Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 033

Tuesday, May 2 2000

• Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)
• Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)
• "Talmidai chachomim marbim Shalom Ba'olam"
• Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)
• RE: Book Sale
• Re: fax on Yom Tov
• Yom Tov Sheni
• re: Hallel hagadol on Pesach
• Re: Memorial days
• Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)
• Re: Yom Tov Sheni
• RE: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)
• RE: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)

In message <957181076.216650.0@square.inter.net.il>, Carl M. Sherer
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>A minor heara on my own post:
>
>On 1 May 00, at 8:15, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>
>> > And you would have a whole lot of fascinating mitzvah haba b'averah type
>> > questions (brochas on the produce are they permissible etc). 
>> 
>> AFAIK I personally do not eat produce from the heter mechira. 
>
>There is no mitzva habaa b'aveira for another reason. The classic 
>case of mitzva habaa b'aveira is where at the very moment you 
>fulfill the mitzva you are committing an aveira, e.g. you pick up an 
>esrog and are yotzei the mitzva of arba minim at the same moment 
>that you are koneh the esrog b'gzeila. 

>But here, there is no issur 
>on *eating* shmitta fruit, because the posuk is darshened "lo'ochla 
>v'lo li'schora." So the aveira comes when you *bought* the fruit, not 
>when you eat it (unless of course you are koneh it by picking it up 
>off the table with your mouth :-). 
>

Sorry, when I used the term mitzvah haba b'averah *type* questions, I
was not being precise (I was thinking more of the category of thinking,
if that makes any sense)- and was wondering (at least) two things
(sometimes I have about a dozen things going in my brain, that i have
not quite managed to pin down, but at least two are reasonably close to
the surface):
  
1. if you held that lo s'choneim is in fact being violated by the heter
mechira, does that mean that you hold the heter is not valid ie is it
null and void, or is it a valid sale that is a violation of an issur
d'orisa?  Further does it work to uproot shmitta from the produce of
that land, or does it not manage to achieve this because it is achieved
by way of an averah (since uprooting shmitta is not a mitzvah, and
possibly the opposite, you can see why the terminology is probably not
the best one, although as the heter is done as an attempt to further the
mitzvah of yishuv b'aretz, one can perhaps loosely apply the term. In
any event, what probably triggered the association was the same time
occurance that arises in mitzvah haba b'averah type scenarios). I guess
a better analogy is kiddushin - where some types of kiddushin are
effective, even though they are in volation of the Torah (chayvei lavin,
eg gerusha to cohen) and some are not (brother and sister).  

2. Would you have a problem with making a brocha on the produce, given
that it is only acquired due to an averah?  As you discuss below, this
is not strictly a mitzvah haba b'averah question, but it is most
generally discussed, in my experience, in that context (ie can you make
a brocha on the lulav/sukkah etc that has previously been stolen) which
is why I think I grouped them together in my head.


>Now there is a problem with the bracha, namely "botzea beirech 
>nee'etz Hashem," but that relates to the fact that HKB"H disdains 
>a bracha that is made on something acquired through an aveira, 
>but I don't think that makes it into a mitzva ha'baa b'aveira. 

>
>Irrelevant to my argument, but interesting nevertheless.

Sorry for the imprecision, it was a bit of a throw away line in the
context of the much wider discussion - but I agree that these are
interesting questions that presumably have been examined more deeply by
those who hold that way and yet who have had to live with the reality of
the heter.


>
>-- Carl

Regards

Chana
-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

I said I would finish responding to Chana's contentions from 
yesterday.

On 1 May 00, at 13:38, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> Yes, his [Rav Kook's - C.S.] first priority was the necessity for the heter.  
But he is only
> adding - his primary view is that the yishmaelim have a din at least in
> some respects like a ger toshav.  This was followed  by Rav Hertzog.

I don't see this as his primary view at all. In fact, based upon my 
reading of Mishpat Cohen 58, I don't see him extending this at all 
beyond what is needed in order to use the heter mechira. At the 
beginning of the same paragraph where he discusses the Ger 
Toshav question he writes:

"V'atta, *im b'emes gadol hadchak ad she'taluy bazeh chas 
v'shalom churban ha'yishuv* nireh d'yesh le'hatir b'milsa d'rabannan 
limkor, al pi derech ha'mechira shel chametz he'nehuga b'makom 
dchak, v'lismoch d'Yishmaeilim she'ainam ovdei avoda zara ain 
bahem issur chaniya ba'karka."  

To me that sounds like he's saying that in a shas ha'dchak we can 
rely on the Arabs not being considered ovdei avoda zara to sell to 
them, and not that they have such a din generally.

In fact, he goes on to explain that the Raavad would hold that there 
is an intermediate stage, that the Raavad holds that there is a din 
of ger toshav with respect (only) to living in Eretz Yisrael ba'zman 
hazeh, i.e. that it is not *assur* to sell to them. 

The Raavad himself in Issurei Biah 14:8 writes that some of the 
dinim (of not accepting geirei toshav) are le'hakel and some are 
le'hachmir b'zman hazeh. He writes that it is permitted to sell land 
to a ger toshav in a city (which would be assur in times of yovel), 
but that we are *not* commanded to be mechaye a ger toshav 
b'zman hazeh (which AIUI is why you think the Supreme Court was 
correct, i.e. that the Arabs b'zman hazeh have a true din of ger 
toshav, and that therefore we cannot exclude them from living 
anyplace in Israel). 

In light of that Raavad, I think we have to interpret Rav Kook as 
saying that to the extent that the Arabs have a din of ger toshav it 
is only to *permit* us to sell land to them in a shas ha'dchak (i.e. in 
shmitta), and not to forbid us from banning them from purchasing 
land wherever they may choose in Eretz Yisrael. In fact, Rav Kook 
himself writes that "v'yesh lomar she'le'inyan ha'din d'ain maalin 
shapir lo b'einan pirtei din ger toshav ki im she'ain oveid avoda zara 
gam kein mutar le'haaloso, *ela d'chiyuv mitzad haTorah ain omrim, 
ki im b'ger toshav mamash*, d'gabei ksiv 'v'chei imach'." [Emphasis 
mine]. That is the din that you *have* to allow a goy to live among 
you is only a din in ger toshav mamash, and the Arabs do not 
qualify as a ger toshav mamash, even according to the Raavad.

> All the Supreme Court are doing (or would be doing if they knew what
> they were doing) is saying, look, we have some pretty strong opinions on
> which to rely that say that Arabs have a din at least like a ger toshav
> in some respects.  The halacha vis a ger toshav is pretty clear re
> reserving land. QED. That is, if they wanted to claim that the Arabs
> have a din like a ger toshav, they have some pretty strong positions to
> cite, including the primary reasoning of Rav Kook for his heter mechira.  

No. Rav Kook was only saying that you are *permitted* to sell land 
to them in order to take advantage of the heter mechira, and not 
that you are *forbidden* from preventing them from purchasing land 
anywhere in Eretz Yisrael. And the Raavad, on which Rav Kook is 
principally basing himself, would also not hold that you are required 
to let them live in Eretz Yisrael.

> What you seem to be saying is that because he was willing to bring
> butressing arguments to try and convince even those who held like the
> Rambam, that somehow undermines his fundamental position.  

Not at all. I'm saying his fundamental position is based upon 
understanding the Raavad as being permissive and not as requiring 
us to treat Arabs (or any other non-Jews in Israel) as geirei toshav.

By the way - I wrote you privately yesterday that I was curious as 
to whether Mishpat Cohen 58, 68 and 69 came out before or after 
Shabbat HaAretz, because you felt that what I quoted from 
Shabbat HaAretz contradicted Mishpat Cohen. Mishpat Cohen 58 
is dated 5660 (1900), Mishpat Cohen 68 and 69 are dated Adar 
Sheini and Tamuz 5670 (1910), respectively (I assume the 
reference in 69 to the Erev Shabbos "Tova HaAretz" refers to 
Parshas Shlach). Shabbat HaAretz is dated 5670 with no specific 
date. I believe that Shabbat HaAretz is contemporary with the latter 
two letters, and can be reconciled with them in the manner I wrote 
yesterday.

> >Rav Lichtenstein did not say that "one should not protest" if people 
> >rely on the heter. What he said was that a bochur who is visiting in 
> >Eretz Yisrael for the year of Shmitta need not insult relatives who 
> >rely on the heter by declining their Shabbos invitations because of 
> >that reliance. Similarly, he said that Israeli bochrim should not use 
> >their parents' observance of the heter as a point of contention with 
> >their parents. 
> 
> Yes, but you must at least hold that the heter is valid.  

I think you have to hold shmitta is not d'oraysa bazman hazeh, 
which AIUI is the shita of all the rishonim other than the Ramban. 
After that, I think kavod ha'briyos can be docheh a d'rabbanan 
under the proper circumstances.

 can of
> course hold by the heara (whether Rav Kook rejects it or not, that does
> not mean that Rav Lichtenstein is bound to accept Rav Kook's position,
> he could just as well accept the heter for other reasons, including the
> reason the Rav Kook does clearly give vis a vis those who hold like the
> Rambam, despite his reservations with the argument as making the sale a
> harama and hence not valid).  

Rav Lichtenstein himself does not (or at least did not fourteen 
years ago) hold from the heter. That is what he said in Yeshiva at 
the time. He said that he personally did not hold it, and that the 
Yeshiva did not hold it. He did not reject it as totally invalid. The 
words he used (as I said in mail jewish) were essentially Rav 
Kook's words - "kdai hoo ploni lismoch alav b'shas ha'dchak." He 
considered the kavod ha'briyos of relating to your parents (for the 
Israelis) or your parents' friends (for the chutznikim) a shas 
ha'dchak sufficient to permit relying on the heter for those purposes 
only.

My point regarding this was made solely in
> response you your comment that some people do not rely on the heter
> mechira at all, and what I was trying to show is that many people who
> may try themselves not to rely on the heter mechira, do not by any means
> reject it, with the consequences that would be necessary were a complete
> rejection to take place.

I'm not sure about your points about money being tofes kdushas 
shviis. But I know that people who generally do not rely on the 
heter here often do not eat in the homes of people who do, at least 
during shmitta and for some period thereafter when there is a 
chashash of shmitta produce (there are charts available with all of 
the dates on them - I still have mine from seven years ago). I know 
people who hold that keilim used for heter mechira produce require 
hag'ala, but I do not know a lot of people who go that far.

> If you completely reject the heter mechira on the grounds of lo
> s'choneim then you would have to protest other people using it and you
> could not accept shabbas invitations.  We are, after all, talking about
> a) and issur d'orisa here and b) possibly kedushas shvi'is.

I'm not sure I agree that even if we hold lo s'choneim to be an issur 
d'oraysa it necessarily follows that *eating* the produce from land 
that was cultivated in violation of lo s'choneim constitutes an issur 
d'oraysa. Recall that the issur is on schora and not on eating. All 
kdushas shviis requires is that you treat the fruit b'kdusha, i.e. you 
don't just throw peels and cores into the garbage and the like. 
There is lots of fruit (and wine) here that is sold through otzar beis 
din and not in reliance on the heter mechira, and all it means is 
that you put the peels of the fruit into a separate garbage bag (and 
usually tie them to the outside of the bin), and you do not use the 
wine for havdala (so you won't put out the candle in the wine). Of 
course in Beni Brak they hold by the Chazon Ish (that even the 
produce purchased from goyim has kdushas shviis), and produce 
treated in that manner was available in Yerushalayim during the 
last shmitta (through Sheairis - Rav Karelitz's beis din) and I trust 
will be more widely available this time also).

> >> >The Supreme Court decision has no basis in current halacha.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> No.  Even if you hold like the Rambam, the Supreme Court have Rav
> >> Hertzog and Rav Kook to rely on.  That seems to me to be pretty weighty
> >> in terms of current halacha.
> >
> >I don't see where Rav Kook would have supported the notion that 
> >it's assur to set aside land in Eretz Yisrael specifically for Jews to 
> >the exclusion of Arabs. I have not yet been through Rav Hertzog's 
> >writings. 
> >

Again, I still don't see a basis for the Supreme Court in Rav Kook. I 
will try to get to Rav Hertzog ASAP.

> No, he doesn't say that.  What he says is that his primary basis for the
> heter mechira, and the one he accepts, gives the yishmaelim at least
> some (and possibly all) of the dinnim of a ger toshav.

Definitely not all. Nothing more than a permission to sell them land 
b'shas ha'dchak.

> You cannot reserve land only for jews if you are dealing with a full
> fledged ger toshav (I don't know of any dispute vis a vis this).

Actually if it's a full fledged ger toshav after bias mashiach (BBY"A) 
it seems at least from the Raavad that you would not be allowed to 
let one live in the cities. But that's a separate topic.

> Remember, if there is no lo s'choneim applicable (as per Rav Kook, Rav
> Hertzog), and we have a safek ger toshav, safek d'orisa l'chumra, and we
> would need to apply the dinim of ger toshav, at least m'safek.

I think you're reading a lot of dinim of ger toshav into this that Rav 
Kook doesn't hold. I also don't think it necessarily follows (even 
according to the Raavad) that if you're not in lo s'choneim then 
you're automatically dealing with a ger toshav. 

> That is, if you are the [new halachic] Supreme Court, and you have
> before you a situation where what is being done is unquestionably a
> violation of the rights of a ger toshav (if any exist).  

I don't see anyone arguing that the Arabs have the status of a full 
ger toshav. Not even the Raavad and not even Rav Kook.

The question
> is, are the people who are claiming from you gerei toshav or not (or at
> least safek gerei toshav). If you can eliminate from the equation lo
> s'choneim (OK, lets even follow the Rambam as per the heara and say they
> own other land in Israel, just not the land they want in the settlement
> they want, but more powerfully on the basis that both Rav Kook and Rav
> Hertzog held that they were at least sufek gerei toshav and hence lo
> s'choneim did not apply), then is not the decision obvious?

No. The decision is that I *can* sell to them under the specific 
circumstances set out by Rav Kook, not that I am *required* to sell 
to them.

> In order to render the opposite decision, would you not need to hold
> that they were *definitely* not gerei toshav (no safek about it) - or
> that, to counterbalance this safek d'orisa, the other (at least) safek
> d'orisa of lo s'choneim applied.  

I think I can definitely say that they are not geirei toshav, even 
according to the Raavad. 

> That is what I am saying. When I was pushed to go away and read the
> heter mechira teshuvas, balanced on top of Rav Hertzog, it suddenly
> struck me that the logic seemed inexorably to follow.  Can you find a
> way out of this?

*I* think I just did, although you may not :-) 

-- 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 Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 11:27:00PM -0400, S Klagsbrun wrote:
> An old yid (A"H) taught me: shtait in Mishnah: "Talmidai chachomim
> marbim shalom ba'olam". oib nit, as nit. V'hamaivin Yovin.

My father A"H would quip that the Mishnah merely proves that Chazal had
a sense of Humor! Besides, since this statement is followed by
"she-ne'emar..." proves that this position is by no means obvious!

In message <200005020526.IAA29398@lmail.actcom.co.il>, Carl and Adina
Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>> > Question: if you hold the way you have set out - lets say you are
>> > dealing with somebody like my husband who does not currently own any
>> > land in Eretz Yisroel.  Would you hold that we could get a non Jew to
>> > write a contract for you to sell land to him (assuming you were not
>> > selling all your land, ie you you continued to own land within Eretz
>> > Yisroel, while he then gained the mitzvah?)  If not why not? 
>> 
>> I will have to look up Nosei Keilim when I get home - the only 
>> Rambam I have in the office is the one on my Palm Pilot. 
>
>Now that I am home, I see that Frankel puts the words into the 
>Rambam that I thought were missing in my Palm Pilot. The girsa in 
>Shabbos 6:11 in Frankel is "Ha'lokeach bayis b'Eretz Yisrael MIN 
>HAGOY mutar lo lomar la'goy lichtov lo shtar b'Shabbos."
>

Oh I agree, I was not suggesting that the halacha was anything else.
What you said was that the *reason* for allowing the writing was because
of yishuv eretz yisroel.  What I was querying was why it made a
difference, if that was the reason, whether Robert bought from an akum,
a full fledged ger toshav (if such existed) or from you, as he would
still be fulfilling the mitzvah of yishuv eretz yisroel that he had
previously not fulfilled.

If you understand it my way, ie that it is the positive side of lo
s'choneim, ie they are flipsides of the same coin, then it makes perfect
sense why the halacha *only* applies to an akum.



>-- Carl
>

Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

> 
> : I am not a baki on these halachos but isn't it ona'ah if 
> you charge more than 
> : 1/6th above cost?  If the extra charges are for future 
> research does that
> : make it permissible?
> 
> Is ona'ah defined WRT cost, or market price?
> 

I've always seen it as related to *market price in your area*.

Akiva




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

>>Addendum from Micha (joys of moderating... <grin>):  If someone in E"Y faxes 
me something on Y"T sheini shel goliyos, isn't the fax nolad? (Assuming that we 
hold that a fax on Shabbos is nolad because of the shinui sheim from "paper" to 
"fax", or for another reason.)>>

This should be the same as a newspaper published on Shabbos or Yom Tov.  There 
are many teshuvos on this subject both regarding whether or not it is amirah 
lenochri to have it delivered and whether it is nolad.  R. Mordechai Willig did 
not think nolad was a problem but he did think that amirah lenochri was a 
problem for newpapers (or any mail) that is delivered specifically for Jews 
(like the Jewish Press which has sometimes been delivered on Yom Tov).  He also 
shuddered at the thought of reading a newpaper on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
 
> I once asked an Israeli about this and he said Rav Goren permitted it.  I never
> looked in any of his sefarim to see if he had written anything about it.
> 
> Gil Student
> gil.student@citicorp.com


What the Israeli told you simply isn't True!!!!  I have a copy of Rav
Goren's letter to the Bnai Akiva Shlihim and all he permitted was
Melakha be-tzina.

>It occurred to me that a possible reason for saying 
>hallel hagadol only after we break for the meal on
>Pesach might be based on the gemara in Ta'anis 26 that
>hallel hagadol is said only 'al nefesh seveia v'keres
>meleiah' - hallel is only said on a full stomach.

>- -Chaim B.

This is the opinion of the Aruch HaShulchan in his peirush on the
Haggada, "Leil Shimurim".

Raffy
________________________________________________________________
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.

RYH Henkin wrote:

>>Regardless, I do not see what blame there is in not having known the 
future, and where
do we find that gedolim cannot err in matters affecting klal Yisrael. If 
not for errors we would still be living in our land and sacrificing in the 
Temple>>

R. Mordechai Willig had an interesting devar Torah on this idea.  It can be 
found at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2000/parsha/rwil_shmini.html

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On 1 May 00, at 19:39, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> 1. if you held that lo s'choneim is in fact being violated by the heter
> mechira, does that mean that you hold the heter is not valid ie is it
> null and void, or is it a valid sale that is a violation of an issur
> d'orisa?  

I think you have to keep in mind here that (at least IIRC) most of 
the poskim who hold the heter mechira doesn't work don't hold that 
way because it is a violation of lo s'choneim to sell land to the 
Arabs. It is because they hold that a goy has no kinyan in Eretz 
Yisrael to be mafkia it from (trumos and maasros and from) the 
obligations of Shviis, and/or because they hold that the sale is not 
a true sale because there is no gmirus daas to sell. The question 
on the second half of that sentence is obvious - if that is the case, 
why does selling chometz before Pesach work? The answer is that 
at least until the last Shmitta or two, the government never went to 
the trouble of recording the sale in the proper registries as would be 
necessary to fulfill ordinary (secular) legal requirements. But I really 
have not been through enough of the tshuvos against the heter 
mechira to say with certainty how much of the objection is based 
on ain kinyan and how much of it is based upon the sale being a 
sham.

Further does it work to uproot shmitta from the produce of
> that land, or does it not manage to achieve this because it is achieved
> by way of an averah 

Again, I don't think the issue is mitzva ha'baa b'aveira as much as 
it's that those who don't hold from the heter mechira hold that it is 
ineffective to be mafkia shmitta either because the sale is a sham 
or because a goy has no power to be mafkia land in Eretz Yisrael 
from Shmitta.

> 2. Would you have a problem with making a brocha on the produce, given
> that it is only acquired due to an averah?  As you discuss below, this
> is not strictly a mitzvah haba b'averah question, but it is most
> generally discussed, in my experience, in that context (ie can you make
> a brocha on the lulav/sukkah etc that has previously been stolen) which
> is why I think I grouped them together in my head.

Big difference. The lulav is a birkas ha'mitzva and if it was stolen 
you are not fulfilling a mitzva. The bracha on fruit is a birkas 
ha'nehenin, and even if you are eating fruit whose harvesting 
involved aveiros, you are nevertheless being nehene from it. If you 
eat tevel, are you required to make a bracha rishona on it? I would 
argue that although it is botzea berech and although you could not 
be counted for a mezuman, it would nevertheless be a violation of 
assur lehenos min ha'olam hazeh bli bracha if you ate tevel without 
a bracha. 

(Sukka is a separate issue because there is no specific command 
of "lachem" and because if you hold karka aina nigzeles then a 
Sukka cannot be stolen either).

Also, the aveira involved with shmitta is not in eating the fruit - the 
problem is the schora. That, by the way, seems to me a ground for 
being lenient in eating in the homes of others who rely on the heter 
(unless of course you argue that by agreeing to eat by them you 
are causing them to engage in forbidden commerce with respect to 
produce purchased for you and therefore there is a lifnei iver 
problem involved).

-- 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.

On 2 May 00, at 16:16, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:

> What the Israeli told you simply isn't True!!!!  I have a copy of Rav
> Goren's letter to the Bnai Akiva Shlihim and all he permitted was
> Melakha be-tzina.
> 

Now, I'm curious. I always understood that people like Rav Goren, 
who held that chutznikim in Eretz Yisrael could hold one day of 
Yom Tov, did so on the grounds that what is kovea how many days 
of Yom Tov you keep is your location and not your permanent 
residence. If so, shouldn't they hold that Israelis in Chutz LaAretz 
should keep two days?

-- 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.

Actually, I am not suggesting anything except that, before a
person_does_decide to accept a chumra, he should look at the big picture
first.   Further, it is not I who am suggesting anything, it is RSZA.  From
the story given in Halichos Shlomo (is the story in his biography as well?),
it seems clear that, indeed, a person should not be machmir for his wife or
family WRT using an eruv on Shabbos (unless everyone in the family is truly
ready and willing to accept such a practice).  So, in the hypo that you
gave, no, the husband should not be machmir, given that his wife is not
willing to be cooped up inside her house all Shabbos.

Again, I don't think RSZA disagrees with the general concept of "baal nefesh
yachmir al atzmo," except that he holds that such a decision should not be
knee-jerk reaction; rather it should done after ensuring (presumably after
consulting one's moreh derech) that accepting a chumra in one area will not
lead to kulas in other areas.

KT
Aryeh

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 2:24 AM
Subject: RE: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)

....

So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I cannot 
take on chumras, but I can choose not to rely on kulas? What 
about all the places in the poskim where it says "baal nefesh 
yachmir al atzmo?? Are you suggesting that it's assur to be a baal 
nefesh? 

Don't get me wrong - I agree that there is something disingenuous 
about not using an eruv but telling your wife to use it (assuming 
that is what the person did, and I do recall the maaseh in the 
book). But suppose the husband had said that he didn't want to 
use the eruv at all - not for himself and not for the wife - and the 
wife refused to stay in the house all Shabbos and therefore decided 
on her own to use the eruv (which I don't believe is what happened 
in that case). Would you still say he could not be machmir?

...

On 2 May 00, at 12:21, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> Actually, I am not suggesting anything except that, before a
> person_does_decide to accept a chumra, he should look at the big picture
> first.   

If what you're suggesting is that before someone takes on a 
chumra, he should look at what kulas he might be creating at the 
same time, I agree.

Further, it is not I who am suggesting anything, it is RSZA.  From
> the story given in Halichos Shlomo (is the story in his biography as well?),

IIRC it is in "From Jerusalem His Word." 

> it seems clear that, indeed, a person should not be machmir for his wife or
> family WRT using an eruv on Shabbos (unless everyone in the family is truly
> ready and willing to accept such a practice).  So, in the hypo that you
> gave, no, the husband should not be machmir, given that his wife is not
> willing to be cooped up inside her house all Shabbos.

I'm not sure RSZA would agree with that. I think the case posited 
was that the husband decided to be machmir only for himself, but 
to continue to benefit from his wife's use of the eruv, i.e. to treat his 
wife as a Shabbos goy. I think if the husband wanted to be 
machmir on the entire family the response might have been 
different.

> Again, I don't think RSZA disagrees with the general concept of "baal nefesh
> 
> yachmir al atzmo," except that he holds that such a decision should not be
> knee-jerk reaction; rather it should done after ensuring (presumably after
> consulting one's moreh derech) that accepting a chumra in one area will not
> lead to kulas in other areas.

Keep in mind that eruv is an area with respect to which at least the 
Biur Halacha concludes that a baal nefesh should be machmir.  

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]