Avodah Mailing List

Volume 41: Number 54

Thu, 20 Jul 2023

• 1. kaddish (Joel Rich)
• 2. Kamtza BaKamtza - Has anyone seen Meforshim who comment on this perspective? (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Kamtza BaKamtza - Has anyone seen Meforshim who comment on this perspective? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 4. Re: Kamtza BaKamtza - Has anyone seen Meforshim who comment on this perspective? (allan.en...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: Kamtza BaKamtza - Has anyone seen Meforshim who comment on this perspective? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 6. Re: Too Much of a Good Thing? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Motive for the Restart of Smicha (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Kamtza BaKamtza - Has anyone seen Meforshim who comment on this perspective? (Micha Berger)

If one learns mishna brura with a chaburah, is it required or recommended
or neutral or discouraged to say Kaddish drabanan afterwards?(assume no
aveil in attendance)
She-nir?eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230719/ba400db6/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Meir Rabbi, pondering anvetanuto shel Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos
hecheriva et beiteitnu etc., wrote:

> perhaps this is true but it still fails to be attentive to their
insensitivity,
> their indifference and quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their
> duties and relationship with HKBH and with the people they seem to
> have fallen into the trap of believing that not crossing the rich a
> powerful was the best way to lead the community

If we want to understand Rabbi Zekharya Ben Avkulos, shouldn't we analyze
his position from a perspective that he's right, even if just for the
moment we try to understand him?

Who says RZbA didn't realise the possible consequences of inaction? I think
that there is ample historical precedent in the prophecy of Yirmeyahu for
assuming that at some point the writing is on the wall and it is either
futile to fight the coming destruction or we needed to willingly submit to
the Romans total victory.

If so, RZbA wouldn't not be thinking of how to avert tragedy, as tragedy
was surely coming - even if it could be momentarily averted by killing Bar
Qamtsa or by bringing the invalid sacrifice -, but rather how not to leave
any permanent false teaching into the world. In fact, could it be that RZbA
saw the destruction coming and saw in either of the two options something
that would blunt the lesson of the Destruction and thereby requiring it to
be all the greater and more terrible? By bringing the sacrifice, he'd
enshrine in precedent that the laws regulating our interactions with the
holy are fungible; by killing Bar Qamtsa, we'd convey that what made us
merit the eventual inevitable destruction of the BhM was bringing invalid
sacrifices, when in fact it was sinat chinnam.

What made the Destruction inevitable, isn't teshuva always an option? Well,
if you peruse Sefer Yirmeyahu (and Yechezqel) one gathers that at some
point Destruction was inevitable and the people had to learn they could
lose the BhM. In a sense, that was a necessary step to learn to adapt to
the coming new reality of galut, to inspire a Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai to
conceive to Yavneh as a refuge from the Destruction to ensure there will be
Jews and Judaism that one day will merit the reconstruction of the BhM.

In fact, in YU I learned something similar from Rav Bleich, that RZbA
considered it ziyuf haTorah, and that that was prohibited even at the great
cost of losing the BhM.

Thoughts?
-- 
Mit freundlichen Gr??en,
Yours sincerely,

Arie Folger
Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230719/e174c25b/attachment-0001.htm>

Thank you R Arie
I must apologise for being unclear

I am not dwelling on Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos re his decision to not
offer the sacrifice,
Your observations on that are penetrating and illuminating.

I am expressing surprise that we seem to have lost focus on the Chachomim
who violated BKamtza by remaining silent whilst he was being humiliated at
the party.

I believe RMicha identified Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos as the principle
Chacham at the party that the other Chachamim were looking to for guidance,
and RMicha was suggesting a link between these two failures.

It was to this concern, that we somehow have lost focus, that I wrote ....
RMichas perspective still fails to be attentive to
the Chachamims insensitivity,
their indifference and
quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their duties and relationship
with HKBH and with the people
they seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that not standing up to
the rich and powerful
was the best way to lead the community.


Allow me to add another consideration:
BKamtza is utterly blind with rage
He is determined to burn down the entire block of apartments, the entire
village, including his own home and the homes of his family, why?

Because his neighbours insulted him and
NO ONE it seems, not a single person, not even his family, came to provide
him some solace and comfort. He felt that in the entire village, there's
not a single person who cares, and probably they're all actually
celebrating his humiliation.

They all deserve to die.

The Seforno explains how Pinchas saved the Yidden who deserved to die, by
killing just two people.

HKBH felt that the entire nation, by their silence were endorsing the
uprising led by Zimri. There was not a single person who stood up for HKBH
or HKBH loyal servant, Moshe Rabenu.
The vigilante Pinchas, was the one and only to feel HKBH's pain with
sufficient clarity and sensitivity that he decided to act.

And that single person provided the comfort to assuage HKBH anger. The
Yidden who deserved to die by their silence were saved by their silence,
that they remained silent whilst Pinchas dispatched Z&K.

Is this not the true message Chazal wish to teach us with the episode of K
and BK?


On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, 01:09 Arie Folger, <arie.fol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> R' Meir Rabbi, pondering anvetanuto shel Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos
> hecheriva et beiteitnu etc., wrote:
>
> > perhaps this is true but it still fails to be attentive to their
> insensitivity,
> > their indifference and quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their
> > duties and relationship with HKBH and with the people they seem to
> > have fallen into the trap of believing that not crossing the rich a
> > powerful was the best way to lead the community
>
> If we want to understand Rabbi Zekharya Ben Avkulos, shouldn't we analyze
> his position from a perspective that he's right, even if just for the
> moment we try to understand him?
>
> Who says RZbA didn't realise the possible consequences of inaction? I
> think that there is ample historical precedent in the prophecy of Yirmeyahu
> for assuming that at some point the writing is on the wall and it is either
> futile to fight the coming destruction or we needed to willingly submit to
> the Romans total victory.
>
> If so, RZbA wouldn't not be thinking of how to avert tragedy, as tragedy
> was surely coming - even if it could be momentarily averted by killing Bar
> Qamtsa or by bringing the invalid sacrifice -, but rather how not to leave
> any permanent false teaching into the world. In fact, could it be that RZbA
> saw the destruction coming and saw in either of the two options something
> that would blunt the lesson of the Destruction and thereby requiring it to
> be all the greater and more terrible? By bringing the sacrifice, he'd
> enshrine in precedent that the laws regulating our interactions with the
> holy are fungible; by killing Bar Qamtsa, we'd convey that what made us
> merit the eventual inevitable destruction of the BhM was bringing invalid
> sacrifices, when in fact it was sinat chinnam.
>
> What made the Destruction inevitable, isn't teshuva always an option?
> Well, if you peruse Sefer Yirmeyahu (and Yechezqel) one gathers that at
> some point Destruction was inevitable and the people had to learn they
> could lose the BhM. In a sense, that was a necessary step to learn to adapt
> to the coming new reality of galut, to inspire a Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai
> to conceive to Yavneh as a refuge from the Destruction to ensure there will
> be Jews and Judaism that one day will merit the reconstruction of the BhM.
>
> In fact, in YU I learned something similar from Rav Bleich, that RZbA
> considered it ziyuf haTorah, and that that was prohibited even at the great
> cost of losing the BhM.
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Mit freundlichen Gr??en,
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Arie Folger
> Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230720/caf38b08/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Avigdor Miller comments on this passage that the Rabbonim at the time
were totally correct in not supporting Bar Kamtza, indeed acquiescing in
his humiliation, because he was a rasha (as proved by his subsequent
conduct).

He also denies that the gemara is saying that the Churban was payback for
this episode, instead he says that the gemara is merely providing the
sequence of events. His proof for this is the other two stories in the
passage - there is no blame attached in the story of the rooster and hen
that preceded the destruction of Tur Malka, nor the chariot before Beitar's
fall.

I'm not convinced that the plain teitsch of the gemara supports this
conclusion, but you were asking for meforshim who deal with the question.

ADE

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 23:04, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> Thank you R Arie
> I must apologise for being unclear
>
> I am not dwelling on Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos re his decision to not
> offer the sacrifice,
> Your observations on that are penetrating and illuminating.
>
> I am expressing surprise that we seem to have lost focus on the Chachomim
> who violated BKamtza by remaining silent whilst he was being humiliated at
> the party.
>
> I believe RMicha identified Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos as the principle
> Chacham at the party that the other Chachamim were looking to for guidance,
> and RMicha was suggesting a link between these two failures.
>
> It was to this concern, that we somehow have lost focus, that I wrote ....
> RMichas perspective still fails to be attentive to
> the Chachamims insensitivity,
> their indifference and
> quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their duties and relationship
> with HKBH and with the people
> they seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that not standing up
> to the rich and powerful
> was the best way to lead the community.
>
>
> Allow me to add another consideration:
> BKamtza is utterly blind with rage
> He is determined to burn down the entire block of apartments, the entire
> village, including his own home and the homes of his family, why?
>
> Because his neighbours insulted him and
> NO ONE it seems, not a single person, not even his family, came to provide
> him some solace and comfort. He felt that in the entire village, there's
> not a single person who cares, and probably they're all actually
> celebrating his humiliation.
>
> They all deserve to die.
>
> The Seforno explains how Pinchas saved the Yidden who deserved to die, by
> killing just two people.
>
> HKBH felt that the entire nation, by their silence were endorsing the
> uprising led by Zimri. There was not a single person who stood up for HKBH
> or HKBH loyal servant, Moshe Rabenu.
> The vigilante Pinchas, was the one and only to feel HKBH's pain with
> sufficient clarity and sensitivity that he decided to act.
>
> And that single person provided the comfort to assuage HKBH anger. The
> Yidden who deserved to die by their silence were saved by their silence,
> that they remained silent whilst Pinchas dispatched Z&K.
>
> Is this not the true message Chazal wish to teach us with the episode of K
> and BK?
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, 01:09 Arie Folger, <arie.fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> R' Meir Rabbi, pondering anvetanuto shel Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos
>> hecheriva et beiteitnu etc., wrote:
>>
>> > perhaps this is true but it still fails to be attentive to their
>> insensitivity,
>> > their indifference and quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their
>> > duties and relationship with HKBH and with the people they seem to
>> > have fallen into the trap of believing that not crossing the rich a
>> > powerful was the best way to lead the community
>>
>> If we want to understand Rabbi Zekharya Ben Avkulos, shouldn't we analyze
>> his position from a perspective that he's right, even if just for the
>> moment we try to understand him?
>>
>> Who says RZbA didn't realise the possible consequences of inaction? I
>> think that there is ample historical precedent in the prophecy of Yirmeyahu
>> for assuming that at some point the writing is on the wall and it is either
>> futile to fight the coming destruction or we needed to willingly submit to
>> the Romans total victory.
>>
>> If so, RZbA wouldn't not be thinking of how to avert tragedy, as tragedy
>> was surely coming - even if it could be momentarily averted by killing Bar
>> Qamtsa or by bringing the invalid sacrifice -, but rather how not to leave
>> any permanent false teaching into the world. In fact, could it be that RZbA
>> saw the destruction coming and saw in either of the two options something
>> that would blunt the lesson of the Destruction and thereby requiring it to
>> be all the greater and more terrible? By bringing the sacrifice, he'd
>> enshrine in precedent that the laws regulating our interactions with the
>> holy are fungible; by killing Bar Qamtsa, we'd convey that what made us
>> merit the eventual inevitable destruction of the BhM was bringing invalid
>> sacrifices, when in fact it was sinat chinnam.
>>
>> What made the Destruction inevitable, isn't teshuva always an option?
>> Well, if you peruse Sefer Yirmeyahu (and Yechezqel) one gathers that at
>> some point Destruction was inevitable and the people had to learn they
>> could lose the BhM. In a sense, that was a necessary step to learn to adapt
>> to the coming new reality of galut, to inspire a Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai
>> to conceive to Yavneh as a refuge from the Destruction to ensure there will
>> be Jews and Judaism that one day will merit the reconstruction of the BhM.
>>
>> In fact, in YU I learned something similar from Rav Bleich, that RZbA
>> considered it ziyuf haTorah, and that that was prohibited even at the great
>> cost of losing the BhM.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> --
>> Mit freundlichen Gr??en,
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Arie Folger
>> Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230719/6851dc3d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, 08:26 allan.en...@gmail.com wrote:
> R' Avigdor Miller comments on this passage that the Rabbonim at the time
> were totally correct in not supporting Bar Kamtza, indeed acquiescing in
> his humiliation, because he was a rasha (as proved by his subsequent
> conduct).
...

Thank you very much
R Advigdor is not someone to treat with anything but extreme respect and
deference

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 08:00:34PM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> I've noticed sometimes that prior to giving someone an aliya at shabbat
> mincha, a gabbai will ask whether the individual had an aliya (assumedly
> anywhere) that morning. I've also seen prospective aliya recipients (e.g
> the gabbai comes over and asks their name) volunteer that they had an aliya
> that morning. In both cases the result is usually that another oleh is
> found. If I am correct, what is the basis for this practice (other than
> maximizing aliya distributions?

Why do you find the obvious reason insufficient?

If you want to wrap a chalos sheim on it, we always have the kohein
first mipenei darkei Shalom, wouldn't spreading the kibbudim around
also be darkei Shalom?

-Micha

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:44:12PM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> In a recent shiur R H Schachter mentioned that one of the reasons for the
> attempted restart of smicha in tzfat was in order to be able to give malkot
> (and associated kapara) to those who submitted to christianity. He then
> mentioned that those rabbis assumed a court of smuchim could do this even
> without hatraa having being given to the sinners. Any guesses as to why
> they thought so?

Note: because the discussion revolved around malkos, not harubei
beis din.

But here's my problem...

There is a long history of the rabbinate, without semichah, using
corporeal punishment as needed for the survival and integrity of the
community.

You need a beid din of semuchim for obligatory malkus, but that's not
the only case in which corporeal punishment is permitted.

So, what could they accomplish that could only be done through semichah?


-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and her returnees, through righteousness.
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 08:51:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> R Micha posted re The Rabbis placating Agrippa - You ARE our brother, Sota
> 41
> that the medrash identifies R Zekhariah ben Avqulus who the gemara (Gittin
> 55b) identifies as the one responsible for preventing the blemished animal
> to be offered on the Mizbeiach.

Also, that the gemara makes a point of mentioning that rabbanim were at
the party and were silent, and their their silence was the central part
of why Bar Qamtza was hurt.

   Amar: Ho'il vehavo yasvei rabbanan vela machu beih...

And... the medrash's girsa says identifies R Zekhariah ben Avqulus as a
party attendee. From Eikhah Rabba 4:3
https://www.sefaria.org/Eikhah_Rabbah.4.3
    Vehayah sham R Zekhariah ben Avqulus,
    vehaysah seifeq* beyado limchos,
    velo michah.
    Meyad nefeiq leih...

(* Or whatever the nequdos needed to say "enough" [as in maspiq], rather
than safeiq.)

My point was that the story continues with his refusal to pasqen as a way
to illustrate the flaw that led to his silence at the original offense.

The story as I see the gemara's emphasis is not about the the lack of
self-confidence to pasqen. RZbA being typical of the era's rabbinate,
they lacked the self-confidence to fight the generation's sin'ah, and
the lack was so bad they couldn't even pasqen.


On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 05:08:54PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
> If we want to understand Rabbi Zekharya Ben Avkulos, shouldn't we analyze
> his position from a perspective that he's right, even if just for the
> moment we try to understand him?

We should understand his motives from his own perspective, but...

R Yochanan not only held he erred, but tells us that RZbA erred because of
a flawed middah. Not simply working with a misunderstanding of the facts.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and her returnees, through righteousness.
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

R
> 
> and also identifies him or more accurately his quality of misplaced modesty
> - Anvanuso shel R Zekhariah be Avqulus as being the foundation for the
> disaster
>     hecherivah es beiteinu
>     vesaraf es Heikhaleinu
>     vehiglisanu meiArtzeinu.
> 
> Now although R Micha points out that bBlame is CLEARLY laid at the
> leadership's feet,
> I am asking that it seems not to be pointed to their cruelty and
> indifference at the party
> but to their internal deliberations about Halacha
> and pardon me for saying this,
> but this seems to be misplaced and a diversion from the essence of the real
> issue
> 
> R Micha suggests that those who refuse their duty as leaders
> will follow black letter law, be machmir improperly
> and not have the fortitude to rely on his own seikhel.
> 
> again perhaps this is true
> but it still fails to be attentive to their insensitivity, their
> indifference
> and quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their duties and
> relationship with HKBH and with the people
> they seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that not crossing the
> rich a powerful was the best way to lead the community


-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and her returnees, through righteousness.
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)