
following piece from Emes L'Ya'akov is germane to both discussions. (I
didn't get to the sefer until recently.) It is right at the end of Emes
L'Ya'akov on Avos, and reprinted by the publisher at the beginning of
the Emes L'Ya'akov on SA.

"It appears to me that this rule that every word of torah is a Mitzvas
Asei is when the author counted the words as he wrote his sefer
..." <SNIP> "And I said, that the author of the Chofetz Chaim Z"L,
merited as a reward for guarding his speech that his Mishneh Berurah is
so nuanced in its language that it is possible to infer from it as one
does in the works of the Rishonim. This is Middah K'neged Middah. When
I said this to me friend HRHG R' Dovid Leibowitz SHLITA - who was his
grand-nephew and learned Mesechta Sukkah together with him while he
was writing the Mishneh Berurah on the Laws of Sukkah - [R' Leibowitz
recounted - MYG] his [the Chofetz Chaim's - MYG] practice was that they
would clarify a Halachah and he would then write it. When he wrote
a certain Halachah, R' Dovid pointed out the possibility of it being
misinterpreted. The Chofetz Chaim Z"L immediately fixed it, and told him,
"Mei'Hashem ma'aneh lashon. This is why every author needs mercy from
heaven so that he shouldn't write something in which others will read
into his words what never entered his mind."

The money quote, of course, is the part about being M'dayek in the MB
as one does in the Rishonim.

Disclaimer: I translated this from four fuzzy photos I took of the
Sefer with my PDA. I think that I translated it correctly, however -
apropos of this topic - I may have misread a few words. The content
remains essentially the same.

KT,
MYG

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 03:51:05AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Bread is indeed also mentioned in the context of a meal, and as the main
: part of the meal: "V'ekcha pas lechem v'saadu libchem" (Ber 18:5), "Lechem
: u'nzid adashim" (Ber 25:34). But here too, the Torah is not necessarily
: teaching us that bread should be important; it might simply be reflecting
: the fact that that society did consider bread to be important.

There is much in favor of the idea that Tanakh's "lechem" can mean food
in general. To people go to "miLKHaMah" because of a lack of bread,
or because of need in general. The idea that "milkhamah" is primary
a food-getting excercise is suggested by the etymology. (Surprisingly
Marxian.) Then there is also Beis Lekhem, which our cousins call Bet
Jallah -- house of meat / food. In Arabic, the food used to stand in
for food in general is meat. Beis Lekhem couldn't have been a storehouse
for bread, they didn't have preservatives. Grain maybe.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Any ideas?

-mi

-- forwarded message --
From: "galsaba" <galsaba@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Subject: Yoma Daf 29 - What is Parsa, Mil, Ama?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:08:53 +0000 (UTC)

I know that a Parsa is 4 Mils, and a Mil is 2000 Ama.
I dont know how to convert it to Meter, KM, or miles (see the conversion
table on www.yifl.org)

I know the conversion according to Hazon Ish, Harav Nae'e, and Harav
Benish, but non of them explains the distance, mentioned in Yoma,
between Jerusalem to Jericho.
It said there that the distance is 40 parsa, and eventhough the sound
of the Beit Mikdash doors can be heard all the way to there.

It makes sense, that if they talk about sound, then the distance they
refer to, is air distance.
I cheked. Air distance is 8. miles.
This is too short to describe 40 Parsa. So may be earth distance.
Checking few sources, depends on the road you chose it is 12 to 17 miles.
All too short even according to the convrsion table of Harav Benish.

Any suggestions?

galsaba

From: "galsaba" <galsaba@aol.com>
> It said there that the distance is 40 parsa, and eventhough the sound
> of the Beit Mikdash doors can be heard all the way to there.
> It makes sense, that if they talk about sound, then the distance they
> refer to, is air distance.
> I cheked. Air distance is 8. miles.
> This is too short to describe 40 Parsa. So may be earth distance.
> Checking few sources, depends on the road you chose it is 12 to 17 miles.
> All too short even according to the convrsion table of Harav Benish.

 From Insights (Daf Yomi Advancement Forum)

4) HEARD AS FAR AS YERICHO
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rabah bar bar Chanah who says that the sound
of the hinges of the door of the Heichal was heard for a distance of eight
Techumei Shabbos. Since each Techum Shabbos is 2000 Amos, the sound of
the hinges was heard for a distance of two Parsa'os (16,000 Amos).

However, the Mishnah in Tamid (30b) seems to contradict Rabah bar bar
Chanah's statement. The Mishnah there gives a list of sounds and scents
that reached Yericho from the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. Among
the sounds that reached Yericho was the sound of the hinges of the door
of the Heichal as it opened. However, the distance from Yerushalayim to
Yericho is far more than two Parsa'os.

Similarly, the Gemara earlier in Yoma (20b) quotes a Beraisa that says
that the voice of Gevini, who heralded the start of the day's Avodah
in the Beis ha'Mikdash, was heard for a distance of three Parsa'os.
However, the Mishnah there in Tamid says that his voice was heard even
in Yericho. How are these contradictions to be reconciled?

ANSWERS:
(a) The ROSH in Tamid (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes of Rav Yakov
David Ilan) answers that the tunnel dug by Chizkiyahu extended from
Yerushalayim until Yericho. The sounds traveled through the tunnel of
Chizkiyahu until Yericho, while in other directions they traveled a much
shorter distance as described by the Gemara here.

(b) The RA'AVAD explains that the terrain between Yerushalayim and
Yericho was much less mountainous than the terrain in other directions
around Yerushalayim, and thus sound traveled farther in that direction.

(c) The Ra'avad cites his Rebbi who suggests that it was through a
miracle that these sounds were heard in Yericho. Yericho was singled
out for this miracle because it was the first place the Jews conquered
upon their arrival in Eretz Yisrael, and its conquest eventually led
to the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. The capture
of Yericho, therefore, is considered to be the beginning of Kedushas
Yerushalayim. This is why Yehoshua prohibited the people from taking the
spoils of Yericho. He wanted to sanctify them and give them a special
status in the same way that one sanctifies his first fruits as Bikurim
and the first part of his produce as Terumah. Hash-m caused the sounds
and scents of Yerushalayim to be perceived in Yericho to show that Yericho
had a certain degree of Kedushah. (See also Insights to Tamid 30:5.)

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]