Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 027

Tuesday, April 25 2000

• Re: Avodah V5 #26
• Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
• RE: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
• Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
• Re: Split of Avodah into Two Lists
• Purpose and Value
• Re: Avodah V5 #26
• Re: Rice for Pesach
• Re: aniyei ircha
• Re: birkhat hagomeil
• Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
• Re: aniyei ircha
• Yom Tov and kids at risk
• Re: Rice for Pesach
• Re: aniyei ircha
• ochel nefesh - mitoch

>
>Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:17:07 -0500
>From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
>
>On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 06:12:21PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

>However, this only reinforces my question. How can someone assume that the
>men on whom we rely for interpreting and applying halachah are driven by
>such base motivations? Or, to look at it from the other direction: once you
>are willing to assume that our halachic leaders allow petty motives to get
in
>the way of the greater good, why are you willing to follow them when it
comes
>to halachah?
>
>Yes, the two are different domains, not every political opinion of a gadol
>is a halachic ruling. However, since they come from the same person, how
>do you justify assuming such contradictory things about how that person
>makes decisions?
>
>- -mi
>
>- --
This is not a new 'problem'. One need read RSR"H briefly to realize that a
gadol's hashkaphos are the result of  a (inspired?) human effort to use a
Torah-trained intelect to derive lessons from one's learning, including
non-text based lessons, to present situations in a way that will most
benefit the future of k'lal yisroel. Were this not desirble, MRA"H did not
need to be raised in bais paroh, etc, etc. The difference between us and
G'dolai Hador (without mentioning names) is that g'doalim must hast better
filtering systems in place, so as to elimenate the garbage which cause the
rest of us to reach flawed conclusions.

An old yid (A"H) taught me: shtait in Mishnah: "Talmidai chachomim marbim
shalom ba'olam". oib nit, as nit. V'hamaivin Yovin.

Gut Mo'ed
>Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Apr-00: Revi'i
>micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
>http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 27a
>For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 1
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Avodah V5 #26
>********************
>
>
>[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested
         ]
>[ To post: mail to
                   ]
>[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to
majordomo@aishdas.org ]
>[ or, the archive can be found at
shdas.org/avodah/              ]
>[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to
o@aishdas.org         ]

In a message dated 4/23/00 6:18:52 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< How can someone assume that the
 men on whom we rely for interpreting and applying halachah are driven by
 such base motivations? Or, to look at it from the other direction: once you
 are willing to assume that our halachic leaders allow petty motives to get in
 the way of the greater good, why are you willing to follow them when it comes
 to halachah? >>

One needn't assume that Gedolim are driven by base motivations. We can assume 
the opposite. That doesn't mean that a Gadol who is assumed to be pure of 
heart might not, from time to time, fall prey to his own humanity. If that 
happens -- *when* it happens -- we all notice it. Are we then to ignore it, 
and incorporate into our lives the halachic coinage he made while under its 
influence?

We all have petty motives, all of the time. The best of us can fight 
ourselves to keep our actions free from these motives. (That's the essence of 
halacha, right?) But when the best of us fail, their failure taints their 
work product. How could you disagree?

David Finch

> But yes, you're right, halachah relies heavily on emunas
> chachamim. As R'
> Akiva learnt on his second day in yeshiva -- even the
> learning the aleph-beis
> requires it.

IIRC, the Gemara (in Shabbos, somewhere arond 30-32) is about a goy who
comes to Hillel asking to convert, but only on condition that he not have to
accept the Oral Law. (Shammai already having chased him away for making the
request).

Hillel accepted him -- taught him Aleph Bais the first day -- and then on
the second day switched letters.

If that's the Gemara you mean -- I don't recall it being R' Akiva. (He
wasn't a contemporary of Hillel/Shammai, AFAIK)

Gut Moed,

Akiva

A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 09:10:15AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: Hillel accepted him -- taught him Aleph Bais the first day -- and then on
: the second day switched letters.
: If that's the Gemara you mean -- I don't recall it being R' Akiva. (He
: wasn't a contemporary of Hillel/Shammai, AFAIK)

That was the basic story I recalled, except that I thought I remembered it
from Leiman's biography of R' Akiva. Thanks for the correction.

No, R' Akiva was a child during churban bayis, which was during R' Yochanan
ben Zakkai's stint as nasi pro tem. Two and a half nesi'im after Hillel, no?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Apr-00: Revi'i
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 27a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 1

On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 07:29:21AM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: 	How about those topics from Areivim that drift onto Avodah topics, as 
: *does*  happen?  Will they be directed to Avodah,  with or without the
: preceding discussion for context?

Areivim isn't moderated. They will be *copied* to Avodah, without context.
Imperfect, I know.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Apr-00: Revi'i
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 27a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 1

Misreading a line from "Family Redeemed" (a seifer culled and heavily edited
but mostly the writings of RYBS) brought me to the following realization:
	There is no axiology without teleology
(which is a typical line from the seifer -- it's heavy reading). In English,
what I mistook RYBS for saying is that without a set of goals one has no way
to ascribe values to actions. Value presumes that it conforms to some ideal.
I think the notion is true, perhaps self-evidently so, even if it's not what
RYBS was really saying.

Hirsch makes the same point in his translations of "tov" and "ra". "Tov" he
finds related to "hatavas haneiros", whereas "ra" is from the shoresh (not
meta-shoresh, this doesn't require buying into RSRH's shitah on Hebrew
etymology) /reish-ayin-ayin/, to shatter. Tov builds toward the goal state,
whereas ra destroys.

What brought all this up was that I once again was asked (by someone not-yet-
frum) about the necessity of believing in the final two ikkarei emunuah
(moshiach and techi'as hameisim). For that matter, belief in the 10th (sichar
va'onesh) also seems irrelevent to someone who is working "lo al minas likabeil
piras". To quote: "Couldn't one be a good Jew without believing them?"

However in this light, the final ikkarei emunah are perhaps the most critical.
Without defining an end state there is no tov vara, there is nothing that
one is supposed to prepare toward and avoid breaking.

This also avoids Euthypro's Dilemma (Euthypro was a fictional character,
the question is actually Plato's):
    Consider this: is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or
    is it pious because it is loved by the gods? (Euthyphro, 10a)

Taking the question out of the domain of A"Z: Is tov something that HKBH
desires, or does HKBH's desire define what is tov? The former assumes a concept
of tov to which Hashem would be subject to, therefore reducing His role as
First Cause. OTOH, the second makes tov vara arbitrary -- the difference
between Yisrael and Amaleik not being ethical (since we're insisting He isn't
subject to anything, including ethics), but merely divine whim ch"v.

In this way we have a definition that is both dependent on HKBH, and does not
mean that "good" (okay, piety to be strict about it) is defined arbitrarily.
Tov is whatever serves HKBH's goals in creation. And since creation is
inherently about the aiding the existance of the other -- that is what
creation is -- this definition of tov will be in line with our intuitive
notion of goodness.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Apr-00: Revi'i
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 27a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 1

In a message dated 4/24/00 6:35:05 AM US Central Standard Time, 
S.Klagsbrun@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:

<< The difference between us and
 G'dolai Hador (without mentioning names) is that g'doalim must hast better
 filtering systems in place, so as to elimenate the garbage which cause the
 rest of us to reach flawed conclusions. >>

Its axiomatic in engineering that the more refined the system, the easier it 
is to gum it up. Once a gadol's filter gets gummed up with adulation and ego, 
it doesn't work very well any more. 

David Finch 

On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 12:30:47AM -0400, sambo@charm.net wrote:
: R' Yizhak Abadi paskens that in the States, packaged rice does not have
: to be checked, as the companies (he gives Carolina and Uncle Ben's as
: examples) spend millions of dollars on equipment specifically intended
: to make sure there is nothing but rice in that bag or box, and do a far
: more thorough job than we could.

There is a chaveir on the list who used to work for a firm that processed
and packaged rice. He hadn't seen your email as of when I popped in for
a visit on Yom Tov. However, he told me at the time that the way most rice
is processed, it is certainly chameitz.

I assume you'll hear more when he catches up to this email, but as that may
be after Pesach, I wanted to share the warning now.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Apr-00: Levi, Mos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 29b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Following up on my own post (in breach of nettiquette):

In message I wrote:
>
>Now, while I can see his point regarding "treated as" (the Rambam,
>Ra'avid and Kesef Mishna are specifically discussing the question about
>hayeshiva b'eretz yisroel, not the halacha to sustain the ger toshav,
>but I can see the logic that if the individual is to be "treated as" a
>ger toshav regarding yeshiva, that the other halachas might well also be
>deemed to apply) - Rav Hertzog then goes on to say that it has already
>been proved before me (and it says  see later) that where a whole people
>have accepted on themselves the sheva mitzvot, they they have the din of
>gerim toshavim even b'zman hazeh (and I confess, not having read this in
>a while, I cannot, in my quick peruse, find where he refers to this -
>although there is a reference to Rav Kook - Mishpat Cohen hilchot shmita
>v'yovel - which presumably is where Rav Kook justifies selling the land
>to a non Jew for shmitta and again a reference to a whole nation taking
>on the sheva mitzvos bnei noach) [I wonder if it is a form of anan
>tsadi, but I am guessing here]
>

I was curious about this Rav Kook reference, and looked up my mishpat
cohen over the chag.  Rav Kook does indeed refer to the idea that a
whole people accepting the sheva mitzvos bnei noach could be considered
to be gerei toshav b'zman hazeh.  However, as far as I can see, he does
not prove this, just brings this as one of a number of possible
positions (including that, without kabbala, you are entitled to do
things like sell land to a non Jew who keeps the sheva mitzvas bnei
noach, but that the formal requirement to sustain him (ie full fledged
Torah obligations) does not kick in until actual kabbala in front of
beis din).

As I suspected, this discussion is in the context of the heter mechira.
Because, in order to justify the heter, it needs to be legitimate to
sell Eretz Yisroel to a non Jew, and, while there are no problems with
selling land to a ger toshav, there are to an oved cochavim.  So, in
order to allow the sale upon which the heter is based, you have either
to accept that the non Jew to whom the sale is made is a ger toshav, or
that at least that he falls into some intermediate category that takes
him out of the category of an oved cochavim, the impact of which is at
least to allow him to purchase land within Eretz Yisroel.

I must say, at the risk of sounding political, that the above would seem
to suggest that, at least on this, the Supreme Court may have been
right, and that, rather than the debate being religion versus democracy
(as the Financial Times recently portrayed it), it may even be the
Jewish Agency versus the halacha.

Moed Tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Back in v4n424 David Glasner asked:
: Query:  Why is it that people nowadays seem to automatically recite the 
: birkhat ha-gomeil after a trans-oceanic airline trip even though such
: trips are statistically safer than driving on the Washington Beltway?

The assumption was that gomeil is directly related to being at risk. A number
tried to answer this question by negating that assumption.

I found a note in the margin of my hagaddah which says that the four types
of risk (crossing a wilderness, being in jail, dangerous illness and crossing
the sea) are derived from Tehillim 107. Note again the number: four. The Vilna
Gaon associates yetzias Mitzrayim with these four salvations. (Crossing
the midbar, leaving Mitzrayim, being ill from torture and kerias Yam Suf.)
The Gaon attributes to this the daled kosos, the four sons, etc...

I have no idea where I saw this idea. I didn't even remember writing it.

So it would seem that the list of things for which you bench gomel has to do
with the nature of ge'ulah, not with quantity of risk.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Apr-00: Levi, Mos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 29b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 23 Apr 00, at 23:39, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> One needn't assume that Gedolim are driven by base motivations. We can assume 
> the opposite. That doesn't mean that a Gadol who is assumed to be pure of 
> heart might not, from time to time, fall prey to his own humanity. If that 
> happens -- *when* it happens -- we all notice it. Are we then to ignore it, 
> and incorporate into our lives the halachic coinage he made while under its 
> influence?

Do we *all* notice it? Or do some of us decide that they have 
noticed it? And how do the some of us who "notice it" make that 
decision? On what basis? And when *some of us* decide that we 
"notice" that a gadol has "fallen prey to his own humanity," are we 
not just making up halacha on our own by choosing to ignore a 
gadol we have deemed bias? (Ignoring for a minute the issue of 
choosing and consistently following a posek).

Gut Moed.

-- 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 24 Apr 00, at 21:54, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I must say, at the risk of sounding political, that the above would seem
> to suggest that, at least on this, the Supreme Court may have been
> right, and that, rather than the debate being religion versus democracy
> (as the Financial Times recently portrayed it), it may even be the
> Jewish Agency versus the halacha.

The issue before the court was not whether or not it was permitted 
to sell land in Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews. The issue was whether or 
not it is permitted to reserve a certain piece of land (in this case a 
village), specifically for Jews. I know of no halacha that would forbid 
reserving land (particularly in Eretz Yisrael) strictly for Jews. Even if 
I am allowed to sell land in Eretz Yisrael to a non-Jew (because 
s/he keeps Sheva Mitzvos or is in the "intermediate category" you 
mention), there is AFAIK no requirement that I do so.

-- 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

this past Yom Tov, I davened in a local yeshiva with my chavrusa. We both 
observed a father trying earnestly and and with good intentions to learn with 
his tired and burnt out looking kids. These kids were elementary school 
talmidim who appeared bored and spacing out despite the well intentioned 
efforts of their father. As Rav Wolbe points out, kids are not the means to 
achieve the status you did not reach in your own childhood. How many kids are 
we going to lose because of well meaning parents who need parenting courses?
                                        Steven Brizel
                                         Zeliglaw@aol.com

Micha Berger wrote:


> There is a chaveir on the list who used to work for a firm that processed
> and packaged rice. He hadn't seen your email as of when I popped in for
> a visit on Yom Tov. However, he told me at the time that the way most rice
> is processed, it is certainly chameitz.


The rice isn't, and can't be, so I have to asssume he's talking about
either coatings or other things processed on the same machinery. In
which case, given the size of a grain of rice compared to the thickness
of a supposed coating, or the size of the particles that may be clinging
to it, I have to refer to Yalkut Yosef, V5, re: kosher for Pesah food #
23; that a Sefaradi *should not* be mahmir and refrain from eating
hametz that is batel beshishim from before Pesah, but should follow the
da'at maran  and minhag Yerushalaim in these matters.



> 
> I assume you'll hear more when he catches up to this email, but as that may
> be after Pesach, I wanted to share the warning now.


Thank you. I look forward to hearing from him.


---sam

In message <200004242210.BAA08234@lmail.actcom.co.il>, Carl and Adina
Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>On 24 Apr 00, at 21:54, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
>
>> I must say, at the risk of sounding political, that the above would seem
>> to suggest that, at least on this, the Supreme Court may have been
>> right, and that, rather than the debate being religion versus democracy
>> (as the Financial Times recently portrayed it), it may even be the
>> Jewish Agency versus the halacha.
>
>The issue before the court was not whether or not it was permitted 
>to sell land in Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews. The issue was whether or 
>not it is permitted to reserve a certain piece of land (in this case a 
>village), specifically for Jews. I know of no halacha that would forbid 
>reserving land (particularly in Eretz Yisrael) strictly for Jews. Even if 
>I am allowed to sell land in Eretz Yisrael to a non-Jew (because 
>s/he keeps Sheva Mitzvos or is in the "intermediate category" you 
>mention), there is AFAIK no requirement that I do so.

If we are talking about a ger toshav I believe there is.

Part of the obligation to sustain him (Vayikra 25:35) includes the
discussion in Devarim 23:17 - as the rationale that the Sifri there
gives for "imcha yeshev b'kirbecha b'makom asher yivchar" is b'makom
sheparnaso yetzei (The context of the pasuk in D'varim is, according to
the Targum and Rashi's first pshat,  a slave of the goyim, so there the
connection to a ger toshav is explicit).

If we are talking about some half way house between ger toshav and oved
cochavim, in which one may sell land, but do not have an obligation of
sustaining him, then perhaps there would be no obligation to allow him
to live wherever he chooses and where his parnasa is best.  It would
really depend on how you understood this half way house (ie do you not
have an active obligation to sustain him, but are not allowed to prevent
him from sustaining himself, in which case presumably one could not
reserve villages just for Jews, or do you understand all these
obligations, being the Torah mandated obligations for a ger toshav not
to apply at all, actively or passively, and the permission to sell land
is out of a separate parsha).

>
>-- Carl
>

Moed Tov

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Tos. in Beitza 12 asks, acc. to Rashi that the principle
of 'mitoch' allows melacha for no tzorech at all, why
would one get malkos for cooking on Y"T for chol 
if not for the principle of 'ho'il', i.e. the potential
to use the food on Y"T gufa if guests come?

It happens to be that Rabbah, who in Pesachim holds you
would get malkos, is the one amora who learns that the
machlokes Hillel and Shamai has nothing to do with
mitoch - so Rashi may understand Rabbah l'shitaso as
rejecting (difficult as mitoch seems to be implied in
other mishnayot) or redefining mitoch.

Perhaps Rashi and Tos. are li'shitasam in Pesachim by 
R' Chisda as well.  R' Chisda holds that there is no 
issur of cooking from Y"T to Shabbos.  Tos. learns that
R' Chisda is based on the heter of ochel nefesh (47 
d"h v'iy), so you run into the kashe against Rashi of 
what happened to mitoch; Rashi in Pesachim learns that 
R' Chisda is based on 'kedusha acahas' and has nothing
to do with the heter of ochel nefesh - you avoid mitoch
again.

Now I need time over Y"T to check if this is correct : )

Good Y"T,
-Chaim B.

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


[ 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         ]