Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 347

Tuesday, February 8 2000

• To go off on a tangent...
• smoking ban
• Re: To go off on a tangent...
• Re: To go off on a tangent...
• Re: Calendical Issues (HUMOR ALERT)
• Re[2]: To go off on a tangent...
• gaa-al yisrael
• Re: Avodah V4 #344-Rabbi Miller
• Re: Smoking and Halocho
• Re: Gaw'al Yisrael
• Re: Gezel Akum
• Re: Gaw'al Yisrael
• Was Re: Gezel Akum, Now Re SE

> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:19:33 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #332
> To go off on a tangent...

 
<< BTW, I though parnasah wasn't decided until Shemini Atzeres, which is
why we add "umorid hageshem" then.>>

	If parnasa for the year waits until Chag, when we are nidonim al
hamayim,  shouldn't it also wait for Pesach when we are nidonim on
hatevuah,  or even Shevuos when we are nidonim on peiros ha'ilan? 

	I believe this question is addressed by the meforshei hamishna in R"H
but don't recall well enough to post.
  
Gershon

> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:31:06 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: smoking ban

<<Really! Are medicines always assur to the extent their ingredients
might be derived from a prohibited substance? Pulverized grain products
are used as fillers in many pills. Are these pills assur on Pesach? Many
high-tech medications are derived from animal enzymes. Must the animals
be kosher?>>

	There are two issues here.  The chometz on Pesach is,  of course, an
issue of issur hana'ah.  This does not depend on whether it has taste but
on whether it is edible at all.  Therefore the answer to your first
question is,  I believe,  yes.  The second question derives from the
controversy concerning gelatin.  If the taste is no longer there,  there
is no longer an issur.

	Forbidding a derivative of kitniyos (i.e., Bean-O) on Pesach is also a
machlokes;  I believe there is a difference in practice between Israeli
poskim (generally permit) and Americans (generally forbid) on this.   

	This begs the question as to whether these medications can be
reformulated for Pesach without the chometz filler.

Gershon

Going even further off on a tangent

The Minhag in KAJ/Frankfurt/Breuer's is to use the Yomim Noraim Motif for 
hachnosas haTorah prior to Mussaf

In discussing this  with a fellow Chazzan, we concurred that EVERY Chag has an 
element of Din. 

Shmini Atzeres is the most intense in that it involves  BOTH Geshem and Yizkor.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: To go off on a tangent... 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/8/2000 5:17 PM


> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:19:33 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
> Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #332
> To go off on a tangent...


<< BTW, I though parnasah wasn't decided until Shemini Atzeres, which is 
why we add "umorid hageshem" then.>>

	If parnasa for the year waits until Chag, when we are nidonim al 
hamayim,  shouldn't it also wait for Pesach when we are nidonim on 
hatevuah,  or even Shevuos when we are nidonim on peiros ha'ilan? 

	I believe this question is addressed by the meforshei hamishna in R"H 
but don't recall well enough to post.

Gershon

Interesting that this is mentioned.  My Father obm, who was my first teacher
of nusach and chazzanut told me that the Yehalelu at hachnoso on the Yamim
Noraim should be sung in a High holiday motif.  I later learned that the
melody he taught me for Ki lekach Tov on those days was actually
Lewandowski's Zocharti Loch, which apparently was modified for Hachnoso, and
sung by the boys choir, by the local chazzan in Kisvarda, Hungary
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: To go off on a tangent...


> Going even further off on a tangent
>
> The Minhag in KAJ/Frankfurt/Breuer's is to use the Yomim Noraim Motif for
> hachnosas haTorah prior to Mussaf
>
> In discussing this  with a fellow Chazzan, we concurred that EVERY Chag
has an
> element of Din.
>
> Shmini Atzeres is the most intense in that it involves  BOTH Geshem and
Yizkor.
>
> Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
>
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: To go off on a tangent...
> Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
> Date:    2/8/2000 5:17 PM
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:19:33 -0600
> > From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> > Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #332
> > To go off on a tangent...
>
>
> << BTW, I though parnasah wasn't decided until Shemini Atzeres, which is
> why we add "umorid hageshem" then.>>
>
> If parnasa for the year waits until Chag, when we are nidonim al
> hamayim,  shouldn't it also wait for Pesach when we are nidonim on
> hatevuah,  or even Shevuos when we are nidonim on peiros ha'ilan?
>
> I believe this question is addressed by the meforshei hamishna in R"H
> but don't recall well enough to post.
>
> Gershon
>
>

On 8 Feb 00, at 16:03, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Sepculative  question: Is there a relationship between Rosh Hashana L'ilanos 
> kdivrei Beis Shammai (i.e. Rosh Chodesh Shevat)
> 
> And
> 
> the Chinese New Year which  - excepting for a Jewish Leap Year - also falls out 
> on Rosh Chodesh Shevat.

Nah. The Jews came first.

"The Jewish people have observed their 5760th year as a people." 
the Hebrew teacher informed his class.  "Consider that the Chinese 
have observed only their 4697th.  What does this mean to you?"

After a reflective pause one student volunteered, "Well for one 
thing, the Jews had to do without Chinese food for 1063 years."

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

The traditional German yehallelu as transcribed by IM Japhet is the German 
version of the Tekia melody Ashrei ho'om yod'ei sruoh.  This melody starts the 
same in the Litvisher world, but has a different ending.

This motif was extended from vay'hi binsoa thru Yehall'lu.  I don't know when 
that happened, but Japhet records it as of about 1880.

FWIW, I vageuly recall that the Tekia meloday of Ashrei ho'om as a MiSiani 
melody.

The facts are of course that hachnoso on Shmini Atzeres has little to do with 
Shofar.  But the Shofar melody became the motif for RH, which then got extended 
to YK, etc.  These things evolve (almost pilpulistically!).

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: To go off on a tangent...  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/8/2000 5:58 PM



Interesting that this is mentioned.  My Father obm, who was my first teacher 
of nusach and chazzanut told me that the Yehalelu at hachnoso on the Yamim 
Noraim should be sung in a High holiday motif.  I later learned that the 
melody he taught me for Ki lekach Tov on those days was actually 
Lewandowski's Zocharti Loch, which apparently was modified for Hachnoso, and 
sung by the boys choir, by the local chazzan in Kisvarda, Hungary
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <avodah@aishdas.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 5:51 PM 
Subject: Re: To go off on a tangent...


> Going even further off on a tangent 
>
> The Minhag in KAJ/Frankfurt/Breuer's is to use the Yomim Noraim Motif for 
> hachnosas haTorah prior to Mussaf
>
> In discussing this  with a fellow Chazzan, we concurred that EVERY Chag 
has an
> element of Din.
>
> Shmini Atzeres is the most intense in that it involves  BOTH Geshem and 
Yizkor.
>
> Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
>
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
> Subject: To go off on a tangent...
> Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate 
> Date:    2/8/2000 5:17 PM
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:19:33 -0600
> > From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
> > Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #332
> > To go off on a tangent...
>
>
> << BTW, I though parnasah wasn't decided until Shemini Atzeres, which is 
> why we add "umorid hageshem" then.>>
>
> If parnasa for the year waits until Chag, when we are nidonim al
> hamayim,  shouldn't it also wait for Pesach when we are nidonim on 
> hatevuah,  or even Shevuos when we are nidonim on peiros ha'ilan? 
>
> I believe this question is addressed by the meforshei hamishna in R"H 
> but don't recall well enough to post.
>
> Gershon
>
>

> 
> Misconception: The shliach tzibur (sha"tz - communal prayer leader)
> should say the end of the brachah gaw'al yisrael silently so that no one
> should erroneously answer amen and thereby interrupt the vital link
> between the bracha of gaw'al yisrael and the beginning of Shemoneh
> Esrei.
> 
> Fact: The custom of saying the last few words of gaw'al yisrael silently
> seems to be a relatively recent innovation of the Lithuanian yeshiva
> world. The older custom seems to have been that the sha"tz completed the
> brachah of gaw'al yisrael out loud. Both customs have strong defenders
> and vigorous opponents.
> 
I have always said out loud (or rather audibly but lower than usual).
I believe this was the opinion of Rav Soloveitchik that the chazan has
to say everything outloud including modim.
For the same reason I say birchat cohanim out loud (again not louder
than the cohanim) though I have heard shittot that it should be said
so that only the cohanim hear it, it doesn't seem right to me
(obviously I am talking about places/times that the cohanim bless the people).

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 00-02-08 10:22:08 EST, you write:

<< R' Dovid Miller (a
 Slabodka talmid who was, I believe, in LA)  >>
He was in Oakland,CA, a wealthy man who made his fortune in oil.R.Ahron 
Soloveichek told me that Rabbi Miller learned in Slobodka, and that he never 
got married. R.Ahron also told me that his proposal for constructing a mikvah 
was well-meaning but contreoversial, and not accepted. I have been told that 
R.Chiam Hirshenson, in his Malki BeKodesh, made a similar proposal. Rabbi 
Miller's original book, Mikveh Yisroel (1924), was written in Yiddish, and 
carried haskamos from some great gaonim, most notably Rav Gavriel Zev (' Rav 
Velvele) Margolis, author of Toras Gavrieel on Chumash. The expanded English 
version was The Secret of the Jew. (1930). He distributed it free of 
charge.An older member of the faculty in YU- now in his 70s- also toldme that 
when when he was in yeshiva ketana, he won a learning prize-a set of Yachin 
U'Boaz Mishnayos-in a contest sponsored by Rabbi Miller.Rabbi Miller died in 
1939, and left 10% of his fortune to be used in publishing books on 
mikvaeh,taharas hamishpacha and shemiras Shabbos.

I believe you misunderstood me. I said there are things beyond *Halacha* not
beyond *Torah*. I.e., the sum of Torah is greater than the part of Halacha.

In this respect, the banner of TIDE (vs. "Torah Only") is a misnomer. RSRH
did not see DE as "beyond Torah" - but rather as part and parcel of the
Torah.

"Torah Only" is also a misnomer, and only relevant to a contrast with DE.
There is "Torah u'Mussar" "Torah v'Chesed" "Torah v'Chassidus" "Torah,
Avodah u'Gemilus Chasodim", etc.

Some specific comments follow below.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Smoking and Halocho


> In message , Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer

> Now here is a real Avodah issue, and  what a fascinating one it is.
>
> Because this isn't a viewpoint I have heard in a while.  Once upon a
> time it was very widely held, particularly, I would say, among the Torah
> u'Mada crowd, ie there is Torah, and there are things outside Torah
> which have their own value and therefore should be studied and valued
> independently.  This was traditionally contrasted with the view in
> favour of "only Torah", which said that nothing outside of Torah had any
> value and since Mada was outside, it should not be valued.  And I think,
> to a large extent, the "only Torah" people won the debate.  Look, they
> argued, if Torah is emes, and emes is Torah, everything that is not
> Torah must be tiflus or sheker (if not the sitra achra).
>

TuM is indeed different. Classic Lithuanian TuM could fit very neatly with a
Brisker world view, with the one caveat that besides Halocho there is also
Madda.

> And in the face of this argument, it seems to me that viewpoint you
> articulate has virtually disappeared (sure it seems to reflect a
> position within the traditional sources, but I don't mean that, I mean
> in the living breathing Torah world of today).   However, that does not
> mean that those who supported Mada abandoned its study and involvement.
> Rather, it seems to me, there was a shift in philosophical position, in
> many ways a paradigmatic shift to a perspective that agrees that Torah
> "covers the field".  That does not mean that the full "only Torah"
> viewpoint has taken over and areas of knowledge that were once accepted
> were rejected.  Rather the shift has been to see various parts of Torah
> as "picking up" the other things that are valued, rather than seeing
> them as other but still emes.
>

Not at all. Once refraining from smoking is seen as al pi mussar and
curtailing ta'avo, it is fully part of Torah (=Yahadus).

No one seems to have mentioned it yet, but Minhag Chabad is to finish
"Ha'Bocher b'Amo Yisroel B'Ahava" silently and "Ga'al Yisroel" out loud.

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

Re:  Stealing from non-Jews


    While there are individual authorities who do not extend the biblical 
prohibition of stealing to property owned by idolators, the Talmud proves 
that the prohibition of stealing restricts the stealing of any property, 
whether owned by Jews or non-Jews. Thus, See Baba Kamma 113a-b, "Whence can 
we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden?  From the significant 
words:  "After that he is sold (i.e., an Israelite to a Canaanite as a slave) 
he may be redeemed again (Lev. 25:48)" which implies that he could not 
withdraw and leave him [without paying the redemption money]. You might then 
say that [the heathen master] may demand an exorbitant sum for him? No, since 
it says: "And he shall reckon with him that bought him (Lev. 25:50)" to 
emphasize that he must be very precise in making the valuation with him who 
had bought him...

His robbery is prohibited, for R. Huna said: Whence do we learn that the 
robbery of a heathen is prohibited? Because it says: "And thou shalt consume 
all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee (Deut. 7:16)"; 
only in the time [of war] when they were delivered in thy hand [as enemies] 
this is permitted, whereas this is not so in the time [of peace] when they 
are not delivered in thy hand [as enemies].

His lost article is permissible (i.e., one is under no obligation to return 
it), for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the 
lost article of a heathen is permissible?  Because it says: "And with all 
lost thing of thy brother's (Deut. 22:3)": it is to your brother that you 
make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen.)

This is the normative Halachah.   (See Hil. Gezeilah va-Aveidah 1:2.  
However, Yam shel Shlomo, Baba Kamma, ch. 10, no. 20, states that the Torah 
is given solely to the Jewish people for their welfare.  Thus, theft of 
non-Jewish property is not its concern, except as it affects the integrity of 
Jewish behavior.) 

    In more technically halakhic terms, consider the following:  There is a 
debate as to whether the Torah forbids stealing all property, owned by Jews 
or non-Jews, or whether the prohibition applies only to the property of 
fellow Jews.  Many authorities maintain that this entire discussion does not 
apply to present-day non-Jews; stealing from them or cheating them in any way 
is forbidden.  They maintain that the entire discussion relates only to the 
idolators of ancient times, who, because of the base and ignoble nature of 
their beliefs and practices, were undeserving of the Torah's legal 
protection.  Others maintain that this discussion applies to present-day 
non-Jews as well.   The overwhelming majority of authorities rule according 
to the former opinion:  it is prohibited by Torah law to steal from a 
non-Jew.  

    (Meiri maintains that the exemption of non-Jewish property from the 
stealing prohibition does not apply to today's non-Jews. BK sham.  The 
uncensored edition of Bet Yosef, Hoshen Mishpat, ch. 266, maintains that 
there is no distinction between an idolator and a contemporary non-Jew. See 
Efraim Urbach, Mehkarim be-madei ha-Yahadut, vol. 2 (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 
1998), p. 523. Urbach maintains that the distinction is a form of apologetics 
and that it was the concern over the anti-Semitic censors that introduced 
this distinction into the text.  See, however, R. Yehezkel Landau's preface 
to Resp. Noda be-Yehudah, in which he writes,
    "It is already known and publicized in all of the places I have been, 
that I admonish in most of my public lectures that we are to be very vigilant 
in the respect of the nations of our times, in whose lands and countries we 
find refuge.  We must pray for the welfare of the kings, officers and their 
soldiers, and pray for the welfare of the state and its inhabitants.  God 
forbid, that we should be ungrateful, for they do good for us  and give us 
food and respite in the land.  I also constantly warn against robbery and 
theft, and announce that there is no difference at all in the prohibitions of 
robbery and theft between Jewish money and non-Jewish money, [they are both] 
prohibited by "Thou shalt not rob."  So, too, the prohibition of "You shall 
not steal" includes the money of a non-Jew.  And so it is [codified] in 
Rambam, chapter one of Hil. Geneivah, "Anyone who steals property worth at 
least a perutah violates a prohibition, as it says, "You shall not steal,"  
etc. [This prohibition applies to both] one who steals the property of a Jew 
and one who steals the property of a non-Jew.  And so he wrote in chapter one 
of Hil. Gezeilah, par. 2, "It is prohibited to rob any amount, according to 
Torah law, [it is] even prohibited to rob or extort a non-Jew.  If he does 
rob or steal from him, he must return it."  And so did the Tur codify the law 
in Hoshen Mishpat, ch. 348, in Hil. Geneivah, and in ch. 359 in Hil. 
Gezeilah.  And so did the Shulhan Arukh codify the law in Hil. Geneivah and 
in Hil. Gezeilah.  Behold, it is explained that it is prohibited to rob or to 
steal from a non-Jew, a fortiori [from] the contemporary nations amongst whom 
we dwell, because they believe in the fundamentals of religion, in the 
creation of the world, in the prophecy of the prophets, and all the miracles 
and wonders written in the Torah and the books of the prophets.  Therefore, 
it is plainly clear that we are obligated to honor them and to elevate them.  
Therefore, I decree and pronounce, and not just with regard to my own texts, 
but in any text in which deprecating statements are found concerning 
idolators, non-Jews, Cutheans and other similar appellations, that you should 
not mistakenly apply [these deprecating statements] to the non-Jews of our 
times, for the one who does is mistaken and is explaining [the law] contrary 
to the law of the Torah.  The reference [of these comments] is to the ancient 
nations who believed in worshipping the stars and constellations like the 
Sabba sect referred to by Rambam in the Guide, for they were epikusim and 
minim, who did not acknowledge the creation of the world and who denied all 
of the wonders and denied prophecy.  Therefore, all should be careful with my 
words and take them to heart as a remembrance."
  Rambam, Hil. Gezeilah va-Aveidah 1:2;  Meiri maintains that today's 
non-Jews that are commited to the teachings of an ethical religion are not 
the subjects of this discussion.  The uncensored edition of Bet Yosef, Hoshen 
Mishpat, ch. 266, maintains that there is no distinction between an idolator 
and a contemporary non-Jew. See Efraim Urbach, Mehkarim be-madei ha-Yahadut, 
vol. 2 (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1998), p. 523. Urbach maintains that the 
distinction is a form of apologetics and that it was the concern over the 
anti-Semitic censors that introduced this distinction into the text.)


(R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg was greatly distressed by the morality of these 
laws.  In a letter to his friend, Professor Samuel Atlas, published in Marc 
B. Shapiro, "Scholars and Friends: R. Jehiel Jabob Weinberg and Professor 
Samuel Atlas", The Torah U-Madda Journal, VII, 1997, dated September 15, 
1957, he wrote, 
I have bitter thoughts about the very existence of the nation and its hopes 
for the future.  The entire world hates us.  We assume that this hatred is 
due to the wickedness of the nations, and no one stops to think that we also 
bear some guilt.  We regard all the nations as similar to an ass.  It is 
forbidden to save a Gentile, it is forbidden to offer him free medical 
treatment, it is forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save his life, his 
sexual intercourse does not render a woman forbidden to her husband according 
to R. Tam because their issue is like that of horses.  Can the nations resign 
themselves to such a deprivation of rights?  It is permitted to deceive a 
Gentile and cancel his debt as well as forbidden to return his lost object!  
What can we do?  Can we uproot our Torah teaching with apologetic formulae or 
clever deceptions.  God knows that I have written this with the blood of my 
heart, the blood of my soul. (p. 112)
On November 15, 1965, he wrote,
In my opinion it is fitting to put an end to the hatred of the religions for 
each other.  More than Christianity hates Judaism, Judaism hates 
Christianity.  There is a dispute if stealing from Gentiles is forbidden from 
the Torah, everyone holds that deceiving a Gentile and cancelling his debt is 
permitted, one is not to return a lost object to a Gentile, according to R. 
Tam intercourse with a Gentile does not render a woman forbidden to her 
husband, their issue is like the issue [of horses].  According to Maimonides, 
if a Jew has sex with a Gentile [woman], the Gentile is killed because the 
Jew stumbled into sin through her.  The law of a Gentile is the same as the 
law of an animal.  Maimonides derived this law on his own.  It is not found 
in the Bavli or the Yerushalmi.  We must solemnly and formally declare that 
in our day this does not apply.  Meiri wrote as such, but the teachers and 
ramim whisper in the ears of the students that all this was written because 
of the censor. (p. 118)
In an endnote to his article, Shapiro writes,
Cf. Yaakov (Gerald) Blidstein, Gilyon, Heshvan 5754, p. 25: "I remember that 
in Israel there was a real problem, do you save a Gentile on the Sabbath?  
One evening during this time I was with the Rav [Joseph B. Soloveitchik] and 
he said, 'I have been in Boston many years and I always rule that one saves 
the lives of Gentiles, because if we do not permit this, they won't treat our 
sick ones.'  I asked him if this reason satisfied him from an ethical 
standpoint, and he replied, 'No, from an ethical standpoint it does not 
satisfy me.'")

    Nevertheless, while outlawing theft, authorities allowed for hafka'at 
halva'ah, the unilateral cancellation of debts owed by a Jew to a non-Jew; 
for the retaining of lost non-Jewish property found by a Jew;    and for 
benefiting from an error on his part that accrues undeserved gain to a Jew.   
(Thus, Baba Kamma 113b, "His lost article is permissible (i.e., one is under 
no obligation to return it), for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: 
Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible?  
Because it says: 'And with all lost thing of thy brother's (Deut. 22:3)': it 
is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make 
restoration to a heathen.")

( Concerning the severity of the prohibition of returning a lost article 
belonging to a non-Jew the Talmud, Sanhedrin 76b, states,  "Rab Judah said in 
Rab's name: One who...returns a lost article to a Cuthean, concerning him 
Scripture says, "[that he bless himself in his heart saying, 'I shall have 
peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart] to add drunkenness to 
thirst;' The Lord will not spare him. (Deut. 29:18-19)."
    Whether this concern for hillul ha-Shem is biblical or rabbinic is the 
subject of debate.  Kesef Mishneh, Hil Gezeilah va-aveidah 1:2, maintains 
that the way Rambam codifies the law (i.e., he writes that it is prohibited, 
but does not say that the transgressor violates a negative commandment), 
indicates that Rambam is of the opinion that hillul ha-Shem is a rabbinic 
concern.  Shakh, Hoshen Mishpat 359, no. 2, disagrees, maintaining that 
Rambam holds that the prohibition is biblical in nature,  He cites the 
language of Rambam, Hil Geneivah 1:1, quoted in Hoshen Mishpat 348:2 as 
support for his opinion.  Maharshal, Baba Kama, ch. 10, no. 20 agrees, as 
does SeMaG and Hiddushei R. Akiva Eiger in his commentary to Shulhan Arukh.  
However, Maharshal agrees with Rashi, Sanhedrin 57a s.v. yisrael be-nokhri 
mutar, that the prohibition is only rabbinic.
    The statement of Rema, Even haEzer 28:1, that if a Jew betroths a woman 
with a ring that was stolen from a non-Jew, that the betrothal is lawful, is 
problematic.  If the ring is stolen property, then the betrothal should not 
be valid.  The Vilna Gaon in his commentary, ibid., no. 5, and to Hoshen 
Mishpat 348, no. 8, disagrees with Rema, allowing for a lawful betrothal only 
in the case of a nullified loan, where there was no act of theft, an act 
which he maintains is biblically prohibited.)

    However, even those who are permissive in these areas prohibit such 
behavior because of hillul ha-Shem.   Thus, R. Pinhas b. Yair said that where 
there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining 
of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. (Baba Kamma 113b)   Rabban Gamliel 
decreed that stealing from a non-Jew is prohibited because of hillul ha-Shem 
(Talmud Yerushalmi, Baba Kamma 4:3:  "The Roman government once sent two 
officers to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel and they learned from him mikra, 
mishneh, talmud, halachot and aggadot.  When they were finished, they said to 
him, "All of your Torah is pleasant and praiseworthy except for these two 
matters in which you maintain ... and in that which you maintain that it is 
prohibited to steal from a Jew but that it is permissible to steal from a 
non-Jew.  At that very moment, R. Akiva decreed that stealing from a non-Jew 
would be prohibited because of hillul ha-Shem.).  And Shimon ben Shetah 
refrained from keeping an object that was lost by a non-Jew lest he be 
considered a barbarian.  "More than I want all of the money in the world," he 
declared, "I want to hear the Gentile say, 'Blessed be the God of the Jews.'" 
  (Talmud Yerushalmi, Baba Metzia 2:5.  See also Tosafot, Baba Metzia 87b, 
s.v. ela.  Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,  Keilim 12:7.) 
    R. Moshe of Coucy, author of SMaG, put is succinctly, "All those who 
steal from Gentiles are guilty of hillul ha-Shem for they cause the Gentiles 
to say 'the Jews do not uphold the Torah (ein Torah leYisrael)'.. and they 
cause them to say 'see how God chose for His portion a people of thieves and 
frauds.'"   (SMaG, Negative Commandment no. 2, Positive Commandment no. 74.  
SMaG, prohibitions, no. 152; Sefer Hasidim, no. 1414.  Hagahot Maimoniyot, 
Hil. Gezeilah va-Aveidah 1 [a].  R. Meir Simha of Dvinsk in his Meshekh 
Hokhmah to Ex. 21:14, writes, "It may be that a Jew who kills a Gentile, in 
addition to violating the sin of murder, also violates the prohibition of 
hillul ha-Shem."  See also Jacob Katz, Bein Yehudim la-Goyim, 5720, pp. 
69-72.)  Many authorities who ruled that, as a matter of law, one is not 
permitted to steal from a Gentile, added the moral dimension of hillul 
ha-Shem as well.  Thus, "stealing from a Gentile is worse than stealing from 
a Jew because of [the added factor of] the desecration of God's Name."     
(Rambam, Commentary to Mishnah, Keilim 12:7, "It is forbidden to hold onto an 
underweight or defective coin, and it is certainly forbidden to give it in a 
deceptive fashion to a Gentile.  For when the masses of Jews think, and 
sometimes even the select among them do, that such deception of Gentiles is 
permitted, they adhere to an incorrect and improper opinion.  For God in His 
holy Torah said, regarding one who sells himself to an idolater, "he shall 
give an accounting with his purchaser" (Lev. 25:50).  On this the Sages in 
the Sifra said, "He shall give an exact account and not deceive him."  And 
they said that if this is the case regarding a Gentile who is under Jewish 
dominion, certainly it is so if he is under Jewish dominion.  And if it is so 
strict regarding a Gentile, certainly that is the case regarding a Jew.  
Similarly, it is not permitted to engage in exploitation, fraud or 
misrepresentation toward Gentiles.  As they said there, "It is forbidden to 
deceive others, even Gentiles, certainly if the results will be a hillul 
ha-Shem.  For then the transgression will be very grave.  These evil actions 
all bring about bad qualities in a person.)

Mark Dratch

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:



> Even on YK where the German minhag is very different, both  have selichos for
> shacharis/mussaf/Mincha.  Follwers of RYBS thought he was being original when he
> "addedg" selichos on YK, but he was actually restoring an older minhag that had
> fallen into disuse (Again see see the Vilna Kol Bo)


Interesting. If they were dropping Minhag Ashkenaz, what were they
switching to? O were they just dropping minhagim?

I ask because Sefaradim say selichot at Arvit, Shaharit, Musaf, Minha,
and Ne'ilah. Unless I misunderstand, and RYBS was the one dropping
Minhag Ashkenaz.




---sam

While one cannot but be impressed by R' Dratch's erudite analysis of the
laws of Gezel Akum, a phenomenon that deserves complete repudiation and
renouncement, the quotation from letters of the SE that may have been
published b'issur does mar the presentation. Readers new to Avodah should be
aware that it is unlikely that there was any valid heter to print these
letters, and that the SE doubtless would never want to have seen them
published.

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

----- Original Message -----

> (R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg was... In a letter to his friend, Professor
Samuel Atlas, published in Marc
> B. Shapiro, "Scholars and Friends: R. Jehiel Jabob Weinberg and Professor
> Samuel Atlas", The Torah U-Madda Journal, VII, 1997, dated September 15,
> 1957, he wrote,

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


[ 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         ]