Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 075

Thursday, December 10 1998

• Re: Course Description (fwd)
• Re: Surrogate motherhood
• Re: Ibn Ezra as physician
• Re: jokes
• Re: Avodah V2 #74
• R. Yehonasan Eybeschuetz and Shulchan Aruch
• Re: jokes
• Re: BAISTEFILA digest 145
• Re: R. Yehonasan Eybeschuetz and Shulchan Aruch
• Hillul Hashem in the performance of a mitzvah
• R' Yonasan Eibushitz's comment on Shulchan Aruch
• Re: Hillul Hashem in the performance of a mitzvah
• Chillul hashem--Israeli politics; davening on airplanes
• Re: Hillul Hashem in the performance of a mitzvah
• Re: artificial insemination
• Collecting zera
• Re: Chillul hashem--Israeli politics; davening on airplanes
• Artificial Insemination (more than you may want to know)
• chilul Hashem - please don't misquote me!
• Re: definition of galut
• Re: Rambam 3:10
• Re: definition of galut

>Warning! Warning! For those who disapprove of Humor on Avodah, skip this
>post! (Someone ta'ana'ed to me its serious social satire. I don't think
>so, just plain funny!)
>                Congregation Shomrei Emunah
>                  Adult Education Committee
>         Special Seminar Series on Shadchanus

ROTFL This was so funny I am printing it off for my wife. We have a son 19+
and a daughter almost 18 and even though we are Chassidic and do Shiddichim
differently, there was a lot here that everyone has and it is funny. The only
thing left out was a discussion on how to understand from what a Shadchan says
what the truth really is. 

-- 
Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

See TCHUMIN Vol. 5, p. 248, the article by Rav Nechemiah Goldberg on
surrogate motherhood. Also the discussion on the topic in the NISHMAT AVRAHAM
Even Ha'Ezer p. 15-17. Some opinions: if the donor and surrogate are both
Jewish, the surrogate is the *mother*. If either one is not Jewish, the
donor of the egg determines whether the child is Jewish or not.

Josh

I saw this (that the Ibn Ezra was a physician) in the book by Krausz, "Short
Digest of Jewish Literature in the Middle Ages" which has the quote '(the
Ibn Ezra) earned his meagre livlihood as a physician'.

Josh

The Ibn Ezra in the beginning of his commentary to Eicha mentions the gemara
of milsa de-bedichusa. He writes that sometmes when the pressure of learning
got too heavy the rabbanim would ease their minds by speaking divrei
aggadah.He thus understands that the milsa de-bedichusa came in the middle of
the shiur.Maybe this can be a source for the argument to ocassionally lighten
up from the usual  heavy material in the Avodah list, although not necessarily
with jokes. Just a thought.  

R. Teitz writes

> 
> possibly Shulchan Aruch has attained the level of d'var mishna, on which we 
> do not entertain any further discussion.  If we were to find a new manuscript 
> from the age of the tana'im,  would we use it against the g'mara?  I think not.  

while we would not change halacha I think it would be of great value to
understand what the Mishna really meant!
I dont wish to start a new thread but in many cases i think it is clear that
the gemara is not the simple pshat in the Mishna nevertheless we pasken like the Gemara
against the Mishna.

Eli Turkel

David Glasner writes:
>
>It occurs to me that this statement shows that an irrational approach to
>halachah that attributes its validity to nistar factors beyond the ken of
>critical analysis and discussion -- an approach  reflected in  other
>statements of R. Eybeschuetz as well -- may be (aside from its direct
>conflict with the principle lo ba-shamayim hi as applied by the gemara in
>BM 59)

Is there a single page of Urim VeTumim and Kereisi UPleisi that is not based
on critical analysis and discussion? R. Eybeschuetz [=RYE] did not claim to
have had some sort of revelation regarding the authoritativeness of the
Shulchan Aruch. I assume he viewed it critcally looking for flaws, found it
perfect, and concluded on the basis of his logic that it was Divinely
inspired. He also does not intimate that on a conscious level the Mechaber
and the Rema were engaged in anything other than logical thought processes
when they composed the Shulchan Aruch. This is very different from the
gemara in Bava Metzia where halachah is revealed on a conscious level by a
heavenly voice.

I'd be interested in knowing which other statements of RYE you refer to.

I should clarify that RYE mentions the universal acceptance (by his
standards) of the Shulchan Aruch by the poskim as an essential factor in its
authoritativeness. The Divine perfection he speaks of is presumably one of
the reasons for this acceptance. Again, I recommend that anyone who is
interested look at the original.


>associated with or may give rise to deviations from the "true
>faith" that are no less grave than those that supposedly flow from a
>rational approach that subjects the origins of halachah to a critical
>analysis.

Your language here is guarded, but it seems that you are siding with Rav
Yaakov Emden and Gershon Scholem against RYE. I wonder if you have read the
biography of RYE written by Rav Yekusiel Yehudah Grunwald, author of the
popular halachic work Kol Bo al Aveilus. If you have, I'd be interested to
know why you do not accept his defense of RYE.

Yisrael Herczeg

In a message dated 98-12-10 02:52:41 EST, you write:

<< 
 The Ibn Ezra in the beginning of his commentary to Eicha mentions the gemara
 of milsa de-bedichusa. He writes that sometmes when the pressure of learning
 got too heavy the rabbanim would ease their minds by speaking divrei
 aggadah.He thus understands that the milsa de-bedichusa came in the middle of
 the shiur.Maybe this can be a source for the argument to ocassionally lighten
 up from the usual  heavy material in the Avodah list, although not
necessarily
 with jokes. Just a thought.  
 
  >>
I have no problem with jokes as long as they are noted as such(although I'm
sure some think my postings are jokes-it's unintentional:-)). I just hit the
next button and skip them.
w/r/t milta dbdichuta I believe the source gemora is pretty clear that it was
raba at the beginning of shiur, not in the middle(I'll check at home). Any
sources for the middle would be appreciated since on those rare occasions when
anyone will listen to an attempt of mine to lead a tora discussion I tend to
lace an occasional bit of humor in the mix.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Just in case anyone didn't know, this list has been merged with
avodah@aishdas.org. If for some reason we missed you during the switchover,
please contact me (micha@aishdas.org). I'll be glad to sign you up.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6002 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 10-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Let me note that I agree with R' Yisrael's argument on RYE and the SA.
Concerning, however, the next issue, I think that the impression I have
received from Dr. Shnayer Leiman's essays on the topic (he is not
currently a member of Avodah, perhaps someone in touch with him might
forward him my note) have convinced me that "l'meichash me'ba'ei" and
that, while the Noda b'Yehuda already initiated a grand "cover-up", there
was what to be suspicious of - including, a very suspicious reference to
SZ sr"y on RYE's gravestone - while Dr. Leiman is melamed zechus on it, it
seems pretty qquestionable to me!

On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Yisrael Herczeg wrote:
 
> Your language here is guarded, but it seems that you are siding with Rav
> Yaakov Emden and Gershon Scholem against RYE. I wonder if you have read
> the biography of RYE written by Rav Yekusiel Yehudah Grunwald, author of
> the popular halachic work Kol Bo al Aveilus. If you have, I'd be
> interested to know why you do not accept his defense of RYE. 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

R YGB writes:

>(A good example of Chillul Hashem in the cause of hityashvut was the
>Goldstein massacre. I refer now not to the damage vis a vis the non-Jewish
>world - a realpolitik problem - but to the terrible blow to the prestige
>of Torah Jewry that the episode caused among our non- or semi- Orthodox
>brethren).

Well said.  But it seems to me that the abstract principle underlying
your statement is that the unprovoked murder of 29 innocent Moslem
worshippers by a Jew who considers himself religious is a hillul Hashem.
 (Not to mention that murder is an issur in its own right.)  I would be
surprised to hear anyone on the list disagree with this point.  Nor can
I think of too many people who would characterize that massacre as
furthering the mitzvah of yishuv ha-Aretz.  (As a factual matter, I am
disregarding as unpersuasive the claims that Goldstein's actions were
"provoked" by shouts and calls to kill Jews that were heard the previous
night.)

What raised the hackles of many on the list was the abstract principle
that one should refrain from performing a mitzvah because it causes a
hillul Hashem.  As an illustration, let us take the following example
(an exaggeration of real-life events).  An Israeli woman has been
married to a Palestinian arab for twenty years.  She has borne him eight
children and they live happily.  A small group of religious Jews
secretly contact her.  Over time, they convince her to abandon her
husband and children, rejoin the Jewish community, and follow a life of
Torah and mitzvot.  As expected, the story makes headlines in the
Western media, which report this as a sinister and evil assault on the
integrity of the family, a cruel separation of a mother from her
children, and a perverse attack of imperialistic Jews on persecuted
arabs.  In short, a hillul Hashem of massive proportions.  The Torah
community recognizes the act as a mitzvah.

In your view, should the mitzvah be performed or not?  Does the answer
change if the question is be-di`avad instead of le-khathillah?

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Yisrael Herczeg wrote:

>>>Rav Yehonoson Eybeschuetz states his opinion on this matter in Urim
VeTumim, Kitzur Takfo Kohen, p. 48, column 4. He says that the Shulchan
Aruch with Hagahos HaRema is a work of such perfection that it could not
have been the product of mere humans. The Beis Yosef and the Rema were
inspired by a "ruach Hashem" and wrote a work which contains truths of which
they themselves were not conscious. Any halachic opinion not included in it
has had the door shut before it as far as halachah lemaaseh is concerned.
<<<

It appears that the Rabbi Kagan (Mishna Brurah) and Shach on Y.D. did not
agree.

Noach Witty

On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
 
> What raised the hackles of many on the list was the abstract principle
> that one should refrain from performing a mitzvah because it causes a
> hillul Hashem.  As an illustration, let us take the following example

Either I was misunderstood or I misspoke, so let me clarify, using your
example as a case in point, referring back to a previous example I gave as
well. Most mitzvos present numerous opportunities for fulfillment. As I
stated - and you stated - previously, one can fulfill Yishuv EY elsewhere
than Chevron. A cheshbon that should - in my perspective - lead one to
fulfill the mitzva elsewhere, is the possibility that by settling -
militantly - certain areas and making exaggerated hafganot - one causes
Orthodoxy to be marginalized in the eyes of the majority of the Jews of
Israel and the World, leading to major deficits. Now, for your example:

> (an exaggeration of real-life events).  An Israeli woman has been
> married to a Palestinian arab for twenty years.  She has borne him eight
> children and they live happily.  A small group of religious Jews
> secretly contact her.  Over time, they convince her to abandon her
> husband and children, rejoin the Jewish community, and follow a life of
> Torah and mitzvot.  As expected, the story makes headlines in the
> Western media, which report this as a sinister and evil assault on the
> integrity of the family, a cruel separation of a mother from her
> children, and a perverse attack of imperialistic Jews on persecuted
> arabs.  In short, a hillul Hashem of massive proportions.  The Torah
> community recognizes the act as a mitzvah.
> 

Remember, we are not discussing the world, or Western media, but the bulk
of Jews. So, I limit consideration and recast your case: If the bulk of
the Jewish world woulld be put off by Orthodox strong-arm tactics, should
we refrain from performing this mitzva? My answer: Yes! Harbeh derachim
la'Makom - which I twist here to mean - there are many opportunities for
Kiruv, pick another one!

> In your view, should the mitzvah be performed or not?  Does the answer
> change if the question is be-di`avad instead of le-khathillah?
> 

Yes, l'chatchila - pick someone else to be mekareiv. B'di'eved - once the
process has begun - one probably must see it through.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Are the comments of YGB and E. Clark colored by their respective feelings as
to the validity or propriety of the existence of the State of Israel?  Is
this just an Aguda vs. Mizrachi, black vs. white, Mir/Brisk vs. Hesder
argument all dolled up to fit in to these discussions?

BTW, of course you are going to block the bathroom! and of course you have
to make it clear--by body languauge, a smile, wave of the arm, standing
aside--that unless you are standing shmone esray you would be thrilled to
allow the other person to pass to their destination.

As for flight attendants,  they have a job to do and, notwithstanding our
incredible tzidkus and mesiras nefesh in publicly putting on (talis and)
tefilin on an El AL flight, it conceivable that someone wants a some juice
which located in the refrigerator that you are blocking!

On the other hand, there is no doubt that different flight attendants have
different perspectives on religiosity and, given that they El Al crews are
almost entirely Israeli, their feelings about religiosity, whatever those
feelings may be, are likely to be pretty strong. So why is it so terrible if
you actually show the dayal/dayelet some respect as a human being and
co-ordinate/negotiate a mutually convenient time.

Am I all alone on this notion of menschlechkeit? . . . .

Noach Witty

We need to not only distinguish between mitzvos that could only be fulfilled
via chillul and situations where it can be avoided, we also need to
distinguish between chiyuvim and non-chiyuvim.

Also, we need to define chillul. Not every "what will the goyim say" is
necessarily a chillul Hashem. Or, to put it another way, is this a case of
d'chuyah (there is a chillul Hashem, but perhaps the mitzvah need be done
anyway), or hutrah (this isn't a case of chillul Hashem at all)?

As chillul Hashem is yaharog vi'al ya'avor, it's hard to find too many mitzvos
which would have higher priority. I therefore find the concept of d'chuyah to
be unplausable. That would imply that for these cases to require doing the
mitzvah despite any bad impressions it may cause, we need a definition of
"chillul Hashem" that excludes doing His ratzon.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6002 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 10-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

<<
When the zera is donated by someone other than the woman's husband, some
posekim hold there would be a problem of arayot.  But R. Moshe and many
others held that there cannot be an issue of arayot in the absence of an
act of bi'ah.
>>

While arayot might not be an issue, there could be the problem of ubar
chaveyro, where halacha prohibits marriage to a woman pregnant / nursing a
child of another man, at least until the child is weaned.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

I came a across a teshuva by Rav Kook, ztvk"l, where he suggests waiting
(instead of harvesting from male) in order to collect zera from the husband.
His comment is that (rhetorically) do we think that we are Ya'akov Avinu
(presumably a reference to his ability to state that Reuven was "raishis
oni" when we know that Ya'akov married Leah when he was 84 years old).

Noach Witty

On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Noah Witty wrote:

> Are the comments of YGB and E. Clark colored by their respective
> feelings as to the validity or propriety of the existence of the State
> of Israel?  Is this just an Aguda vs. Mizrachi, black vs. white,
> Mir/Brisk vs. Hesder argument all dolled up to fit in to these
> discussions? 
>

Of course not, and I am sure R' Eli agrees with me on that - but, out of
sheer curiosity and in the interest of the furtherance of pure
intellectual sophistry, I would love to read your proposed analysis in
that vein!

(Particularly since I have learnt in yeshivos that fit into EVERY SINGLE
CATEGORY AND NAME (albeit the Brisk was the Chicago variety) of those you
enumerated, it would do me good to know where I actually stand, finally!
:-) )

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Yitchok Zirkind writes:

>I wouldn't argue with even one of those Gdolei Yisroel AAKV"K on the opinion
>of the Royv of them.

After sending my initial post, I felt that, in the interest of accuracy
and precision, I should present a more detailed summary of the views
regarding the kiyyum of piryah ve-rivyah using modern reproductive
technology.

Artificial insemination generally has two applications.  One is to deal
with the infertility of the husband.  This entails using the zera of a
donor and is called AID (Artificial Insemination -- Donor).  In the case
of an eshet ish, of course, many posekim oppose this.  They are most
concerned about the arayot issue, that the woman may become asur to her
husband and that the resulting child could end up unintentionally
committing incest.  The second application of artificial insemination is
to deal with a woman who cannot conceive.  For this, doctors introduced
artificial insemination with the zera of the husband (AIH).  Here poskim
are most concerned about the issue of hota'at zera le-vatalah and the
reliability of doctors not to mix the husband's zera with someone
else's.  See, e.g., Tzitz Eliezer 9:51, sec. 3-4.

Posekim also address two collateral issues: is the child produced by
artificial insemination the halakhic child of the donor (beno le-khol
davar) and has the supplier of the zera fulfilled the mitzvah of piryah
ve-rivyah?

There are some interesting sources on the subject.  On the paternity
issue, see the Hagahot ha-Semak cited in Bah, YD 195, Taz YD 198:7.
Those who follow Semak include Bet Shemuel, EH 1:10, Tashbetz III, no.
263, Mishneh la-Melekh, Ishut 15:4, Aukh la-Ner, Yevamot 10a and Minhat
Yitzhak I, no. 50.  Those who don't include Birkei Yosef, EH 1:14 and
Mishpetei Uziel, EH no. 19.

The following hold that piryah ve-rivyah is not fulfilled: R. Baumol, R.
Auerbach, and R. Gershuni (who hold that there is nevertheless a kiyyum
of shevet); R. Yaakov Emden, the Hida, Maharam Schick, R. Ovadya Hadaya.
 Recently R. Bleich has quoted the end of Tosafot, Hagigah 2b, s.v. lisa
shifha (2nd one) to show that the mitzvah of piryah ve-rivyah is
fulfilled through gemar bi'ah.

>However forgive my ignorance of the facts, is there a possibility of
>collecting the Zera in the Rechem, and in that case would the Maaseh Habiloh
>make it an act of Pru Urvu.

A number of posekim hold that a husband does not commit hotza'at zera
le-vatalah if the purpose is to implant the zera in his wife, though
some require that the couple wait ten years first.  Regarding collecting
the zera from the rehem, this is definitely approved.  See Teshuvot R.
Akiva Eger no. 72, Iggerot Moshe EH I, no 70; EH II, no. 16, Divrei Yoel
II, EH, no. 107:6.

With respect to surrogacy, two procedures are used.  One, gamete
intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) is like AID in that the zera of the
husband and the ovum of the wife are implanted into the surrogate.  The
other is zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), where the ovum of the
wife is fertilized by the zera of the husband in vitro, then the
fertilized egg (the zygote) is implanted in the surrogate.

>BTW a small Rayo that the child goes according to the one who gave birth is
>from the Possuk who calls Dinoh the Daughter of Leah (34:1) (and likewise
>Yosef as the son of Roche) even Though that according to some Medroshim and
so
>to R"E Hakalir that the Ubrim were exchanged.

Yes.  But as RYGB has recently mentioned, we don't learn halakha from
midrash.  So most posekim cite the case of the giyoret pregnat with
twins in Yevamot 97b, based on the concept of ger she nitgayer ke-nolad
dami.

>My question is that the Rambam writes that the problem with B"A is not just
>the etzem Maaseh Habi'iloh but that Zera Kodesh turns into Zera Nochri, that
>should be irrelevant to whether there is Koreis on the Maaseh Habeeloh.

A good question.  Could you tell me again where Rambam says this?  I
could not find it in Issurei Bi'ah 21.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

>>>The way I understood yours, my brother-in-law's and R' Shaul W's
position<<<

As I wrote yesterday, my position is different than S. Weinreb's: My
understanding of Rambam is - (1) there is an issur of deriving livlihood from
T"T, "l'fi sheAssur lehenos min hatorah b'olam haZeh" - an issur that
functions independent of chilul Hashem, see KS"M for sources.  (2) a violation
of that issur can result in an additional violation of chilul Hashem.  Issurim
can be compounded by chilul HAshem violations. Contrast with yishuv ha'aretz
where there is NO issur (step #1)- aderaba - its a mitzva.  You did not
address this distinction.

As for the latest source, the Rambam re: adam gadol at the end of ch. 5 of
yesodei haTorah, there are two distinctions to be made: (1) the Rambam is
discussing only an adam Gadol, not all people (2) more importantly, the Rambam
discusses divrei reshus - not chilul Hashem as it relates to mitzva
performance, which was our issue.  

In short - YES, chilul Hashem is relative, YES, chilul Hashem can compound
other issurim,  - NO, none of this is relevant to the question of whether
chilul Hashem limits the manner or obligation of mitzvah peformance.  Other
sources?

-Chaim

Jordan Hrisch writes:

<<
Why do you suggest that the Beit Hamikdosh is the sole criteria for
considering whether we should see ourselves as in Galut or not?
>>

While we now control, to some extent, Eretz Yisrael, I would argue that so
long as the Bais HaMikdash is not built, and we do not have a monarchy with
Mashiach as the first king in the line, we are ALL in galut.  Those in Israel
might not be in the GOLAH, but we are all GALUT.  I see galut as an
existential state of being, not a physical state of residence.  I offer this
without any proofs, it is MHO.

<<
Yaakov was the statesman who understood the vagaries of Realpolitik, and
Shimon and Levi were the naive idealists. The Torah seems to side with Yaakov
ultimately, in terms of the eventual Shevet of Malchut, the valedictory
Brachot to the Shvatim, etc...Yaakov did not have a machloket with Shimon and
Levi, he just thought they were wrong. 
>>
A few comments:  Yaakov thought the Shimon & Levi were wrong, and they felt
their father was wrong ( uhoh, fault in the avot without Chazal back-up, but
it is the sh'vatim doing it. do they need Chazal approval too? ;)   To me,
that is a machlokes.

According to the medrash, Yaakov thought that his return to C'naan was the end
of the 400 year promise to Avraham.  What happened?  Yosef jumped out at him.
Many explanations have been given as to what lesson Yosef had to teach.
Perhaps, it is this:  Yosef agreed with Shimon & Levi, that one must take a
more active role.  That is why he openly discussed his dreams, of HIS being
king, and not Yaakov.  Yosef was pushing the matter.  Who rose up to oppose
him?  None other than Shimon & Levi.  But didn't they agree with him?  Maybe
they felt he was pushing too hard, even in an agressive stance there has to be
planning and moderation ( and yes, there are strong lessons to be learned by
all political forces in Israel from these stories ).

How does the story end?  Yosef does become viceroy, during his father's
lifetime, but not in his father's land.  The lesson?  Maybe Shimon & Levi were
correct after all, and so was Yosef.  All of their actions were being dictated
by the Hand of HaShem, as we hope the actions of our current leaders, with the
aid of hashgacha k'lalis, are bring guided by HaShem.

Yaakov's plan did NOT work out.  He did not bring with him the beginning of
era of C'naan under Yisrael domination.  I think the plan broke down with his
response to Shimon & Levi, that they were in fact correct in their approach.
The fact that Yaakov blasts them in his parting message might have to do with
the secretive nature of their plotting, and their direct motives at the time (
anger ), than the actual implementation ( this is a weak point, I concede ).

Yaakov had to learn the lesson that Shimon & Levi were correct.  That could
only be done through the vehicle of his favorite son, Yosef.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

RYGB poses the following scenario:

<<
A fellow, say, from Kollel Chazon Ish, who spent his entire life in Torah
study while being supported by public funds and charity come up after one
hundred and twenty years to Shomayim. According to the Rambam, how does
the Beis Din shel Ma'alah judge this person?
>>

I think one question has to be asked of this scholar, and his answer will make
all the difference in outcome.  What was his expectation of support while he
was studying?  Where did he think his food would come from?

If he felt that he should be supported by public charity, then I feel he would
get NO reward whatsoever for his learning.  And I think this is Rambam's
intent too, as he wrote:  "Kol hameysim al libo...v'lo ya'aseh m'lacha,
v'yisparnes min hatzedaka".  Part of his condition of devotion to learning is
that he will be on the public dole. Such a person gets no credit.

However, if a person devotes himself to Torah, and does not involve himself at
all with his parnasa, making no thought as to where his next meal will come,
and not expecting that people should support him, such a person has dedicated
his life to HaShem, and only that sort of person rises to the level of Shevet
Levi, as Rambam writes at the end of Sh'mita v'Yovel.  Such a person would not
even need the cleansing of Gehinnom before attaining his rightful reward, in
my opinion.

Those who learn in Kolel, but have stock portfolios, or otherwise make
business deals of any sort, are not dedicating themsleves exclusively to
HaShem, and can not and may not hide behind Rambam as an excuse for not
involving themselves in other public responsibilities ( such as army service
in EY ).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

I agree, but would state the point more vehemently than, R' ED Teitz.

AUIU, the primary galus is not of us, but of the Shechinah.

Therefore, the criteria R' EDT gives, "the Bais HaMikdash is not built, and we
do not have a monarchy with Mashiach as the first king in the line", as well
as a lack of kibutz galios, of "miTzion tetzei Torah" (nevermind the thirst
for Torah amongst Jews ourselves), etc... are symptoms of galus because
they cause hester panim. It's hard to see "Yad" Hashem in today's world. Galus
HaShechinah.

So, while this too is only MHO, I think there's a sound logical basis to that
opinion.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6002 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 10-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]