Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 443

Friday, March 17 2000

• Moshe Rabenu
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• RE: Yated of Last week
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• re: A Tale of Two Rabbis
• Re[2]: Science and Halacha
• Re:
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• Re: Moshe Rabenu
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• Moshe Rabbeinu
• Diyyuk Redux
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• Israeli purim humor
• jebus
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• Re: jebus
• Re: Criticizing the Avos
• Re: Diyyuk Redux
• Shapiro's Biography of Sridei Eish
• Bishvili Nivra ha'Olam
• Re: Diyyuk Redux

> 
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:07:43 +0200
> From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Subject: Moshe Rabbeinu
> 
> On 16 Mar 00, at 16:51, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
> 
> > Considering that Moshe Rabbenu presumably divorced Tsippora before Matan
> > Torah, he probably was not the first jewish husband!
> > 
> 
> I don't think that's correct. The Gemara says *peirash* min ha'isha. 
> That's separation, not divorce. If Moshe had divorced her, the 
> Gemara would have said "*geirash* es ishto." 
> 
> Moreover, the Gemara says that Miriam found out that Moshe had 
> left Tzipora when she heard her talking after Eldad and Meidad got 
> nevua. If Moshe had divorced her, why would she have said that 
> Moshe left (as opposed to divorcing her)? Why would she not have 
> remarried?

My comment is only regarding the last sentence.  Moshe Rabeinu may have 
had a din of a melech.  One cannot marry the almanah or gerusha of a melech.

On 16 Mar 00, at 18:15, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/16/00 11:34:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> 
> > I know this is sheer egoism,
> 
> Chayov Odom Lomar Bshvili Nivra Ho'olom :-)

I realize that Reb Yitzchok was joking, but "Bshvili Nivra Ho'Olom" 
is something that I have always had a little difficulty understanding. 
One of my former neighbors and good friends, who is a talmid 
chacham in his own right, used to refer to the kids who felt free to 
throw garbage wherever they want, step on whomever they want, 
make noise during davening whenever they want, and so on, as 
suffering from "Bshvili Nivra Ho'Olom" (BNHO) syndrome. Ain hachi 
nami that my friend is correct and all of those behaviors (actually, 
he would spell it behaviours :-) are improper. But if that's the case, 
what does BNHO mean? How are we meant to understand it? 

I understand BNHO as meaning that the world was created 
especially for me, but not to the exclusion of others. It's all mine, 
but it's all everyone else's too. Kind of what we lawyers would call 
"joint tenancy with rights of survivorship" or "tenancy by the 
entireties" depending on the jurisdiction. Anyone else have a 
different understanding?

-- Carl (who really SHOULD go to sleep already)


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

Did anyone else read the (translation)Rabbi Grossman's commentary in last
week's US Yated which in the name of exalting the contribution of lomdei
torah (actually only those who learn sugyos b'iyun--lomdei daf yomi,
mishnayos or halacha don't count) to Israel's security (no argument
here)found the need to denigrate the sacrifice of every person who has
served and sacrificed himself in the defense of Eretz Yisrael?His thesis is
that there is no partnership here ala Yissochor and Zevulen. His analogy is
that the lomdei torah are like a person turning a crank at a well and the
soldiers (and I guess anyone else involved in physical yishuv haaretz) are
like the rope and bucket.Am I the only one who thought it was obscene?(Or is
no one else willing to admit reading the Yated?)Is it any wonder that many
Chareidim demonsratratively show their lack of hakaras hatov on Yom
Hazikaron:Why get upset about a bunch of snapped ropes and cracked
buckets?Is it any wonder that there is resentment by non-Chareidm of this?

In a message dated 3/16/00 6:46:40 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< I understand BNHO as meaning that the world was created 
 especially for me, but not to the exclusion of others. It's all mine, 
 but it's all everyone else's too. Kind of what we lawyers would call 
 "joint tenancy with rights of survivorship" or "tenancy by the 
 entireties" depending on the jurisdiction. Anyone else have a 
 different understanding? >>

Or maybe tenancy by adverse possession.

David Finch

Harry,

Assuming what you say is 100% true:

>>It's not right.  It's almost criminal and I am outraged.

Its not right – 100% correct
It's almost criminal – I am not a lawyer, but no contracts were broken.
I am outraged – So are we.

But sof kol sof, with his credentials, he should not have a problem finding 
a new shteller.

/af


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Perhaps another insight into"
"Kol hako'eis, k'ilu oveid avodah zarah...".

That ka'as can lead to cruel behavior, and that cruelty is a non-Jewish trait.

mei'inynan d'yoma: Haman would not be pacified by killing ONLY Mordehcai, he 
instead sought to take out vengeance upon the entire Jewish People.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

So we are perforce forced to say that what these people are doing is 
just not Jewish (and maybe there should be a serious question mark over 
their yichus - while of course, even if you are doubtful of somebody's 
Jewish yichus, you still need to ensure that gitten etc are given 
m'safek, but one does wonder about matters such as wine - did the 
Givonim posul wine?).  After all, the Givonim only wreaked havoc on 
Shaul's descendants, while these people wreak havoc on their own 
descendants (talk to any psychologist about the havoc this kind of 
cruelty towards the other parent wreaks on the kids).

This, to my mind, is very much the root of the problem.  The Torah was 
given to Yidden, ie it is premised on the assumption that the people who 
are subject to it will behave like Yidden - it is not a document meant 
for Amalakites and others with cruelty in their bones - and it doesn't 
deal with such people very well.

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In a message dated 3/16/00 3:34:13 PM US Central Standard Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< 
 As a topical example of a problem in criminal law is the problem of rape 
which
 somehow has become a common occurence in Israeli news. According to halachah 
 if the girl is over 12 1/2 (bogeret) there is no major crime involved and
 the punishment is mainly based on the physical damage. This is even more 
serious
 for date rape where there are no witnesses (though any crime rarely has two 
 kosher witnesses). As discussed above a rapist can be punished as an 
 individual case beyond the normal limits of the law. This becomes more 
 difficult as the number of such cases increases.
 
 The gemara tells us that when murder became too prevelant the Sanhedrin 
stopped
 judging these cases. This may be fine from the philosophical stanpoint but 
is 
 not very satisfying from a practical viewpoint. Of course in the real world 
the Romans would handle such cases. However, such an attitude becomes a 
serious drawback in trying to govern a modern secular society.
  >>

In his shiur last year, RYGB taught us how difficult it is to import the 
various concepts of proof and punishment from Makkos to modern reality. 
Difficult as a practical matter, and impossible from either a philosophical 
or halachic standpoint. Makkos teaches us how to understand -- in effect, to 
imagine -- the rules Chazal developed or may be deemed to have developed for 
Chazal's society. 

The value is in the imagining, and in reminding oneself of the limits of such 
imagination. None of us, for example, can imagine how Chazal would or could 
have reacted to the concept of "date rape," or even in Chazal could ever have 
understood the concept of "date" in the first place.

David Finch

On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:10:50AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: > Chayov Odom Lomar Bshvili Nivra Ho'olom :-)

: I realize that Reb Yitzchok was joking, but "Bshvili Nivra Ho'Olom" 
: is something that I have always had a little difficulty understanding. 

Perhaps we could tie it in to R' Shimon Shkup on "Im ein ani li"?

-mi

On 16 Mar 00, at 20:40, Micha Berger wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:10:50AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> : > Chayov Odom Lomar Bshvili Nivra Ho'olom :-)
> 
> : I realize that Reb Yitzchok was joking, but "Bshvili Nivra Ho'Olom" 
> : is something that I have always had a little difficulty understanding. 
> 
> Perhaps we could tie it in to R' Shimon Shkup on "Im ein ani li"?

Who says....

-- 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 16 Mar 00, at 16:31, Harry Weiss wrote:

> > 
> > Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:07:43 +0200
> > From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> > Subject: Moshe Rabbeinu
> > 
> > On 16 Mar 00, at 16:51, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
> > 
> > > Considering that Moshe Rabbenu presumably divorced Tsippora before Matan
> > > Torah, he probably was not the first jewish husband!
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't think that's correct. The Gemara says *peirash* min ha'isha. 
> > That's separation, not divorce. If Moshe had divorced her, the 
> > Gemara would have said "*geirash* es ishto." 
> > 
> > Moreover, the Gemara says that Miriam found out that Moshe had 
> > left Tzipora when she heard her talking after Eldad and Meidad got 
> > nevua. If Moshe had divorced her, why would she have said that 
> > Moshe left (as opposed to divorcing her)? Why would she not have 
> > remarried?
> 
> My comment is only regarding the last sentence.  Moshe Rabeinu may have 
> had a din of a melech.  One cannot marry the almanah or gerusha of a melech.

Ain hachi nami. But if that's the case, can a melech be machzir 
grushoso? If he can't, then where was the toeles in Miriam's lashon 
hara about Moshe Rabbeinu separating from Tzipora?

-- 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 16 Mar 00, at 20:21, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/16/00 6:46:40 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> 
> << I understand BNHO as meaning that the world was created 
>  especially for me, but not to the exclusion of others. It's all mine, 
>  but it's all everyone else's too. Kind of what we lawyers would call 
>  "joint tenancy with rights of survivorship" or "tenancy by the 
>  entireties" depending on the jurisdiction. Anyone else have a 
>  different understanding? >>
> 
> Or maybe tenancy by adverse possession.

With apologies for the esoterica that some non-lawyers may not 
get.... (Adverse possession is kind of like the sugya of chazaka in 
Chezkas HaBatim).

I don't think you can really compare it to adverse possession. 
Adverse possession implies a taking by force, of someone 
imposing themselves as a squatter on a piece of property (whether 
legitimately or not, it is always illegitimate in someone's eyes). 
BNHO says that the right to this was given to me intrinsically. 
There is no force required to take it, and no illegitimacy whatsoever 
involved.

-- 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

In a message dated 3/16/00 10:49:14 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< BNHO says that the right to this was given to me intrinsically. 
 There is no force required to take it, and no illegitimacy whatsoever 
 involved. >>

Maybe. But look at it metaphysically. We are given life. What we do with our 
lives is the product of our circumstances, and hopefully also of our free 
will. Nothing is "given" to us intrinsically -- we have to struggle, 
spritually, economically, psychically, to endure and to understand. Thus the 
story of Job. Job lived his life by adverse possession, which Scripture 
treats as the highest form of kedusha.

David Finch

> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:21:50 +0200
> From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Subject: Re: Moshe Rabbeinu 

<<Certainly you couldn't argue that they all divorced their wives for the
three days leading up to Matan Torah? Think of all the problems that
would have caused for Kohanim>>

	Are you sure that the restrictions on marrying a gerusha applied to
bechorim?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:22:25 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Diyyuk Redux

<<Saying the the kedusha d'sidroso out loud:  In KAJ, while they do say
kedusha out loud in Uva liTziyon, the minhag is NOT to say it out loud in
the Va'to Kadosh that is said on Motza'ei Shabbos, Purim, etc.>>

	Interesting.  Could that be related to not saying the introductory uva
letzion at night because ein geulah balayla,  also we don't say kedusha
at night?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 16 Mar 00, at 22:56, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:21:50 +0200
> > From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> > Subject: Re: Moshe Rabbeinu 
> 
> <<Certainly you couldn't argue that they all divorced their wives for the
> three days leading up to Matan Torah? Think of all the problems that
> would have caused for Kohanim>>
> 
> 	Are you sure that the restrictions on marrying a gerusha applied to
> bechorim?

Good point. But the Kohanim were the Kohanim with all of the 
restrictions that go with that within 120 days after Matan Torah. If 
everyone had divorced their wives there would have been a lot of 
ineligible women out there, even if not immediately at the time of 
Matan Torah.

-- 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 17 Mar 00, at 0:02, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/16/00 10:49:14 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> 
> << BNHO says that the right to this was given to me intrinsically. 
>  There is no force required to take it, and no illegitimacy whatsoever 
>  involved. >>
> 
> Maybe. But look at it metaphysically. We are given life. What we do with our 
> lives is the product of our circumstances, and hopefully also of our free 
> will. Nothing is "given" to us intrinsically -- we have to struggle, 
> spritually, economically, psychically, to endure and to understand. 

That may be true, but that's not what BNHO is saying. BNHO is 
saying, "the world was made for ME." There's almost an 
entitlement there.

Thus the 
> story of Job. Job lived his life by adverse possession, which Scripture 
> treats as the highest form of kedusha.

Why do you think Job's life was "the highest form of Kedusha?

-- 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

humor alert !

The chinuch says that women are exempt from parshat zachor because
they don't participate in wars.

Therefore a yeshiva bochur should not read parshat zachor as he has
an army exemption.

> 
>      Note again: People will soon unearth the remnants of Jebus, the great 
> castle (fortress) of David, the Solomonic and other Temples.  Findings 
> therein should provide substantial treasures and historical records 
> concerning the Middle East, Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient India, perhaps 
> China, the Phoenicians, etc.  This discovery should also confirm the 
> skeletal history of the ancient world and much more.
> 
I was confused. The present uncovered "ir David" includes the Shiloach
from biblical times and also other remains from King Hizikayu and later
kings. They also have the original Jebusite wall. How can the city
of David and Solomon be somewhere else?

Eli Turkel

On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 09:32:28AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: That may be true, but that's not what BNHO is saying. BNHO is 
: saying, "the world was made for ME." There's almost an 
: entitlement there.

Not only entitlement, also responsibility. If you look at halachah's view of
property, it's responsibility that leads to entitlement, not the other way
around. (Which gets us back to duties vs. rights.)

That's how I saw it similar to "im ein ani li".

They are flip sides of the same coin -- BNHO says that the world is an
extension of me, and IEAL is saying that I should extend my notion of "me"
to include the world.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 12:24:27PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I was confused. The present uncovered "ir David" includes the Shiloach
: from biblical times and also other remains from King Hizikayu and later
: kings. They also have the original Jebusite wall. How can the city
: of David and Solomon be somewhere else?

The site was total hockum. There was even mention of how this weakens
"the Zionists'" claim to East J'lem.

By mutual agreement, the person who posted that ad is no longer on the list.
(She didn't want to be on a list that considered that kind of thing
inappropriate.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 3/17/00 1:34:43 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< Why do you think Job's life was "the highest form of Kedusha? >>

Maybe it's all those Clint Eastwood movies I've seen. There's a scene in 
"Pale Rider" where the bad guys are about to gang up on Clint, and one of the 
good guys asks Clint how he can stand it all (meaning all the pain, all the 
challenge, not how he can stand the hokey scripts and funny costumes). Clint, 
who's about to take on all the bad guys by himself, replies, "Does it make a 
difference?" (You have to say it very quietly, with no affect and with your 
teeth slightly clenched.)

"Does it make a difference?" Saying that in the face of life's trials is real 
Kedusha. That's why I like Job as an example.

David Finch

It makes sense to me,  I just do not know for sure.

I venture a  guess that more congregations used to make a similar disctinction; 
but that over time that disctinction was lost or obscured, and that the minhag 
to say it loud in one place was transferred to the other place.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Diyyuk Redux 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    3/17/2000 7:00 AM


> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:22:25 -0500 
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Diyyuk Redux

<<Saying the the kedusha d'sidroso out loud:  In KAJ, while they do say 
kedusha out loud in Uva liTziyon, the minhag is NOT to say it out loud in 
the Va'to Kadosh that is said on Motza'ei Shabbos, Purim, etc.>>

	Interesting.  Could that be related to not saying the introductory uva 
letzion at night because ein geulah balayla,  also we don't say kedusha 
at night?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

One more time...

For those who have actually read this book, or even parts of it, I welcome any 
input,

I have saved most of the on-list discussions, much of which is about shparios; 
other writings; I'd prefer to focus on the book, and not go into tangents about 
the author.

!hcayamas mirup gahc  

And have a great shabbos!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Another spin on this theme...

Each person's perception of the world is unique.  So the World according to 
Wolpoe is a slightly different world than the World according to Garp.

To take this to the ultimate, each of  us has an entire world - not physically 
speaking but in terms of POV - at his/her disposal.

That world - that is perceived by me - is in effect created for me.

For what purpose?  To perform my unique avodah, to learn my unique lesson, to 
fix my unique tikkun, to offer my unique contribution, etc.   

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

RWolpoe wrote:
> Saying the the kedusha d'sidroso out loud:
     In KAJ, while they do say kedusha out loud
     in Uva liTziyon, the minhag is NOT to say it
     out loud in the Va'to Kadosh that is said on
     Motza'ei Shabbos, Purim, etc. <
(Got home too late last night to look this up, but...) I think Baer also
gets into this; even if he doesn't, I have independently heard that
the distiction relates to medieval minyanim only having a
k'dushah-aloud "problem" (i.e. its being banned by and/or
dangerous to recite during chazoras haSHaTZ because of the
local leadership/population) on weekdays.

All the best (including wishes for a great & memorable Shabbos) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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         ]