Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 004

Friday, April 7 2000

• Re: Breslov on Philosophy, Tradition; Proof, Trust and Faith
• RYBS comparing irriligous Jews to ESAV
• [none]
• Re: Matza shiurim
• Re: Matza shiurim
• Re: aniyei ircha: (ATT vs TTA)
• Re: Matza shiurim
• Re: The Mazinka
• Re: Breslov on Philosophy, Tradition; Proof, Trust and Faith
• Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
• Re: Breslov on Philosophy, Tradition; Proof, Trust and Faith
• Rav Ovadia
• aniyei ircha: (ATT vs TTA)
• Charedi Chiloni, and Dati, United or Divided?
• Re: The Mazinka
• eating matzah and maror together
• Re: eating matzah and maror together
• Re: eating matzah and maror together
• Re: Dor Revi'i
• Re: eating matzah and maror together

I understand that some people do not need to delve too deeply in order to
acheive a high degree of Emunah. These are the very people who, IMHO, refuse
to entertain their own innermost thoughts. I frankly can't understand it. I
suppose that by definition if you force yourself not think about some of your
own doubts and you are a Torah observant Jew then you have fulfilled what
G-d wants of you.. But too often I see behavior by those who allow others
to think for them that amounts to an almost cult-like adherence to their
leaders. Unquestioning behavior and belief... because the Rebbe said so, etc.

An example of this would be how Lubavitchers, and probably most Chasidim view
age of the universe. To them it is antithetical to Torah beliefs to say that
the world is more than 5760 years old. No matter how much physical evidence
is shown to them about the age of the universe, they simply brush it off
with the Rebbe's view that the world was created to look old. Is it really
possible that all of Lubavitch believes this way? If one Lubavitcher is to
read Aryeh Kaplans treatise on the age of the Universe being 15 billion years
old, is he just to dismiss it? Is he then really being honest with himself?

To me this is a denial of the mind. Of course faith is the basis of belief
but the more one understands about his/her beliefs the stronger his beleif is.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In a message dated 4/6/00 7:17:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, R. Blau writes:
<< While it is not our place to judge Rav Yosef,
 rallying around calling a secular Israeli political figure Haman or
 worse then Pharaoh runs counter to approaching secular Jews through love
 recommend by the Chazon Ish, Rav Kook and the Rav.  The simple black and
 white world view many seem to favor unfortunately only increases
 animosity and prevents healthy self-criticism.
 Sincerely,
 Yosef Blau >>
Unfortunately, this comment is simply in error. The fact is that the Rav 
virtually every single year at the Mizrachi convention compared irreligious 
Israelis leaders to Esav, Pharoa, Amolek etc.. This is a historical fact. So 
ROY is doing nothing the RAV didn't do. Rav Kook also did the same at times. 
Also, while R. Kook and the Rav may have been in favor of reaching out to 
secular Israeli's with love, ROY does so as well. The reason Shas gets so 
many votes is due to there wide social and religious outreach to non-religous 
Jews. In fact, ROY is a gadol who has done more for the secular Israeli's 
than most in recent memory. The reason he doesn't get credit for it is 
because he helps primarily sefardim, who are held in disdain by the Israeli 
cultural elite. B'kitsur, while no two gedolim are the same, ROY actions and 
words are not substantially different from either the RAV or R. Kook.

Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
> > What about the fact that many of these Askanim give
> > money to institutiions outside the city? There is one
> > individual who opledged $250,000.00 to Lakewood
> > Yeshiva. Should he have diverted that donation to
> > Chicago's institutions? How would Lakewood survive
> > without these kinds of donations? Yeshivas Mir in
> > Yerushalayim depends on it's very existence on
> > donations outside it's own environs. Shoud we in
> > Chicago take care of our own and let Mir fend for
> > itself? 
> > 
> > Is this what is meant by Anyei Ircha Kodmon?

Carl Scherer responded: 

> I think that depends on why they are giving money to Lakewood 
> and Mir. If they are giving money to Lakewood and Mir because 
> they or their children learned there, then I think that's b'geder 
> hakoras hatov, and may be analogous to giving money to family 
> members, which actually comes *before* aniyei ircha (see the 
> Rambam in Matnos Aniyim 7 and the Shulchan Aruch in YD 251). 
> 
> If there is no such connection, then I think the local schools 
> should 
> come first. Maybe not as an absolute, but certainly as a higher 
> priority.

Is aniyei ircha exclusively a question of geographic location when
applied to institutions? I.e., if there is a choice for a Chicagoan
between supporting a day school in that community or one in, say, St.
Louis, certainly. But if the choice is between a local day school and
Lakewood or Mir, both of which serve Chicago as well, shouldn't they be
considered as aniyei ircha? Worded differently: it is not an institution
of education that is the beneficiary of tzedaka, but its talmidim.  If
there  are talmidim in an out-of-town institution who are residents of
the donor's city, don't they qualify as aniyei ircha?

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.

Micha Berger wrote:



> Sammy asked why we all assume a k'zayis is a volume and not a weight. It
> probably is because most computations (including the Chazon Ish's and R'
> Moshe's) involve computing from data to ammah to etzbah to cubic etzbah to
> k'beitzah to k'zayis.


The shift I don't understand is from "etzbah to cubicc etzbah". What is
a cubic etzbah? 


---sam

Avrohom Weidberg wrote:


> 
> Kezayis is clearly a measure of volume, not weight.  See S"A O'C 486-
> Remo and MB s'k 3 that one should squeeze together the maror and matzo
> to eliminate measuring air gaps between the pieces (but spongy matzo
> need not be squeezed).



Yes, but following Micha's earlier post, both the Rema and M"B are
Ashkenazim. Maran says nothing there except what I quoted earlier, that
some say that a kezayit is half a bezzah.


---sam

--- "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
>.
> 
> Rav Sheinberg spoke about the lack of shailas in
> Hilchos Tzedaka 
> or about Hilchos Tzedaka?

Hilchos Tzedaka, specifically prioritizing donations,
what is and isn't Tzedaka, whether Citywide Tzedakos
come first and how much one is suppopsed to reserve
for in town Tzedkos vs out of town Tzedakos, etc. 

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:17:02AM -0400, sambo@charm.net wrote:
:>                     most computations (including the Chazon Ish's and R'
:> Moshe's) involve computing from data to ammah to etzbah to cubic etzbah to
:> k'beitzah to k'zayis.

: The shift I don't understand is from "etzbah to cubic etzbah". What is
: a cubic etzbah? 

A cubic etzbah (in parallel to a a cubic cc or cubic inch) would be a volume
that is 1 etzbah high x 1 etzbah wide x 1 etzbah deep. It is a measure of
volume, and therefore can be translated to some fixed liquid volume measure,
some number of k'beitzos or k'zeisim.

(Much the way the metric system is set up so that a cube 1 cc on each side
holds 1 ml of water. Except that halachah uses natural measures, not some
artificial but mathematically simple system.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 01:29:09PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:                                           The circle was mixed, 
: but it was arranged so that no adult was holding hands with a 
: member of the opposite sex who was not their spouse.

What about taharas hamishpachah and harchakos?

-mi

from V5#3
>:          I believe that ultimately, Emunah Peshutah is
>: even more vulnerable to apostacy than Emunah through
>: Daas.
>Come to scj. Jon and I are in the middle of anecdotal evidence that argues
>otherwise. If anyone has experience in dealing with people who claim to be
>former ba'alei teshuvah but won't stop debating the point (thereby showing
>anger, not apathy), please email me privately.
IIRC, I heard from R'SY Weinberg (on tape, circa 70's?) that a reason why the haskala hit Lita/misnagdim worse than Poland/chasidim is that if my emunah is (what we are defining here as) emunah peshuta, you cannot convince me otherwise regardless of what proofs are brought. (His terms were actually heart vs head, I understood it to mean peshuta vs daas)

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

RYGB forwarded from "Yeshivat Benei N'vi'im":
: Were, however, his statements politically wise?  Well, let's analyze the
: results.

: The Haredi world is uniting; this is good.

However, this unity of Adas Yisrael (the observant community -- both chareidi
and dati) is at the expense of unity of Am Yisrael. I'm not in a position
to estimate the relative values of the price vs the gain. However, RYBS chose
creating a great divide between mod-O and the RW for the sake of the unity
of Am Yisrael in the SCA. Perhaps this is a dati vs chareidi (or mod-O vs RW)
thing.

Unity around a common problem won't outlast the problem. The unity is therefore
illusory. The anger generated, however, may not be. I therefore think that
even chareidim should not be happy with the consequences.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 08:58:46AM -0400, Allen Baruch wrote:
: IIRC, I heard from R'SY Weinberg (on tape, circa 70's?) ...           if my
: emunah is (what we are defining here as) emunah peshuta, you cannot convince
: me otherwise regardless of what proofs are brought. (His terms were actually
: heart vs head, I understood it to mean peshuta vs daas)

I think your *assumption* is the point Moshe was trying to make. That emunah
peshutah has greater emotional and existential impact -- it reaches the
heart of the person -- in ways da'as is less apt to.

-mi

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BFA060.44151480
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was present in Rav Ovadia's home  recently when we spoke about Yossie =
Sarid. In my opinion the first speech, made in the presence of American =
Rabbonim and the second one  a few weeks later in public did little to =
advance the cause of Yiddiskiet.
We cannot simply  say the left detests us and defend every action. In =
fact I am sure if Rubenstein  had not opened his investigation the quiet =
murmur of  protest in the Frum world would of continued. Now that the  =
attack  is open  the wagons have  circled -for good reason- for whom =
will they investigate next.=20
Still we cannot forget, as much as Sarid is doing his best to degrade =
Chinuch Hakasher in Israel calling him names and comparing to Haman only =
serves to advance his cause  and drives  people  away from an =
appreciation of Yiddiskiet.
Dovid Eliezrie

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BFA060.44151480
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I was present in Rav Ovadia's home&nbsp; recently =
when we=20
spoke&nbsp;about Yossie Sarid. In my opinion the first speech, made in =
the=20
presence of American Rabbonim and the second one&nbsp; a few weeks later =
in=20
public did little to advance the cause of Yiddiskiet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>We cannot simply&nbsp; say the left detests us and =
defend=20
every action. In fact I am sure if Rubenstein&nbsp; had not opened his=20
investigation the quiet murmur of&nbsp; protest in the Frum world would =
of=20
continued. Now that the&nbsp; attack&nbsp; is open&nbsp; the wagons =
have&nbsp;=20
circled -for good reason- for whom will they investigate next. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Still we cannot forget, as much as Sarid is doing =
his best to=20
degrade Chinuch Hakasher in Israel calling him names and comparing to =
Haman only=20
serves to advance his cause&nbsp; and drives&nbsp; people&nbsp; away =
from an=20
appreciation of Yiddiskiet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Dovid Eliezrie</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BFA060.44151480--

Carl M. Sherer wrote:

> We have had such symposiums here. I believe that R.
> C.P. Sheinberg once spoke about this very issue, but I
> don't think much was accomplished.
> 
	Just out of curiousity, what did Rav Sheinberg say on the issue?

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> : The Haredi world is uniting; this is good.
> 
> However, this unity of Adas Yisrael (the observant
> community -- both chareidi
> and dati) is at the expense of unity of Am Yisrael.

Isn't it often the case that the Dati community sides
with the Chiloni community (and therefore against the
Charedi community) on various issues? 

Certainly the lifestyle of a Dati has a lot more in
common with the Chilonim than the Charedim except for
the Halachic parts of his life. 

For example the Dati has a similar work ethic as does
the Chiloni. He has generally served in the Military
(at least in Hesder). He will dress about the same as
the Chiloni the only difference being the Kipa, will
go to movies own TVs, etc. They will listen to popular
music, go to sporting events, live theater, attend
universities, and possibly even socilaize with each
other or at least get along. Both the Dati and the
Chiloni send their children to Mamlachti schools
(Mamlachti Dati schools for the Dati). 

Of course the Dati wouldn't go to a movie on Shabbos. 
He will keep Kosher where the Chiloni will not but
this is not so much a lifestyle issue in Israel
because kosher food and Kosher resteraunts are so
common that lifestyles would at least be parallel if
not equal.

The Charedi will be rejectionist of the lifestyles of
the Dati or the Chiloni.  The work ethic is sublimated
into the "learning" ethic. There is virtually no
socialization to the Chiloni. There is more likely
hostility to him. Military service is "Yahrog VeAl
Yavor" to him. He has his own style of dress,
especially if he is a Chasid. And, his observance of
Mitzvos is on entirely different level than that of
the Dati. 

So even if there is a commonality of purpose in trying
to establish a Torah society, aren't the visions of 
what a Torah society should be drasticly different?

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

On 7 Apr 00, at 6:58, Micha Berger wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 01:29:09PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> :                                           The circle was mixed, 
> : but it was arranged so that no adult was holding hands with a 
> : member of the opposite sex who was not their spouse.
> 
> What about taharas hamishpachah and harchakos?

I don't recall who held hands with whom. We have pictures, but not 
a video. I assume that if someone was not tehora they had a child 
between them and their spouse. Obviously, I did not ask anyone 
what their condition was....

(Actually, now that I think about it, one sister in law was expecting 
at the time, and I think the other was nursing. Both brothers in law 
left their wives home in the States).

-- 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

Just to follow up on Chaim M.'s discussion of the sugya:

Yesh lachkor what is the chiddush of koreich: is it that
miztvos mevatlos zu es zu, but there is a gezeiras
hakasuv here to do koreich, or the chiddush of the pasuk
is that mitzvos ain mevatlos zu es zu?

That would be masbir the machlokes Tos. (115a d.h.
elah) and Ramban (Milchamos) as to whether the 
chachamim, who hold you are yotzei by eating koreich,
also agree with Hillel that in kol haTorah kulah
miztvos ain mevatlos zu es zu.  

Acc. to Ba'al HaMaor the Chachamim hold you wouldn't
be yotzei by eating koreich at all.  

-Chaim B.

On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:45:42PM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: Yesh lachkor what is the chiddush of koreich: is it that
: miztvos mevatlos zu es zu, but there is a gezeiras
: hakasuv here to do koreich, or the chiddush of the pasuk
: is that mitzvos ain mevatlos zu es zu?

I would have thought a third thing: the gezeiras hakasuv could imply that
they aren't separate chiyuvim. Therefor there is no bitul for the same reason
that an esrog isn't a chatzitzah when it comes to holding a lulav.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Apr-00: Shishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 21a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

> I would have thought a third thing: the gezeiras hakasuv could imply that
> they aren't separate chiyuvim. Therefor there is no bitul for the same reason
> that an esrog isn't a chatzitzah when it comes to holding a lulav.

The chachamim must hold they are independent chiyuvim
because otherwise how could you be yotzei by eating
matzah and maror seperately?  The chiddush is that 
*even* if eaten together you are yotzei both chiyuvim.  

Anyway, it is the gemara itself which writes that there
is no bittul (within Hillel's shitah) because mitzvos
ain mevatlos zu es zu.  

-Chaim B.

A few members of the list have contacted me off-line asking for further
information about or a short biographical sketch of the Dor Revi'i. I
usually respond by referring them to my article in Tradition (Winter 1998)
and the abridged translation (by Prof. Y. Elman) of the hakdamah to Dor Revi'i
(Spring 1991). But since there has been some discussion about him lately,
and since I have a habit (I hope not too annoying) of quoting him a lot as
an authority, I agree that it may be a good idea for me to post this brief
biographical sketch to the list.

The Dor Revi'i, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, was born in 1856. His father
R. Avraham Glasner was the nephew by marriage and favorite pupil of the
Ktav Sofer. His mother was Raizl Ehrenfeld, eldest daughter of R. Dovid Tzvi
Ehrenfeld, who married the eldest daughter of the Hatam Sofer. R. Moshe Shmuel
was thus the first-born great-grandchild of the Hatam Sofer. Around 1866,
the rabbonus of Klausenburg became vacant, and R. Avraham was selected, on
the recommendation of the Ktav Sofer, to fill the position. R. Avraham's
selection was opposed by a former chief-rabbi of Klausenburg, R. Hillel
Lichtenstein, on the grounds that R. Avraham gave drashot in German rather
than in Yiddish. R. Lichtenstein started a campaign, supported by a number
of other Hungarian rabbis to rescind the selection. The Ktav Sofer, however,
remained adamant in his support of R. Avraham and he did become the rov of
Klausenburg. Soon after becoming the rov, he also opened the first yeshiva
in Klausenburg. R. Avraham died in 1878, at the age of 52. He published no
s'forim, but he left behind voluminous manuscripts that remain unpublished
and have found their way into the possession of Machon Yerushalayim in
Israel. The Dor Revi'i frequently credits his father for hidushei Torah,
usually of a more aggadic nature.

R. Moshe Shmuel was selected to succeed his father as Rov of Klausenburg,
even though he was only 21 or 22 at the time. His father, except for a brief
sojurn at the Pressburg Yeshiva, had been his only teacher, and the Dor
Revi'i writes that from a young age, he, as an only son, had been involved
in discussions with his father about all aspects of the rabbonus and about
all important halakhic questions that his father had to consider. For the
next 44 years, until he left Klausenburg for Palestine, R. Moshe Shmuel was
the Rov of Klausenburg.

As a recognized gaon, rov, and a member of one of the most distinguished
rabbincal families in Europe, R. Moshe Shmuel was a major figure in the
Hungarian orthodox establishment. He oversaw the growth to prominence of the
yeshiva that his father had started and attracted many outstanding talmidim
to his yeshiva. In 1903, on the 25th anniversary of his becoming the Rov of
Klausenburg, his current and former talmidiim published a book in his honor,
Shevivei Aish, containing his hiddushim on the parashiot, on the moadim,
on sugyot ha-shas and miscelaneous other hiddushim. He was also a prolific
author of t'shuvot. His t'shuvot over a 15-year period from the late 1880s
to about 1900 were posthumously published and fill two volumes. He published
several short s'forim or kuntresim on aspects of sh'hitah, civil marriages,
the law of mikvaot, and sh'murah matzah, most of which flowed from halakhic
controversies that he had been personally involved in. He also wrote
extensively in rabbinical journals such as Tel Talpiot.

He became a deeply divisive figure in the early 1900s when he became an active
Zionist, the only prominent Hungarian rabbi who dared to espouse Zionist
sympathies. He participated and spoke at the first international Mizrahi
conference in 1904 held in Pressburg (much to the displeasure of Hungarian
anti-Zionists) despite the ban issued on participation issued by prominent
Hungarian rabbis and was one of the high officials of the international
Mizrahi movement. For his active support of Zionism and his willingness to
cooperate openly with secular Zionists he was severely criticized by many
of his Hungarian rabbinical colleagues. The yeshiva that he had built up
into a major institution eventually closed down. Another sore point during
his tenure was his support for a Jewish secondary school that would teach
secular subjects, including the Hebrew language.

In 1920 he published a pamphlet written in German in Hebrew characters,
defending Zionism from a religious perspective. A remarkable essay, both
polemical and philosophical, it may have further inflamed feelings against him.
A Hebrew translation ("Ha-Tzionut b'or ha-Emunah") was published around
1960 in volume edited by Rabbi Simon Federbusch that also contains Rabbi
J. B. Soloveitchik's "Kol Dodi Dofek" essay. At any rate, a movement began in
Klausenburg, a large city with a diverse Jewish population of about 15,000,
most of whom belonged to the officia kehilah of which the Dor Revi'i was
the spiritual leader, mainly among Hasidim with ties to Sighet to separate
themselves from the official kehilah in order to free themselves of the
authority of the Zionist rov. To justify their position, they published a book
or pamphlet entitled Mishpat Tzedek detailing their complaints in very heated
terms. The attack on R. Moshe Shmuel was violent enough to prompt another book
or pamphlet to be written in his defense entitled Yishuv Mishpat. Among the
contributors to the latter was R. A. I. Kook who described R. Moshe Shmuel as
"gadol ha-dor b'torah, b'hokhmah, b'z'khut avot, u-v'midot t'muriot."

After a beit din convened to consider whether a group of dissidents were
halakhically entitled to separate themselves from the rest of the Klausenburg
community ruled that they were indeed entitled to do so, the new "sephardic"
community selected as their spiritual leader, R. Joel Teitelbaum, who had
not yet become the rov of Satmar. From 1921-26, he served as rov of the
Klausenburg community while maintaining his rabbonus in another location,
which would provide some indication of the number of dissident followers
R. Teitelbaum had in Klausenburg. In 1926, R. Teitelbaum arranged for his
nephew R. Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam to succeed him as spiritual leader of
the Klausenburg Sephardim. R. Halberstam, as we all know, later became famous
as the Klausenburger Rebbe, but although his great qualities were evident in
his youth, he did not attract a significant number of Hasidim until after the
Holocaust. I mention this only to provide some indication of the relative size
of the two kehilot, since with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we assume that
the postwar state of affairs faithfully reflected the way things were in the
pre-Holocaust Hungary, and since the biography of R. Halberstam, Lapid Eish,
contains the flatly untrue assertion that during his tenure in Klausenburg no
one ever doubted that R. Halberstam was the rov of Klausenburg, not to mention
various gratuitous slurs on the reputation and memory of the Dor Revi'i.

In the spring of 1922, R. Moshe Shmuel left Klausenburg to make aliyah
to Palestine with his wife. He was succeeded by his son, R. Akiva (my
grandfather). In addressing a crowd of 10,000 at the Klausenburg train station
that gathered to bid him farewell before embarking on his journey to Palestine,
R. Moshe implored them to follow him to Palestine quickly while they still
could, because, he said, "I am afraid that there will come a time when you
will want to leave, but you will not be able to." Those word did inspire
some to leave, but most of those who heard them, to their sorrow, did not.

The year before making aliyah, R. Moshe Shmuel finally published his great
commentary on Hulin, Dor Revi'i. It made an immediate impression among
rabbinic scholars, and it is without question one of the most important works
of talmudic schoarship published in the twentieth century. Just to give you an
idea of how fundamental a work it is, every student is taught that during the
40 years in the desert, the B'nei Yisrael were prohibited from eating meat
unless it was brought as a sacrifice. Rashi says so explicitly in Devarim
12:20, and no important commentator disagrees. However, the explanation
that Rashi brings is actually discussed in Hulin 16b-17a and is based on the
opinion of R. Ishmael. What Rashi and all the other commentators ignore is the
contrary opinion of R. Akiva which is that the B'nei Yisrael were allowed to
eat meat without bringing it first as a sacrifice, but they were not obligated
(or allowed) to perform shehita on hulin in the desert. Nehira (stabbing)
was then a sufficient preparation for the consumtion of hulin. But halakha
k'R. Akiva mi-haveiro, so the opinion of R. Ishmael that Rashi and all the
m'forshim rely on to explain the p'sukim in parashat Re'eh is k'neged the
halakhah as the Rambam actually codifies in Hilkhot Shehita 4:17. Now the
reason that all the m'forshim explain the pasuk according to R. Ishmael is
that it is possible to make some sense out of the p'shat of the p'sukim
according to his opinion, but the p'sukim do not seem to make any sense
according to R. Akiva. Just try to explain in any coherent way what the words
of the p'sukim ("ki yarhiv ha-Shem et g'vulkha...") might mean according to
R. Akiva. With incredible lomdus and insight, the Dor Revi'i does just that.

At the end of his hakdamah to Dor Revi'i, R. Moshe Shmuel writes that he had
written commentaries to most tractates of the Talmud and hoped that he would
be able to publish them. It is my understanding that Mosad ha-Rav Kook has his
manuscripts in its possession, but except for two volumes of t'shuvot which
were obtained form a different source, none of his manuscripts have yet been
published. A reprint edition of Dor Revi'i was published about 20-25 years
ago, as were the two volumes of shut, by my cousin R. Abraham Klein. None
of his works are any longer in print. R. Moshe Shmuel died suddently 75
years ago on the night of Shemini Atzeret during hakafot in Yerushalayim Ir
ha-Kodesh. In his hesped in Klausenburg on Isrue Hag, my grandfather said that
just as the holiday of Shemini Atzeret symbolizes the return of the Jewish
people from the dirat arai of the succah to the dirat keva of their homes
(which, in another place, relying on the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on bayom
ha-shemini in parashat Pinhas, he posited was a mitzvat aseh d'oraita) so,
too, did the petirah of the gaon on Shemini Atzeret symbolize his return
from the dirat arai to the dirat keva tahat kanfei ha-Shehina.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:54:33PM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: The chachamim must hold they are independent chiyuvim
: because otherwise how could you be yotzei by eating
: matzah and maror seperately?

Why do you assume a mitzvah needs to be done bivas achas in order to be
a mitzvah? Teshuvah includes vidui and azavas hacheit, I doubt they need
simultinaety. Or all the things that require multistep procedures: milah
(although separating the steps more than toch kidei dibbur may violate tza'ar
ba'alei chaim, I don't think it inviolates the milah), korbanos, etc.. (Is
hatavas haneiros two mitzvos or 1?) And what about eirusin and nissuin?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Apr-00: Shishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 21a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

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


[ 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         ]