Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 438

Wednesday, March 15 2000

• Re: Avodah V4 #437
• Bentch Gomel
• holocaust
• Re: Ayin tachas ayin
• Re: Ayin tachas ayin
• Shloi Shinu Es Lvushom
• RE: Yisachar-Zevulin
• Re: Chazeres vs. Maror
• Re: holocaust
• Re: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Clinton's eulogy for YR
• Avrohom Ovinu's Clothes
• Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: science and halacha
• Re: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
• kipa /malbush
• [none]
• Ayin Tachas Ayin

In a message dated 3/14/00 8:32:38 PM Central Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< I believe I am somewhere in the middle. >>
I believe you're lonely.

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:35:33 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil 
> 
> Perhaps the rhetoric is bad, but not necessary the point.
> 
> My point is that elveators are irrelevant, so were chariots gamla parchas, boros
> she'ein bo mayim, and other "dnagers" of both the modern and ancient world>
> 
> Question: was Essther chayeves to bench gomeil when she intrdued upon 
> achasveirosh after he 3 day fast?  Was her life in danger?  Did she mee the 
> criteria for gomeil benching?
> 
> Traversing seas and deserts fits into the gemoros categorizations, trvaersing 
> I-95 does not.
> 
> klal uprat?
> 
> What is the exact loshon of the gemoro... 
> 
> Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> 

You just reminded me that deserts are also in the list of reasons for 
gomel.  If it is customary to bentch gomel when crossing an ocean, why 
not when crossing the US (at least on the southern route) since one is 
crossing the desert.  I was not planning on bentching gomel on Thursday 
sinced I am coming home from Albquerque tomorrow.

Is that wrong?

> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:33:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: holocaust

<<The implication to me is that it's a rejection of all survivors that
are not frum.>>

	And you have not explained why it could or should be perceived that way.

<<Why not just call it Holocaust?  What is to be lost?>>

	Again,  I believe I explained the reason and what is to be lost.  I
think no further light is being shed in this discussion by either of us
and I am prepared to drop it.

<<One more thing. I do not hate the Right.>>

	I didn't say you did.   But you do consistently criticize "them"  with
rarely a countervailing post lauding some good point.   Bimkom mishpato
sham pa'alo;  if you were more balanced,  in your posts (I have no idea
what you actually think about the RW) it would not give the negative
impression that it does when you do criticize.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I believe that the Prof. N. Sarna referred to by Mechy Frankel is Nachum
Sarna, the (not-so-observant) son of the late Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron
(the Yeshiva, not the fuel company), Rav Chatzkel Sarna.
Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In a message dated 3/14/00 10:23:30 PM US Central Standard Time, 
targum1@juno.com writes:

<< I believe that the Prof. N. Sarna referred to by Mechy Frankel is Nachum
 Sarna, the (not-so-observant) son of the late Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron
 (the Yeshiva, not the fuel company), Rav Chatzkel Sarna. >>

Thanks for the clarification. The Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron (the fuel company, 
not the school) built the Ner Tamid, didn't he?

David Finch

The Lekach Tov Shemos 6:6 says, "...v'lo chilfu es simlosom"

On 14 Mar 00, at 17:50, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 	On Tuesday, March 14, 2000 2:43 PM Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> > Sent:	Tuesday, March 14, 2000 2:43 PM
> > To:	Markowitz, Chaim; avodah@aishdas.org; 'micha@aishdas.org'
> > Subject:	Re: Yisachar-Zevulin
> > 
> > On 14 Mar 00, at 14:25, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
> >  
> > > Let me rephrase my question. Gershon Dubin mentioned that Rabbi Y.
> > Reisman
> > > cited sources that one does become a
> > > : talmid chochom from being a Zvulun. You made the claim that the reason
> > > that this is so is due to the fact that he appreciates what learning is
> > > about and therefore will learn with greater intensity. My point is that
> > I
> > > don't see how this appreciation is intrinsically tied to being a
> > Zevulun.
> > > You could be a pauper and still have a high appreciation for learning. 
> > 
> > Yes, but not in the same way as one who puts out his own hard-
> > earned cash to support someone learning, thereby gaining an 
> > appreciation for the material struggles that someone who is a 
> > Yissochor must face.
> > 
> 	M'heichah Teisei to say this? Do you mean to tell me you really
> believe a Zevulun has a higher appreciation for learning than a regular
> person simply because he shares some of  his money with a Yissachar? 

I think that a Zevulun has a greater appreciation for the struggle 
that a Yissochor has to enable himself to continue learning, and 
because of that he has a higher appreciation for the learning. 
There's a difference (and I think this is what distinguishes a Y/Z 
relationship from stam giving money to a Yeshiva) between just 
writing a check or giving someone a few shekels (or dollars) on the 
one hand, and being in a real partnership where you see the guy 
and hear his struggles day in and day out. 

In the one Yeshiva I know of that has (or had - it's a long time ago) 
formalized Y/Z relationships, the Zevulun used to come to the Beis 
Medrash and learn with the Yissochor for night seder a couple of 
times a week. Now that I look back at it, this may be why.

Take a
> case of a multi billionaire who gives half his money to a Yissachar-he is
> not financially lacking so according to you he should not have a higher
> appreciation of learning than a non Zevulun. 

No. He should have that appreciation because he sits with that 
Yissochor in partnership and sees how that Yissochor is meimis 
atzmo b'ohela shel Torah.

> > I
> > > don't think that it is connected to whether you are a Zevulun or not.
> > 
> > If you're not a Zevulun it's more abstract.
> > 
> 	What does that mean?

It means that there's a big difference between having a direct 
connection to someone who has a day to day struggle to maintain 
himself in learning as opposed to stam writing a check to a 
Yeshiva. Let's put it in a perspective that those of us who have kids 
at or approaching marriageable age will understand. You are 
supporting a son or a son-in-law in Kollel. He (or his wife) are 
calling you every few nights to tell you that they were able to buy 
this for the kids or that for the kids, or that they were able to buy 
this dira or that dira, or they want to buy any of those things but 
cannot afford them. You appreciate all the material sacrifices these 
people are making to be in Torah. And that's what makes you 
appreciate more the amount of time that YOU have to study Torah. 
Because it increases the value of YOUR Torah study in YOUR 
eyes. After all, if this yungerman is willing to give up so much 
materially to be able to continue to study Torah, that must show 
what a precious gift Torah is.

> > > Furthermore, how about the Zevulun who doesn't learn? How does he become
> > a
> > > Talmid Chacham.
> > 
> > I think the idea is that by seeing how much the Yissochor 
> > struggles to be able to learn, the Zevulun will be inspired to want to 
> > learn also, at least to the extent of having a seder kavua.
> > 
> 	Fine but why do you say his appreciation for learning is higher than
> a non Zevulun.

See above.

-- 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

On 14 Mar 00, at 18:14, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Please clarify: does this mean to imply that ground horseraddish IS defined as 
> chazeres or is that you merely put it in the chazeres slot?

It goes into the chazeres slot. I never discussed with my shver 
whether or not he actually defines it as chazeres. And since he's 
currently in Chicago until the week before Pesach, I can't ask him. 
Maybe one of the Chicagoans can?

-- 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

On 14 Mar 00, at 15:33, Harry Maryles wrote:

>  I never intended it to go this far. Maybe it is a
> molehill. My only intent was to mention a pet peeve of
> mine.  It DOES bother me when I hear a rejection of
> the term most commonly used to describe the Holocaust.
> The implication to me is that it's a rejection of all
> survivors that are not frum.  I don't know if it is
> necessarily intended that way but that is the way I
> hear it. Why not just call it Holocaust?  What is to
> be lost?

Why read that kind of meaning into people calling it Churban 
Europa? And what would you say (hypothetically) if someone told 
you that calling it the Holocaust or Ha'Shoa (b'heh ha'yedia) would 
constitute a minimization of all of the other pogroms R"L in Jewish 
history (Tach v'Tat, the Crusades, etc.). 

I think what distinguishes the 40's from all the other pogroms is the 
systematic manner, the sheer numbers, and the use of modern 
technology to kill. But does that mean that Hitler YM"SH was more 
cruel than Chmelnieki YM"SH? Unfortunately, I suspect that all of 
them - going back to Amalek (to put it on point :-) - were equally 
cruel to us.

Also, calling it the Holocaust does not detract
> from any of the other great tragedies of Jewish
> history.  It is simply the label that has been affixed
> to the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, one which
> has effected us all. 

Why do you think that it doesn't detract from other centuries? 
(Admittedly, Baruch Hashem, nothing else happened in the 20th 
century AFAIK that approached that level of cruelty). Why not call 
it "the 20th Century Holocaust" to distinguish it from "the 17th 
Century Holocaust" or "the 11th Century Holocaust?" Would that 
make the use of the term "Holocaust" with respect to those other 
times more palatable?

You should read some of the stuff that Rabbi Wein writes about 
that went on in previous centuries. Cutting open pregnant women, 
taking out their fetuses, putting in live cats and closing them up 
again. Hashem Yerachem. So Mengele YM"SH had more 
advanced methods. Does that make the description above any less 
cruel?

-- 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

On 14 Mar 00, at 19:26, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/14/00 4:31:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, dglasner@ftc.gov 
> writes:
> 
> << 
>  You mean aside from Rabbi Mazon?  Based on the
>  response I have received on and off line, I suspect 
>  that I may be a da'at yahid.  Unfortunately, I can't rely 
>  on my usual ace in the hole on this one.
>  
>  David Glasner
>  dglasner@ftc.gov
>  
>   >>
> See R' Bleich's contemporary halachik problems vol III for a more complete 
> discussion 

I don't own that one. Can someone post a summary? TIA.

-- 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

On 14 Mar 00, at 20:35, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> What is the exact loshon of the gemoro... 

Brachos 54b, third line before the wide lines:

"Amar Rav Yehuda amar Rav, arbaa tzrichin lehodos: yordei 
hayam, holchei midboros, u'mi shehaya choleh v'nisrapeh u'mi 
she'haya chavush b'beis ha'asurim v'yatza." The Gemara goes on 
to prove each one from psukim. Ayen sham.

-- 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

Shlomo Godick wrote:
Subject: re: Clinton's eulogy for YR

>RSBA wrote: <<If I recall correctly, of all the Maspidim,
>Clinton was the only one to say a Dvar Torah on that occasion... >>

I recall that Rav Simcha Kook of Rehovot made the same observation
and then wryly wondered out loud if one could say kaddish d'rabbanan
after a non-Jew's dvar torah!

Boruch Shekivanti. BTW that tzebrocheneh and tzehargeteh excuse for a
"kaddish'' attempted by YR's son was everything but a Kaddish d'rabonon

SBA

From Shlomo B Abeles
Harry Maryles wrote:

> > > But I can not figure out what is so heilig about the way people dressed in the 19th century.

            > > Shloi Shinu Es Lvushom,

                        > That is not how the rishonim dressed.

>Doesn't everyone realize that Moshe Rabenu wore a
>Shtreimel, Kapote, and Veise Zokin?

Ha, Ha.
But I did hear a story of someone asking a Rebbe,
"Did Avrohom Ovinu wear a shtreimel?"
And the Rebbe answered: "I don't know what he wore.
But I can assure you that he wore clothes which were different to those of the Goyim."

SBA

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote
Subject: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
>Question: was Essther chayeves to bench gomeil when she intrdued upon
>achasveirosh after he 3 day fast?  Was her life in danger?  Did she mee the criteria for gomeil
benching?

Do women bench Gomel?

SBA

In message , David and Tamar Hojda <hojda@netvision.net.il> writes
>>But metaphysical curse does not sound like rov- it sounds like something
>that >must be found in every case (and neither was that my understanding of
>chazaka >- the whole point was that there are no treifas that live for
>longer than 12 >months).
>
>Whether or not a metaphysical curse must be found in every case is a
>philosophical point about which we can only speculate. However, a chazaka is
>quite similar to a Rov, although its implications can be more far-reaching,
>as one could be motzi mamon through chazaka, but not through a simple Rov.
>
>I believe that the chazaka works the following way: For instance,  A person
>claims X and has no other proof that he is telling the truth, we don't
>believe him because chazaka Y tells me that people don't normally act in
>that fashion. He says that he repaid the loan the day after he borrowed the
>money, 28 days before he had to; we don't believe him because it is a
>chazaka that people don't normally repay debts before they are due. If he
>brought a signed and dated receipt to back up his claim along with two live
>witnesses, then, of course he is believed, despite the chazaka. The chazaka
>only shifts the burden of proof.
>

In which case, of course, I have no problem with the concept of chazaka,
but this analysis seems to me to suggest a divergence between the
concept of chazaka, and the concept of a metaphysical curse.  You say
"Whether or not a metaphysical curse must be found in every case is a
philosophical point about which we can only speculate" - but surely the
concept of a metaphysical curse given to Chava must mean that it is
something innate in womankind - that is why the concept of treifa sprang
to mind, the analysis being, if it lived 12 months, it could not have
been a treifa, the equivalent being, if someone does not suffer the
"metaphysical curse" how can she be called a woman?  But if one is
pretty confident of status as a woman, then one ends up with no
alternative, but to reject the metaphysical curse concept if it does not
apply in every case (but not, as you say, to reject the concept of
chazaka, which then, as I suggested, amounts to a "rebuttable
presumption" - ie the situation is legally deemed to be X unless and
until it is proved to be Y, which seems to me to be what you are
describing below).

>When one begins to deal with chazakas that testify as to mankind's basic
>nature, one gets into a very sticky area, as Rabbi Rackman found out. There
>is a fascinating and important sefer entitled "Hishtanut HaTevaim B'Halacha"
>that lists many examples where The Rabbonim have attempted to deal with the
>halachic implications of some seeming discrepancies between the observable
>reality of our time vs that of the time of the Gemara, especially where the
>halacha is stated in accordance with a reality that we no longer see. The
>Gemara says that a baby that is born during the eighth month of pregnancy
>will not survive. This has implications as to whether we may violate the
>Sabbath for this baby's sake. We, however, see that eight-month babies
>survive quite nicely.  How would this  affect Hilchos Shabbos for us? How do
>we account for this discrepancy? Are we free to simply look around and then
>declare that nature has changed and that we can therefore toss the chazaka
>out the window? Who gets to decide that? What are the parameters?
>
>Suffice to say, this is a  VERY delicate area.
>
>Rav Soloveitchik seems to be saying that the curse that was given to Chava
>set something very fundamental into female nature that CANNOT change, unlike
>some other aspects of nature, which very well could.

Yes - but as you suggest above, that seems something different from a
chazaka (the English law analogy that most imediately comes to mind is
that somebody is deemed innocent until proven guilty.  That does not
mean that they are not in fact guilty, only that the law cannot treat
them as such until proof is brought).
>
>Therefore, a woman who claims that she would never have married X had she
>known Z about him, must show some additional proof that she is saying the
>truth, beyond her own words, if she is to be believed.
>
>There are situations where fault Z is so intolerable, however, that we can
>assume that ANY woman would rather be single than deal with this particular
>flaw. (Rav Moshe, I believe, cites the man's total inability to have
>intimate relations as an example of the latter). The argument is only about
>those flaws that we would say that Most women would be ready to tolerate,
>but THIS woman says that she cannot.

BTW this is another issue altogether - but as a matter of theory (and i
have tried this on a number of women) if you seriously take this
approach I find it difficult to conceive of a real case where the issue
ever does not arise.

This was first brought home to me when I was dating a particular bochur,
and, while I had reservations after the first few dates, he was so keen,
and put me under so much pressure to keep going out (and I wasn't really
sure at first, just had reservations) that I did for a number more dates
- and the point where I realised that there was no more point going out
was when I was discussing it with a friend, and trying to pinpoint what
my reservations were, and what I came up with was that, given how
obsessed the guy was with me, and given how much pressure he was putting
me under (including getting his Rosh Yeshiva and others who should have
known better to speak to me) I wouldn't trust this guy to give me a get
should I want one.

And at that point my friend's response was, well if you wouldn't trust a
guy to do that, you shouldn't be seeing him.  Which made absolute sense
to me.

And I have tried this on a number of women since (go on, try it on your
wives/girlfriends/mothers/daughters) - and asked them, if you wouldn't
trust a guy to give you a get when you wanted one, should you/would you
go out with them (don't talk about marriage, just simple dating), and I
have never got an answer back that one should (or even would) say yes if
one knew that was the case. (Of course, some women seem to marry men who
have previously withheld - including the women who marry men with these
dubious heter meah rabonim that keep getting mentioned in the media, but
most people seem to presume that they don't really believe he is at
fault, not that they say -  I see the character flaw, but I would marry
him anyway knowing there is no availability of the prescribed means of
exit).

Which means, if people are not lying through their teeth, that if any
women genuinely knew that the guy she was marrying had the kind of
character that would withhold a get, she would never have gone out with
him, don't talk about marrying.  

BTW, on the subject of the guy in question, he is still "stalking" me
(even though I am now married and have been since May last year).
Unfortunately he has my work number (although luckily not my home one).
Today he phoned, would you believe it, to tell me that under the health
system in America if you have been married for six months and have no
children, you can go for check-ups to see if something is wrong
(surprise, surprise, it was problems with the husband that he
mentioned), and there are procedures and that maybe I mighten't know
this because the health system in the UK is not as good as that in the
US.  I mean, this is a guy whom I went out with maybe 7 or 8 times,
maximum, over 2 and a half years ago, and he is still so obsessed that
he is monitoring me or attempting to do so (how on earth does he know
that I am *not* pregnant) from Jerusalem.  I just lost it today and
yelled at him - but I am at my wits end on this one - I can't screen my
calls, I have legitimate clients phoning me. In the past (at least since
i got married) the purpose of the calls has been do I know anybody
"like" me for him to date I keep trying to be polite and firm but it is
very difficult when somebody does not take even completely unsubtle
hints (what am I supposed to say, tell him explicitly that if I did know
somebody like me I wouldn't recommend him to them because he can't let
go?)

Now this is a clear obvious personality disorder which I spotted
relatively early.  But even if he had been better at hiding it - would
this not have been a personality disorder that no woman would want to
marry?   If so, how does that differ from that (let's face it, very
small) number of men who do deliberately turn their wives into agunas?


>David Hojda
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On 15 Mar 00, at 19:19, SBA wrote:

> richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote
> Subject: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
> >Question: was Essther chayeves to bench gomeil when she intrdued upon
> >achasveirosh after he 3 day fast?  Was her life in danger?  Did she mee the criteria for gomeil
> benching?
> 
> Do women bench Gomel?

Why not? It's not mitzvas aseh she'hazman grama. I can tell you 
that when my wife was in Telz Stone in the Beit HaChlama last 
summer (it's owned by Reb Areleh's and is about as Charedi as 
they come), they had us stay around after Mincha there one day 
and a whole bunch of women came one by one to bentch gomel.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

> 
> Question: wouldnt' wearing a kipa be yotzei the requirnment of uniqueness, and
> therefore no other clothing changes are required.
> 
> Lich'ora, if standing out from a crowd is the criteria,doesn't a kipa do the 
> trick?
> 
> If there is some other agenda beside avodiing assimilation, then what is it?  do
> we need to davka have every article of clothing unique?
> 
I understand that Rav Soloveitchik were a kapote the first time he gave
a yahrzeit shiur for his father but later gave it up because he was
too uncomfortable in it. Certainly when he gave his shiur he wore a
suit.

In Israel I have seen both suits and kapotes in livishe yeshivot and am
not clear what determines who wears which outside of personal preference.

Eli Turkel

Subject: kipa

: > The majority of violators were thrown in the kippa (with a normal diet).

: Kipa is very limited and not at all comparable to prison. In fact those
: that were sent to kipa died from the diet.

>Next time you post a flat-out denial of my understanding, I'd appreciate
>sources. It would help me see where I went wrong.

>My understanding is that someone who is provably a criminal but for whom the
>corporal punishment couldn't be applied would be sent to the kippa and would
>live off a healthy diet.
>
>The use of the kippa that you are talking about was, as you write, both
>limited and fatal -- but not the more common usage.

It is difficult to give a source for something that I cannot find!
The main source for kippa is Sanhedrin 79b and on.
In fact the mishna on 81b seems to indicate that if one kills without
witnesses than they are sent to a kippa with a meager amount of food.
However, the gemara immediately qualifies this to mean that one starts
with a small amount of food and then suddenly increases it so as to
kill the murderer.

As such I know of no source that indicates the existence of a kippa
where one would live for a long period of time.

Eli Turkel

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 10:38:28AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: R. Gorelick asked us,"If ayin tachas ayin as after all kessef, what
prompted
: the Torah to use the literal term which is after all so harsh?".

> See Perush HaSeforno, with the footnotes by Rav Yehudah Cooperman.

I remember learning this concept from R' Copperman; thank you for the
reference.

Re the wider discussion of mesorah vs pshat - doesn't Ibn Ezra say in a
number of places something to the effect of: "if Chaza"l have this
interpretation as Masoret, I'll accept it, but if it's parshanut, I disagree
with it".

I would venture to say that p'shat and halakhic parshanut are not
necessarily related activities.  One goes from the words forward; the other,
from the law backward.

Or is that too broad?

-Kira

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


[ 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         ]