Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 152

Mon, 16 Jul 2007

• 1. Re: kesuvah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. When was the last korban? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: kamztah and bar-kamztah (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: When was the last korban? (Michael Kopinsky)
• 5. Re: kesuvah (Daniel Israel)
• 6. Re: kamztah and bar-kamztah (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. Re: Fw: [Areivim] A Picture Perfect Friday Night (Zev Sero)
• 8. Determining Shemitta by prozbul (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: Adam vs. Ish (Arie Folger)
• 10. kesuvah (M Cohen)
• 11. Re: kesuvah (menucha)
• 12. Parshas Masei - a few ha'oros (SBA)
• 13. TY and TY: (Was: Treifot question) (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: Daat Torah (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Adam vs. Ish (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Yeshivish masechtot (Micha Berger)

RMCohen wrote:
> does anyone have any maareh m'komos or insights into the
> current minhag not to pay kesuvah?

R' Arie Folger answered:
> The reason is that we cannot force women to accept a get, and
> hence, every get comes out of a negotiated settlement, which
> silently includes the ketubah.

I'm not clear on what "negotiated settlement" you are talking about.

If you are referring to some sort of payment which is paid when the 
get is given, why does it "silently" include the kesubah? Why isn't 
this made explicit?

Alternatively, if you are referring to payments made in conjunction 
with the civil divorce, then I am VERY confused, because in many 
cases the civil divorce occurs long after the get is given. What 
happens to the kesuba in such cases?

Maybe you meant something else?

Akiva Miller

It is very easy to associate the end of Bayis Sheni with the end of 
Korbanos. But I wonder if it is correct.

My knowledge in these areas is sorely lacking, but my impression is 
that the main obstacle to bringing the Korban Pesach, even nowadays, 
is not knowing the exact location of the mizbayach. And this is 
certainly something that was common knowledge for the first years 
after the churban.

Tumah was a problem for other korbanos, but not for Korban Pesach. 
(And maybe not for other korbanos or avodos either, for all I know.) 
So I am curious: Is it possible that some korbanos were brought even 
after the Churban? When was the last korban?

Akiva Miller

 


<<The Gemara refers to his anava; this fear is nowhere to be found in
this analysis. His fear of what people would say was not a fear of the
people, but of the erroneous halachic conclusions they would reach.
It's called yir'as Shamayim, as in ekev anava.>>

and that over-rides pikuach nefesh? 

=====================================================================
There's a similar issue where the Roman's sent 2 emissaries to determine
whether the torah was biased against non-Jews.  They were taught all of
torah and found 2 examples but decided not to report.  Why didn't chazal
simply leave these out? IIRC R'Bleich explained that ziyuf hatora must
override pikuach nefesh even on this scale (it was a tape shiur I heard
years ago so....)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 7/15/07, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Tumah was a problem for other korbanos, but not for Korban Pesach.
> (And maybe not for other korbanos or avodos either, for all I know.)


Tumah is not a problem for any korban tzibbur.  That includes tamid, mussaf,
etc. but not asham, chatas, etc.  Korban Pesach is unique in that
individuals bring, rather than the tzibbur, but it still has a din of korban
tzibbur.  (Why is that, by the way?)

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070715/5e11fc37/attachment-0001.html 

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> Alternatively, if you are referring to payments made in conjunction 
> with the civil divorce, then I am VERY confused, because in many 
> cases the civil divorce occurs long after the get is given.

In all the cases I am aware of the get occurs after the civil divorce. 
Is that not the general practice?  Wouldn't giving a get first be 
problematic since the beis din doesn't yet know the parameters of the 
civil settlement?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

Rich, Joel wrote:
> There's a similar issue where the Roman's sent 2 emissaries to determine
> whether the torah was biased against non-Jews.  They were taught all of
> torah and found 2 examples but decided not to report.  Why didn't chazal
> simply leave these out? IIRC R'Bleich explained that ziyuf hatora must
> override pikuach nefesh even on this scale (it was a tape shiur I heard
> years ago so....)
>
>   

This is the view of the Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama (daf 38a) perek 4 
simon 9. This is cited a number of places in the Igros Moshe EH III, 
#18, OH II # 51 as something to be concerned with - but not necessarily 
to die for.

SBA wrote:

> I wonder if this is accepted by all - that mitzva habo be'aveireh is
> preferable to aveireh habo be'aveirah..??

"Mi she'achal shum..."

The only consideration against this would be "botzea berech", but
a) AFAIK that applies only to brachot (and perhaps korbenot nedava);
b) it only applies when the person is deliberately "botzea", not when
he means well.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Zev Sero wrote:
> Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>
>   
>> The Rambam ends up relying on the  gaonim because they have a tradition 
>> that says that is what people do - even though it is against his 
>> understanding of Chazal. The question is why wasn't the question of what 
>> people have done resolved by simply looking at the prozbul documents. 
>> After all it is every seven years that a new set of documents is 
>> produced. There must be clear documentary evidence that predates the 
>> gaonim or at least is from the time of the gaonim.
>>     
>
> Documents?  At least in my experience, nowadays a pruzbul is verbal,
> and I don't know why it would have been different in the Rambam's day.
>
>   
The Rema CM 67:1 notes that in the Ashkenaz world they didn't observe 
Shemitas kesofim at all [because there was no Yovel- Gra].

Shulchan Aruch CM 67:20-21 - indicates that some people wrote a prozbul 
and others didn't. Rambam states there is no need for a written 
document. And the Ravaad says he is contradicting himself.

Bottom line is that there were documents but not necessarily very many 
and possibly not the Rambam's area. I haven't  see any mention of these 
documents to resolve the question of the date of shemitta.

Here in Har Nof there is  prozbul document.

Daniel Eidensohn

> Anybody have any yedios about the difference between adam and ish
> (aside from Meir Shapiro's arvus vort)? Please give mekoros?

Ish includes non Jews, whereas Adam is specifically about Jews. Drashot 
abound, but IIRC it is nicely covered in Encyclopedia haTalmudit.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RAK writes ...My guess is that RMC meant something other than what it sounds
like to me. Can you please explain what you mean?


If you will attend any major Bet din in NA handling gitin, you will see that
the kesuvah payment is ignored.

I think this is clearly the current minhag.

sincerely,
Mordechai Cohen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070715/e70c040e/attachment-0001.htm 

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu SHLT"A, in a psak din (found in PDR 11) writes 
that today "haminhag pashut"  that before the giving of the get the 
woman is mochel her ketuba in front of witnesses.
menucha

> <>  
> If you will attend any major Bet din in NA handling gitin, you will 
> see that the kesuvah payment is ignored.
>  
> I think this is clearly the current minhag.
>  
>
>/avodah-aishdas.org
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070716/53b5bf50/attachment.html 

For those here who go through the entire parsha (actually 2 - last week)
- some questions and comments.

1) The Baal Haturim on 'Vayachnu beMidbar Sin" (33:11) writes that
originally called Midbar Sin, a Yud was added to the name (Sinai)
after the Aseres Hadibros were given there. (Similar the Chizkuni)
The Tosefes Brocho is puzzled by this as 6 pesukim later we
find "Vayachnu beMidbar Sinai" - which lechoreh shows that
these are 2 distinct locations. (He also refers to Beshalach 17:1
 "Vayovo'u...el Midbar Sin asher bein Elim uvein Sinai".)

2) Talking of the TB, on (35:32) "Velo Sikchu Kofer lonus el ir
miklotoy", Rashi and others explain that this refers to a killer beshogeg
 who may not ransom his way out of the Ir Miklot.
The TB suggests that it refers to a Meizid who may try to pay his
way out of being chayev meeseh by being allowed in to an Ir Miklot.

3) Rashi (34:8) dh "Mehor Hahor" mentions Antochia, which Artscroll calls
Antioch. Presumably this refers to such a place in Eretz Yisroel.
(Wikipedia has a couple.)

4) 36:11 "Vatihyeno...Bnos Tzelofchod livnei dodeihem lenoshim". Ayen Targum
Yonoson: 'livnei chaviveihon'.
OTOH, the Seforno writes "Kivnu laasos retzon konom...lo mipnei shehisavu
le'eileh asher nisu lohem".

5) Not being an expert on Gevulos Haaretz, I notice that some chumoshim
displaying maps explain the parsha show that Beirut and Tzidon (Sidon)
are part of Eretz Yisroel. Is this indeed so? Did Jews living there keep
 only one day YT?  And what about mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz?

6) Someone showed me an interesting Maor Voshomesh explaining
"vayisu mikivros hataavo vayachnu bechatzeros",that only after one
has totally buried all his taavos may he go out to the 'chatzeiros
urechovos'. Otherwise he is risking being nichshal by the yetzer hora.

While the fellow who showed this to me thought that this was a lesson for
Kiruvniks, I think it is no less valid for all of us (and, BTW, not really
something  that 'hatzibur yochol laamod bo").

Comments welcome.

SBA

>> On 7/2/07, Dr. Josh Backon <backon@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>> This is  called the Pseudo-Targum. Indeed, it was erroneously attributed to
>> Yonatan ben Uzziel instead of Targum Yerushalmi. (rashei teivot TAF YUD ).

> RMK stated:
> Unless I am mistaken, I believe my chumash (blue Mikraot Gedolot) has both
> Targum Yonasan and Targum Yerushalmi, though one of them (I think Targum
> Yerushalmi) has only selected phrases.  Is this a question of different
> girsa'os in one work, or are they two separate works?

I once did Marbe Sedra for an enitre year with TY and TY.

Most of the time they're identical and only one is printed (in most Chumashim.)

Most of the time (when both are printed) the diferences are minimal -
and with my grasp of Aramaic they seem "trivial". (As "trivial" as any
nuance in chazal can get.)

Every so often they disagree - and sometimes even argue.

If there's an interest I could try it again and report back; though it
may take an entire year. (I've often thought of "publishing" the
"vortelach" in Targun Onkelus, i.e. where it deviates from strict
translation)


- Danny

I just put notes (plus my additions) of part of a shiur by Rabbi
Rakeffet up on my blog. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml>. (Copies
available by request for those who do not use the web.)


In this YUTorah.org recording RAR discusses whether dinim derabannan
necessarily reflect Ratzon Hashem (or are pragmatic advice), and how
different positions on the subject impact understanding safeiq
derabbanan lequlah as well as the CI's stance on shemittah.

He holds that shemittah derabbanan has a reality, then someone keeping
it today would get the berakhah of 3 year's food, and it's much easier
to be machmir.

Side-note: The CI is against the SMA, which RAR quotes as "SMA", not
"SME". <g>

The Meshekh Chokhmah and R' Elchanan Wasserman are also involved, on
another plane the Ramban is involved, and I drag in R' Shimon Shkop
and the SA haRav.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On Fri, July 13, 2007 3:10 am, Eli Linas wrote:
: 	Anybody have any yedios about the difference between adam and ish
: (aside from Meir Shapiro's arvus vort)? Please give mekoros?

See another blog entry based on a shiur listened to while commuting.
In this case, R' Yitzchak Blau on KMTT out of "Gush". The URL,
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/04/universalism.shtml>. Here's the
relevant snippet:

9- R' Yitzchak Blau on Ki miTzion Teitzei Torah
<http://kmtt.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=171398> (starting at 25:25)
points out that the Tif'eres Yisrael explains three mishnayos in Avos
in universal terms.

a- Hillel asks us to try to be mitalmidav shel Aharon (one who is from
among the students of Aaron), which in part means being someone who is
"oheiv es haberi'os ? literally: loves the creatures" (Avos 1:12).
Beri'os is a pretty universal term for humanity, not confusable for a
limitation to other Jews.

b- Lest you think this attitude is specific to Hillel, the Tif'eres
Yisrael also learns this lesson from Shammai's words: "havei meqabeil
es kol ha'adam beseiver panim yafos ? receive all people with a
pleasant expression on one's face" (Avos 1:15).

Is this "ha'adam" universal? The Tif'eres Yisrael cites a Tosafos to
show that while "adam" sometimes means "everyone in our conversation",
"ha'adam" is always about all of humanity. R' Blau likens it to an
announcement in shul "Everyone can vote for shul president". Obviously
"everyone" is limited by context. This is how Tosafos explain the
gemara, "'adam ki yamus ba'ohel' - atem keruyim adam."

However, Tosafos point out, this is not true of "ha'adam". And
therefore the TY concludes that this mishnah obligates you to show
that warmth to Jew and non-Jew.

c- While "adam" may be ambiguous, it's not ambiguous when used in
contrast to "Yisrael." And so, the Tif'eres Yisrael reads the
following mishnah:

    [R' Aqiva] used to say, "Beloved is man, for he was created in the
"Image" [of G-d]. It was an extra [show of] love that it was made
known to him that he was created in the image of G-d, as it is
said, 'For in the image of G-d He made man.' (Bereishis 9:6)

    Beloved are Israel, or they were called children of the
Omnipresent. It was an extra [show of] love that it was made known
to them that they were called children of the Omnipresent, as it
is said, 'You are children of Hashem your G-d.' (Devarim 14:1)

    Beloved are Israel, for to them was given the instrument by which
the world was created[, the Torah]. It was an extra [show of] love
that it was made known to them that they had the instrument
through which the world was created, as it is said, 'For I give
you good doctrine; do not forsake my Torah.' (Proverbs 4:2)

Therefore, the mishnah is saying that all human beings are chavivin
because they are created betzelem, and the Jews are noted for having
extra gift ? being selected to represent Hashem among peoples, and
getting the Torah. But every person is previous. Regardless of color,
abilities or appearance. (This Tif'eres Yisrael is worth seeing,
particularly the Boaz, as he waxes quite poetic about people who
advanced mankind.)
--- ad kan leshoni --

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On Fri, July 13, 2007 5:12 am, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I realize the "tradition" of certain masechtot being learned in
: yeshivot
: while others were  "orphaned" stretches back to the gamara itself but
: what were the reasons and were they consistent through time (e.g.
: practical  applicability,  grounds for deep analysis...)

Obviously the rise of lomdus meant that different schools of lomdus
each gravitated toward those mesechtos which lent itself best to their
tools.

Sepharadim, who saw that whole thing with bewilderment (until
assimilation set in), tend to gravitate toward applicable halakhah --
where applicable includes a healthy emunah bevi'as hamashiach. From
this outsider's view, they tend toward pesaq-rich mesechtos rather
than complicated ones.

Much like Tosafos vs Rambam.

Tir'u baTov!
-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



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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 152
***************************************

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..."