Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 116

Wednesday, September 6 2000

• Rashi question
• Re: Yishallal in qaddish
• Re: Language and Thought (in Action)
• Re: Chu"l Vs. EY
• Re: Avodah V5 #115
• RE: Chu"l Vs. EY
• [none]
• Kdushas Shviis
• Re: Chu"l Vs. EY
• Re: Rashi question
• sefarim based upon the piskei halacha of RSZA
• RE: tinok shenishba, etc

In two places in parashas Shoftim,  Rashi mentions the concept of "ein
lecha elah shofet shebeyamecha".  Why?  Also,  why does Rashi wait until
the second case (of ed zomem;  the first is zaken mamre) to use the
familiar phrase "Yiftach bedoro kiShemuel bedoro"?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In  Avodah V5 #111, Seth Mandel wrote:
>The current American "yeshiva minhag"
>is very careful to follow the Gra on saying "yisgaddel" (as opposed
>to minhag of kelal Yisroel up until that time of saying "yisgaddal"),

This is puzzling for several reasons. First, if indeed the first two
words of qaddish must be in Hebrew rather than Aramaic, yithqadash is
_certainly_ Hebrew as it stands. We know that from the uncontested
wording of the Shabbat morning prayer: "Shimkha Hashem Elo-keynu
yithqadash . . . ." (And not yithqadesh" as people have started saying
in the qaddish.)

Lu'ah Hape'alim gives both readings as correct Hebrew. And further, I saw
an article (sorry, I don't have it anymore) that claimed that the nearly
identical verbs are distinguished as being Hebrew or Aramaic by the vowel
under the _first_ root letter: shwa for Aramaic and patah for Hebrew.

And then, BTW, the continuation, "vezikhrekha malkenu yithpa'ar
. . ." uses the same verb, with the same vocalization as in the qaddish,
where no one [that I know of] has ever claimed that this word is Hebrew.
But we digress.)


>I have looked in older siddurim and all had
>yisgaddal, and Sefaradim and Teimanim say that till today.

And the Habad minhag is specifically to say it that way, as do all
Hassidim that I know of (except one Hassidut, but that is another
digression).


>So my point
>is that it is strange that people make a point of the tsere,

I agree, but from a different motivation.


                 IRA L. JACOBSON
                 mailto:laser@ieee.org

In Avodah V5 #112 Seth Mandel wrote:
> Semyon Vygotsky was the one who said
> that without language there is no thought. ...
>                                The research is very interesting and
> thought-provoking, including things like testing how people classify
> colors if the language that they speak has only one word for blue
> (English), or two (Russian), or one word that includes both yellow and
> green (Hebrew).

The theory is very interesting, but I find fault with the examples (unless 
there is something very deep that I am missing).  Not only odes Hebrew 
differentiate between green (yaroq) and yellow (tzahov), but Rashi would 
have us understand that there is a second word for green, tekhelet.  (This 
may not have any effect on the theory.)

                 IRA L. JACOBSON
                 mailto:laser@ieee.org

At 01:05 PM 9/4/00 -0400, Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
>There is the famous Vort from the BSH"T on M'Hashem MItzadei Gever, and the
>Vort of the Tzemach Tzedek, "Mach Doh Eretz Yisroel" .

The flip side of which is, of course, the BSH"T: "B'makom she'machashavto 
shel ho'odom shom hu ho'odom."

But what exactly does the BSH"T say on "Mei'Hashem Mitzadei Gaver"?

KT,
YGB

From: Yzkd@aol.com
> There is the famous Vort from the BSH"T on M'Hashem MItzadei Gever, and the 
> Vort of the Tzemach Tzedek, "Mach Doh Eretz Yisroel" .

Which was allegedly re-interpreted by the rebbe Rayya"tz to mean "make your
EY *here*  in the US rather than with the Zionists".

  Jonathan Baker     |  Mishenichnas Elul marbim becheshbon hanefesh.
  jjbaker@panix.com  |  Don't know if it's classic like Av, Adar, but is true.

From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" 
> I believe that the Chabad Hashkofo, based on Ha'alos Nitzozos and Hafotzas
> Ma'ayonos, is that while officially EY is the holiest place for everyone,
> this should not be construed as a mandate for any and all Jews to live
> there: Where one's tikkun olam (not a Chabad phrase, but captures the
> point) is to be found is where one should be found. This tikkun is
> sometimes Kiruv, but may be limud, tefilla, chesed, anything.

I have the impression (based on shiurim heard over 15 years ago, so it's a
rusty impression) that Rav Kook also believed in the concept that our function
during the galus was ha'alas nitzotzos in chu"l. However, I understand that
RK believed that once we had the opportunity to return as a nation to EY,
the function of ha'alas nitzotzos was best done in EY.

Here are some selections that I happened to have copied down for my shiur on
"tikkun olam" (so they're not necessarily the best selections for the issue
at hand):

"The Jewish outlook is the vision of the holiness of all existence." (Orot
Yisrael 7:12). RK hoped that the return of Jews to Israel would create a
religious renewal enabling Judaism once more to be fully integrated itself
and thus asset a greater influence on world culture: "A great people exerts an
influence not primarily through a detached part of itself but through its total
being." (Ikvei Hatzon). Unlike other religions, which center on a reverence
for G-d as an exalted being very separate from man, our religion, asserted
RK, emphasizes divine ideals--"the passion for equity and righteousness"
(Ikvei Hazon), and to effectuate those goals in the context of a people
struggling with worldly problems, functioning in history.

RK believed that the exile was necessary to purify us because of the
corruption of the Jewish people during the time leading up to the churban.
During the exile, "we were a nation floating in the air and dreamed only of
the kingdom of heaven, of the absolute divine good." "We abandoned world
politics...until the arrival of a felicitous time when it would become
possible to conduct a commonwealth without wickedness and barbarism." (Orot).

Can anyone more fully discuss RK's view on this issue?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From "Insights Into the Daf Yomi" by Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld:
> The Maharit is of the opinion that the Hefker automatically takes
> effect on all land in Eretz Yisrael even if a Nochri owns the property.
> Accordingly, there is no obligation to separate Terumos and Ma'aseros
> from fruit grown by Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael during the Shemitah year
> (since Hefker is exempt from Terumos and Ma'aseros; however, there is
> an obligation to separate Terumos during all other years even from the
> produce of a Nochri, if a Jew performed the G'mar Melachah). In contrast,
> the Pe'as ha'Shulchan holds that one should separate Terumah from such
> produce.

> The issue of separating Terumos and Ma'aseros from such fruit is
> directly related to the famous dispute between the BEIS YOSEF and the
> MABIT whether the laws of Shemitah apply to produce grown on land owned
> by Nochrim. If the laws of Shemitah apply to such fruit, then there is
> no requirement to separate Terumos from them. The Beis Yosef and the
> Pe'as ha'Shulchan was that such fruits do *not* have Kedushas Shevi'is,
> and thus Terumos and Ma'aseros must be separated from them. This was
> also the generally accepted custom of the old Yishuv in Yerushalayim.

> The Mabit, the Maharit (the son of the Mabit), the Charedim, the
> Shelah, and the Chayei Adam disagree. The CHAZON ISH, too, was a strong
> proponent of this opinion (that fruit grown on land owned by Nochrim
> have Kedushas Shevi'is) and, as a result, many have adopted this as the
> accepted practice.

	How is this handled lema'aseh by those who either hold of the
heter mechira or who otherwise use produce of E"Y grown by a nochri:
do they take tru'um and noheg kedushas sheviis for the produce?

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

On 6 Sep 2000, at 10:19, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 	How is this handled lema'aseh by those who either hold of the
> heter mechira or who otherwise use produce of E"Y grown by a nochri:
> do they take tru'um and noheg kedushas sheviis for the produce?

In Bnei Brak, AFAIK, all produce is treated as having Kdushas Shviis, and
when you finish eating, the peels are allowed to rot. Those Yerushalmim
who now avail themselves of Otzar Beis Din (in the old Yishuv, the
Yerushalmim did not hold from Otzar Beis Din, but today many of them
follow the Chazon Ish and use it) also treat the fruit with Kdushas
Shviis and allow the peels to rot. If you look at the dumpsters in fruhm
areas during Shmitta, you will often see bags of rotting peels tied to
the outside of the dumpster to avoid disposing of them with the garbage.

My neighborhood has a fruit and vegetable store under the Hashgacha of
She'aris (Rav Karelitz's Beis Din), which is following the Bnei Brak
minhagim for Shmitta produce. They had an ad in the local neighborhood
newspaper this week describing the three types of produce they will be
selling. If I find it, I will bli neder translate the ad for the list.

-- Carl

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.

In a message dated 9/5/00 6:45:10pm EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> But what exactly does the BSH"T say on "Mei'Hashem Mitzadei Gaver"?

In Hayom Yom for 10th of Tamuz he brings in the name of the "Alter Rebbe"
(not the BSH"T) that a Yid is sent where he is to do a Mitzvah either
Bein Odom Lchaveiroi or Bein Odom Lamokom.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/5/00 6:29:04pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> In two places in parashas Shoftim,  Rashi mentions the concept of "ein
>  lecha elah shofet shebeyamecha".  Why?  Also,  why does Rashi wait until
>  the second case (of ed zomem;  the first is zaken mamre) to use the
>  familiar phrase "Yiftach bedoro kiShemuel bedoro"?

Ulai Yesh Lomar, that there are 2 different issues here in the first
the Ikar is the obligation to listen and follow the laws of the Shofeit
here Rashi emphasizes the Nkudoh "Shofet" shebeyamecha, by Aidim Zommim
the emphasis is on the respect they have to show the Shofet (as Rashi
brings that they have to testify standing) this is a new point, and the
emphasis here is that "Yiftach Bdoro Kishmuel Bdoro" and he is to be
shown the same respect.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

I purchased recently the folowing sefarim which are based upon the piskei
halacha of RSZA-Halichos Shlomo on Hilchos Tefilah and Shulchan Shlomoh
on Hilchos Shabbos. Halichos Shlomoh is based upon psakim which you might
find in Ishei Yisrael or Tefilah khilchasa but includes many psakim not
found in either of these sefarim as well as Minchas Shlomoh. Shulchan
Shlomoh includes many pskei halacha which aren't in Shemiras Shabbos
kehilchasa(SSK) and Minchas Shlomoh. They both give tremendous light
into RSZA and how he confronted each inquiry.

For instance, a chayal asked whether he could/should try to obtain other
soldiers to daven with a minyan. As quoted in Hatzvaa khalacha, this is
assur because it will cause unnecesary chillul shabbos. Halichos Shlomo
contains many maasim attesting to the common sense logic and tzidkus of
RSZA. For instance, RSZA opposed a night mishmar because it detracted
from concentrated limud baTorah during the day.These are a few gems. I
reccomend both heartily for those on this list.
                                                  Steven Brizel
                                                   Zeliglaw@aol.com

With regard to the thread on Conservative rabbanim, tinok shenishba,
epikoros, etc., several brief comments:

1) The fact that one has Conservative smicha does not imply anything about
one's position about torah min hashamayim.  It means that one attended
classes denying torah min hashamayimm but the individual need not subscribe
to it. 

2) A long time ago (~25-30 yrs) I was told by a rav that today, given the
pervasive influence of the secular community, everyone (even in Bne Brak)
has the halachic status of tinok shenishba, and he said that in the name of
the Hazon Ish.   I have not been able to locate that shitta in print, and
the rav (unfortunately, I do not recall his name) was not a talmid of the
hazon ish.  There is a printed statement of the Hazon Ish that seems related
(about the significance of the fact that we do not have nissim gluyim),
although clearly not equivalent.  Does anyone have any knowledge about this
statement?  (I realize most people on this list take a far more restrictive
definition of tinok shenishba)  On a related note, R Chaim Soloveichik's
article docuemnts how secular values have crept in and influenced haredi
society, even those segments most resistant to secular society 

3) With regard to epikorsut, there is a tshuva of the Radbaz (4:187)who says
that someone who errs in one of the ikare hadat because of his faulty
reasoning (iyuno hanifsad) is not considered a kopher, and brings proof from
R Hillel who denied mashiach yet was not considered a kopher.  It would seem
(IMHO) that much of the Conservative rabbinate would fall under that rubric.
The radbaz applies this reasoning to someone who held that Moshe rabbenu was
a g-d.

4) With regard to R Moshe's tshuva, in a previous go around on Conservative
rabbanim, it was posted by reliable witnesses that even though R Moshe held
that in general, kiddushin and  gerushin done by Conservative rabbanim were
invalid, that in individual cases where the Conservative rabbi was known to
be shomer torah umitzvot, he allowed them (including, I believe, gerushin -
it has been a while).  Clearly, while he held that there was a "hazaka"
against Conservative rabbanim, and furthermore, opposed institutional
affiliation and recognition, that did not mean that he viewed all
Conservative rabbanim as being kofrim, and individual members of the
Conservative rabbinate could be judged favorably, something that some
members of avodah seem reluctant to do.

Meir Shinnar

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


[ 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         ]