Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 090

Friday, July 21 2000

• Re: Nidah 31a
• Re: Nidah 31a
• Re: Rashi question: Balak
• Re[2]: Rashi question: Balak
• Re: Hefker and Kiddushin
• Re: Nusach of tefilla betzibbur
• Re: Rashi question: Balak
• Re: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: Fwd: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: Fwd: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Rashi
• Re: Fwd: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: Fwd: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: Avodah V5 #87
• Re: Rashi in Balak
• Re: Rashi in Balak
• Dvar Torah

On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 01:34:23PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: While WRT many Agodos Chazal one can discuss wether it is a metaphor, ...

The Rambam doesn't day "some aggaditos". He says all.

But calling it a metaphor doesn't mean it CAN'T be true on the literal level,
just that Chazal didn't relay it for that reason and therefore didn't care.

: IMHO this one is not a metaphor, as this is also brought in Tractate Soteh 11b
: that this was a sign that Paroh gave to the JEwish midwives to know wether
: the child is a boy or girl.

Ah, but if aggaditos are metaphoric, then the story of Par'oh giving signs to
the midwives is also a metaphor. IOW, you'd first have to prove the story
is also true literally, then you can use it to show the biology was as well.

: this is one of the things that we would apply Nishtanu Hativi'im (and not
: only the science) ...

You seem to be saying that we can use R' Avraham ben haRambam's definition of
NhT some times, but other times we can't. It would seem to be a tarta disasrei.
NhT refers to either the scientific theory or the metzi'us -- not sometimes
one, sometimes the other.

I would like to see a rishon who is choleik. Someone has to be the makor for
the shitah commonly held today. I just don't know who.

: On a deeper level based on the Shmois Rabbo on the Posuk (Shmos 1:16, also
: mentioned in the MaHaRShA on Soteh), and Rashi (Soteh), Pshat in the Gemara
: LAN"D could be said as follows ...

Finally, a proposed answer to Eric's question. Beautiful one, too.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-00: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 39a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 14

In a message dated 7/20/00 2:12:10pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Ah, but if aggaditos are metaphoric, then the story of Par'oh giving signs to
> the midwives is also a metaphor. IOW, you'd first have to prove the story
> is also true literally, then you can use it to show the biology was as well.

Please see the Meiam Loeiz on the Possuk in Shmos, LAN"D it is Poshut that
this is a Metzios, hence the Gemara in Niddah need not mean that it is only
a Moshul.

> You seem to be saying that we can use R' Avraham ben haRambam's definition of
> NhT some times, but other times we can't. It would seem to be a tarta 
> disasrei.
> NhT refers to either the scientific theory or the metzi'us -- not sometimes
> one, sometimes the other.

The term Nishtanu Hativi'im is a Halchic one and LAN"D is not meant as the 
R"A ben Horambam.

> I would like to see a rishon who is choleik. Someone has to be the makor for
> the shitah commonly held today. I just don't know who.

In the Yeshuois Malkoi from the Abarbneil he discuses this and says that it 
basiclly a Machlokes in approach between the Sfardim and Ashkenazim (LAN"D 
Rashi for one seems to be Mfareish literally, and not just because he is a 
Parshon).


Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In Avodah V5#89, RWolpoe replied:
> Most German siddurim have Tallis and Tefillin just before Baruch She'omar....
> That there might be a Midrashic base for this minhag never occured to me,
> though there is a potential connection.

Those siddurim (and, more importantly, those who practice as per the order
listed in them) don't list k'rias "Sh'ma" before hanochas t'filin -- how do
you see a connection between a literal reading of RaShY and said practice?

All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Author:  <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> at tcpgate
> how do you see a connection between a literal reading of RaShY and
> said practice?

They don't have Shma Yisrael in Birchos hashachar?

Rich Wolpoe

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>I don't understand the chakirah being made. Why do we assume that differences
>in chalos would NOT be reflected by differences in pe'ulah?

Because if they were, then you would have a much simpler nafka mina between
the case of the woman and the case of the crops (remember that is what the
Gemorra and the Ran are discussing), since the actions done and who does
them are quite distinct in the two cases (woman and crops). And yet for the
discussion to take place, the cases have to be deemed to be analogous (ie why
does the Gemorra and/or the Ran not say the two cases are not comparable due
to the fact that who does the acts (ie pe'ula) is different in the two cases,
you then don't need to and can't really come on to the discussion of the Ran).

>Perhaps the Ran is moot because he's talking about nissuin, when the chiyuvim
>and therefore the husband's ba'alus, actually begins! (The word kiddushin
>is often used loosely to refer to either or both steps.)

I don't think the Ran can be said to be talking about nissuin. the reason
being the same as above, the Ran (and the Gemorra) are discussing a case in
which a man gives to a woman two prutos saying by the first one you will be
mekadesh to me today and by the second one you will be mekadesh to me after
I divorce you. The question the Gemorra is trying to resolve is whether she
will be mekadesh a second time after he divorces her based on that initial
giving of a pruta, yes or no. It tries to resolve it by analogy to the crop
case, and that resolution is then rejected because the regular crop case is
a case of redemption by himself and the woman case is (arguably) a case of
redemption by others. The Ran is explaining why the analogy works (and where
it doesn't). Since the Gemorra's discussion would seem to be purely about
kiddushin (the giving of two prutos) so must be the discussion of the Ran.

I have this idea (but can't think from where to substantiate it at the moment
although it seems to run through a whole bunch of sugyas) that kiddushin is
d'orisa and nissuin is d'rabbanan (which is why you need a get m'diorisa even
from eruisin). The Ran here is also clearly talking about the d'orisa level
(quoting the Torah). I would assume that the reason that chiyuvim do not
start from eruisin is because a) most chiyuvim are d'rabbanan and b) to the
extent that you hold they are not, the Chachamim lifted the responsibility
until nissuin. However I would have thought that the d'orisa form of baalus
would commence from eruisin.

Regards
Chana

RD Wells wrote:
>There is a distinct difference between kaddish deYohid which can be said by the
>ordinary mitpallel or the Shliah Zibbur, and Kaddish dezibbur which can only be
>said by the Shliach Zibbur.
     
My understanding was that the way it used to be (and still is in some places) is
that each kaddish is only said by one person.  That is why there are so many 
discussions about which chiyuv has precedence over others.  The way it is today,
the only relevance of precedence is who will daven from the amud.  However, in 
the good old days only one person could say each kaddish so those with lower 
precedence sometimes did not say a kaddish.  This is still done in Breuers and 
when R. Hershel Schachter and R. Meir Goldvicht were both saying kaddish in YU I
saw them sometimes arrange with each other who would say which kaddish.

Does your LOR have any sources?

Gil Student

> Is that maybe the reason some put on tefilin after birchas hashachar, just
> before boruch she'omar

The order al pi dina d'gemara is birchas haschachar first, upon waking and
dressing (which is what the berachos refer to). I believe this is minhag
haGR"A brought in Ma'aseh Rav. We have switched the gemara's order to be
mesader the berachos in shule after we already have on talis and tefillin.

RD Finch wrote:
>How can any of us ever presume to intepret contemporary events through the eyes
>of HaShem? To me, that's the heresy.
     
But if it WAS a punishment, how can we fail to recognize it as such?  Are we 
repeating our sin because we are too blind to see the yad Hashem?

Gil Student

RM Berger wrote:
> 1- Tochachos are clearly given to the tzibbur, not the yachid. ...

The Gra (Hagahos to Sifrei Bahar parshasa 2) writes that the tochachah
in Vayikra 26 is belashon rabim (as compared to Devarim 28) because the
toachachah in Vayikra applies to each individual. The tochachah in Devarim
applies to the nation as a whole.

Gil Student

On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 04:28:09PM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: RM Berger wrote:
: The Gra (Hagahos to Sifrei Bahar parshasa 2) writes that the tochachah
: in Vayikra 26 is belashon rabim (as compared to Devarim 28) because the
: toachachah in Vayikra applies to each individual. The tochachah in Devarim
: applies to the nation as a whole.

I sit corrected. How does the Gaon explain the contents of Vayikra 26?
"Viyishavtem lavetech bi'artzechem" (5), "Vinasati shalom bi'artzechem, ...
vihishbati chayah ra'ah min ha'aretz, vicherev lo ya'avor..." (6), "urdaftem
es oyveichem..." (7), "umei'ah mikem rivavah yirofu" (8), vechulu.

Much of the contents of the berachos and kelalos of the parashah only make
sense as applying to the nation.

It also reopens the question that motivated my mis-understanding. How do we
resolve the tochachos with "s'char mitzvos behai alma leika"? (I had it that
on the national level, one held, but on the personal one, the other.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-00: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 39a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 14

There are two illustrations in this week's parsha of ideas we debated in
discussing Rashi in P' Korach:

1. Rashi cites contradictory Midrashim - Rashi on 26:13 writes that Evtzon
was one of the mishpachos killed in rebellion, yet in 26:16 he writes that
the family was renamed Ozni (see Mizrachi, Sifsei Chachamim).

2. Rashi explains smichus haparshiyos without necessarily spelling out
what his question is - Rashi 28:2 does just that without the preface of
'lamah nismecha' that he uses in other places. It is implicit that Rashi
does not subscribe the the Ramban's notion of 'ain mukdam u'meuchar baTorah'
(see Ramban/Ibn Ezra in beg. of Korach & Yisro).

[Moderator's note: More than one chaveir mentioned to me in private email
that they took their reply to Areivim because it didn't seem lomdish
enough for Avodah. Remember, Avodah is about Avodas Hashem -- I didn't
name this list "Pilpul R Us". I'm therefore bouncing a number of posts
from Areivim to Avodah, where they will be properly archived. And perhaps
get some lomdish replies as well.

[It's notable that it is far easier for us to get lomdish about the mechanics
of kiddushin than about tzaddik vira lo. Says something about the educations
we recieved.  -mi]

Micha Berger wrote:
> It also reopens the question that motivated my mis-understanding. How do we
> resolve the tochachos with "s'char mitzvos behai alma leika"? (I had it that
> on the national level, one held, but on the personal one, the other.)

Is it possible to say that the various statements on this subject
represent differing streams of philosophy held under the "big tent"
of hashkafa? Alternatively perhaps behai alma leka means not clearly or
directly or of equal magnitude. On a practical level, as individuals,I think
we should act as if each perceived punishment is an opportunity to reassess
ourselves, knowing all the time that we can not know why HKB"H operates the
world as he does. We should try not to judge others on this basis(eg he's
ill therefore he must be a sinner)

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 7/21/00 5:46:43 AM US Central Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> But if it WAS a punishment, how can we fail to recognize it as such?  Are we 
> repeating our sin because we are too blind to see the yad Hashem?

Do we really need to think of the Holocaust as a punishment in order to 
recognize our sin? Or our need to stop repeating the sin? 

David Finch

On 20 Jul 00, at 16:22, Allen Baruch wrote:
>> As such, it is difficult to argue that the Holocaust was caused by divine
>> anger for the violations of Torah precepts and deliberate heresy.

> The difficulty with this understanding is that the alternative is then???
> A random potch cholila? There HAS to be reason(s)...

Yes, but I don't think we are on a madreiga where we can speculate that the
Holocaust or anything else is divine retribution for a particular aveira.

When my son relapsed two and a half years ago, Adina and I had a lengthy
session on the phone with a prominent Rav here in Yerushalayim. One of the
things I asked him was whether R"L Baruch Yosef's illness could be an oinesh
for something I had done in my younger days. After all, when a child is sick
R"L, it's not because of something the child did but because of something the
parents did. His immediate response was "schar va'onesh b'hai alma leka." He
said I shouldn't even think that way.

-- 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 7/20/00 11:53:52 AM US Central Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> During biblical times when we saw revealed miracles we also saw magicians and
> witches who could do similarly dazzling miracles. Later, when the miracles
> were revealed but we still had a bas kol, there were also seers and oracles.
> Today, when we have neither revealed miracles nor a bas kol there is no
> "black magic" that works.

There was an article in the newspaper today about recent experiments in
high-speed laser wavelength technology. Some physicists have discovered that
lasers (which have no mass) can move faster than the speed of light. They
observed an identifiable, "fingerprinted" laser beam exiting a chamber
before it entered the chamber. Effect before cause; time moving backwards,
or inside out, just as Einstein had predicted.

So much for the theory that today we have neither revealed miracles nor black
magic. G-d is everywhere, far more apparent to the educated eye than He was
during the time of Chazal. There is no difference between reason and faith.

David Finch

RD Finch wrote:
>So much for the theory that today we have neither revealed miracles nor black 
>magic. G-d is everywhere, far more apparent to the educated eye than He was 
>during the time of Chazal. There is no difference between reason and faith.

Are you saying that all miracles are WITHIN the laws of nature?  Was kerias yam 
suf really just a low tide?  Makas dam just bacteria in the water?

Science is great but it can only explain to us those phemona that are within the
laws of nature.  Revealed miracles which are outside of those laws do not exist 
today.  There are, however, all sorts of paranormal occurences which science 
cannot explain.  Some of them may actually be real (although I remain highly 
skeptical).

Gil Student

R"Steve Katz's comment on order of events in Rashi - Balak was:
> Is that maybe the reason some put on tefilin after birchas hashachar, just
>before boruch she'omar?

I think the reason would more likely be that they follow the older custom of
saying birkhot hashachar at home before going to shul. This remark has in it
the hidden assumption that they (or the ancestor they follow) live at a time
or in an area where they wouldn't be wearing tefillin walking down the street.

D.

In Avodah V5#86, GDubin asked:
> Isn't the order wrong? The Midrash Tanchuma has it in the order talis,
> tefilin, shema, which appears more logical. Rabbenu Bachya quotes it in
> that order; why does Rashi apparently change the order?

This morning, it hit me that these three mitzvos d'Oraysa are listed in the
Chumash in the order RaShY uses, i.e. mitzvas tallis is found in Parshas
Sh'lach L'cho [#386 in Saifer Hachinuch], while mitzvos k'rias Sh'ma and
hanochas t'filin are found in P' Vo'es'chanan [#s 420 and 421-22]. As RYGB
might say, v'DUK :-).

> This morning, it hit me that these three mitzvos d'Oraysa are listed in the
> Chumash in the order RaShY uses...

Someone suggested that to me offline, but the problem is, that mitzvas
tefilin is first mentioned in parashas Bo.

All the best (including wishes for a great Shabbos and a HB to MB) from
Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I don't normally like to do this,  but this is a beautiful dvar Torah I had
to share.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Pinchas, Bris Mila, and Parenting
Rabbi Mordechai Willig

Every bris begins with the first three pesukim of Parshas Pinchas, which
describe the heroism of Pinchas, and the subsequent reward of "bris shalom."
Why were these pesukim chosen? Let us examine the background of this story.

"And now I will advise you," (24:14). Rashi, citing Sanhedrin (106a),
tells us what Bilaam's advice to Balak was: Since Hashem hates promiscuity,
induce the Israelite men to sin. This strategy, attributed to Bilaam (31:16)
proved successful and caused 24,00 to die in a plague (25:1,9). The zealous
act of Pinchas halted the plague by turning back Hashem's anger, and earned
Pinchas the covenant of peace (25:7-12).

Why was Bilaam's strategy successful at this particular time, a point
alluded to by his opening word, "veata" (and now)? Rav C.Y. Goldvicht, z"l,
answered this question based on Rashi (23:8) who quotes Sanhedrin (105b),
saying that Bilaam's power was that he knew the precise moment that Hashem
is angry each day. This is a difficult answer to understand because, on the
days that Bilaam came to Balak, we don't see Hashem getting angry at all.

Now, anger is generally a negative attribute. Why then does Hashem exhibit
anger every day? Apparently, anger, which is a manifestation of strict justice
(din) and strength (gevurah), is necessary, albeit in very small measure, to
create a balance in the heavens with Hashem's dominant attribute of kindness
(chessed).

An unchecked overabundance of chessed can lead to immorality (arrayos)
(Vayikra 20:17). Bilaam was frustrated at the complete absence of Hashem's
anger for many days, which prevented him from cursing Am Yisroel. He sensed
that the lack of anger created an imbalance, on overabundance of chessed,
which would make people more susceptible to the temptations of immorality.
Thus, his cunning, and successful advice that now was the right time to
entice the men of Am Yisrael to commit a sin which is a perversion of chessed.

To this interpretation of the Rosh Yeshiva z"l, one may add the following.
Why was Hashem's anger so powerful as to threaten the very existence of our
people and how did an act of Pinchas quell this anger? Perhaps there was,
kivyachol, a measure of pent up anger because of all the days when no anger
was shown. This posed a great threat when the men of Am Yisroel succumbed
to the sin of zenus.

Pinchas is introduced as the grandson of Aharon, who personified love and the
pursuit of peace. When he, of all people, overcame his inherited predisposition
to avoid controversy, and zealously avenged the crime on behalf of Hashem,
the balance was restored and Hashem's anger abated.

The reward that Pinchas received, "brisi sholom", seems inappropriate for an
act of violence. In reality, however, a peace of no principles cannot stand.
Pinchas, by fighting for principle, and by utilizing an attribute that was
antithetical to his personality and up bringing, achieved true sholom.

At every bris, a father overcomes his innate, overwhelming and unconditional
love of his son, and performs, by proxy, what has been called a barbaric
act. Thus the appropriate introduction to the bris is the similar, though
much more heroic and dramatic, action of Pinchas. Perhaps the parallel of
"brisi sholom", the reward for Pinchas, is the proper balance of discipline
and unconditional love required for successful parenting.

The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:49) suggests that a reason for bris milah is the
curbing of male desire, which enables a Jewish man to resist the temptation
of immorality. If so, the introduction of Pinchas' zealousness is directly on
point. As noted earlier, the males of Am Yisroel sinned because the balance
of chesed and gevura was impaired by the absence of Hashem's anger. Pinchas'
zealousness restored the balance and saved us from Hashem's wrath.

Similarly, a bris, according to the Rambam, is necessary to achieve a proper
balance to ensure that the powerful male yetzer hora be held in check.
Therefore, the pesukim describing how Pinchas achieved this critical balance
are quoted as the appropriate introduction to each bris milah.

In our times, society has lost its sense of balance and proportion in these
areas. Parenting in America avoids placing limitations on the activities
of children. In Israel, spanking a misbehaved youngster, a biblically and
talmudically sanctioned act (see Mishlei (13:24) and Makkos 8A), has been
criminalized by the court. While overly restricting a child is inadvisable,
and hitting too hard of too often is prohibited, the nearly total absence
of discipline has led to a situation in which the traditional balance of
child rearing has been lost.

The decadence and permissiveness of modern society poses a threat to all of
our children. At a bris, when we involve the pesukim describing Pinchas's
act and its reward we should be mindful of the lessons that apply to all
generations. By learning these lessons and acting upon them, parents can
raise their children in the traditional, balanced way and thereby be blessed,
as was Pinchas, with the bracha of peace, shalom.

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


[ 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         ]