Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 127

Thursday, September 21 2000

• Re: hagba'ah
• Re: halvo'as haTorah (was "Re: Hagbeh/Orur Asher...")
• Re: Cucumbers
• Re: hagba'ah
• Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Besuros Tovos
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: Dor Revi'i on shemitah bi-zman ha-zeh
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: Seeing over Hearing
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: nishtanu hatevaim
• Re: Avodah V5 #125
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: harugei malkhut
• Re: Dor Revi'i on shemitah bi-zman ha-zeh
• Re: Besuros Tovos
• Re: Avodah V5 #125

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:46:58 -0400 Gershon Dubin said:
>1.  Despite tendencies in some shuls otherwise,  gelila is preferably given
>    to an adult.
>
>2.  Hagba'ah has greater schar than an oleh,  even schar keneged kulam.

My understanding is that at one time hagbah/glilah was done by
only one person.  I believe the MB explains that the glilah of
the Gmoro is our hagbah, (exact location I forget)
So this is - aiui- the reason our glilah today is ok
with a katan because the Hagbah is the ikkar, the glilah is just
assisting. Plus the katan has a "gadol" supevising.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

In Avodah V5#126, JIRich responded to GDubin:
>> One more:  that the people who are oleh to hagba'ah and gelila
>> should follow the sefer to the Aron.
>> (As should anyone else in the vicinity.)

> If everyone does it, it can be impossible or a lot of elbowing if you want
> to chop it.  If no one does it it looks like yuhara if you do?  Any
> suggestions?

IIRC, there is a minimum distance/amount of steps required when,
unfortunately, being m'laveh a mais -- perhaps we can draw an analogy
between that type of accompaniment and accompaniment of the Torah
back to the Aron. Personally, I try to take a few steps from the area
of my seat, following after the saifer -- given the narrowness of the
JEC-of-Elizabeth aisles and the number of youngsters and oldsters in the
aisle, I only follow the saifer all the way to the Aron if I was on the
Bima when it left that location, e.g. after laining Shabbos at Mincha
(or if I'm participating in the "hachnasah").

Thanks for the thread, guys -- time to review OC 149:1 and the sources
upon which it's based....



In Avodah V5#126, GDubin wrote:
> I was asked by a lurker to post two more details of hagba'ah/gelila:

I believe you mean "hagbahah," not "hagba'ah" -- the fourth letter is a haih.

> 1. Despite tendencies in some shuls otherwise,  gelila is preferably given
> to an adult.
> 2. Hagba'ah has greater schar than an oleh, even schar keneged kulam.

See MB on OC 147 re point#1 -- I believe he explains that k'tanim may
be given g'lilah nowadays (when someone else is doing hagbahah) as a
matter of chinuch. Re point#2, also (and more importantly :-) see the
SA and RMA in that siman.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

[Parts of a post from Areivim -mi]

First -- Torah Thoughts.   The dream for Acharit HaYamim is "Ish
Tachat Gafno, Ish Tachat Te'einato"  -- each person growing/living a
life connected to agriculture.  When a person tills the land himself,
life looks different.  In any case, halacha spends time on agrarian
laws not b/c Torah was written for a primitive agricultural people.
The Torah is eternal.  It expected all of us to have some connection
to land and growing and guarding and caring.   I doubt it meant that
we all become self-supporting farmers, but the idea of a healthy
nation had to do with Nachala (each person has a patch of land).

...

The Golden path is advocated by Torah (see above).  Global economy --
yes, but with local roots and the rule Bal Tashchit is now better
understood under such global views.   So, if we want a Torah Economy,
not all decisions can be made based on personal comfort.  We have to
take into consideration many other factors.  Relying on others for our
basic food needs when we (the jewish state) _can_ grown them ourselves
profitably -- is not, IMHO, what Halacha guides us towards.

Of course matters are far more complex and grey in nature than the
black and white simplistic models I presented here, but they should
give a basic background to the importance of understanding that it
cannot be that Shmitta was intended to wipe out local agricultural.
If this is the result -- we are doing something very wrong.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On 20 Sep 2000, at 11:30, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> My understanding is that at one time hagbah/glilah was done by
> only one person.  

It still IS done that way by the Eidot HaMizrach, which use a sefer Torah
which looks different than the Ashkenazi norm. The Eidot HaMizrach give
that honor to an adult, although they sometimes give a child the honor
of pointing to the place while the adult is lifting the sefer Torah (at
least that's what was done at my shver's Persian shul in Skokie before
he made aliya).

-- 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.

>If current trends continue, the majority of Jews alive in 5768 will live
>in Eretz Yisrael.
>
>Doesn't this mean that we're going to have to deal with dinei yoveil, in
>which case shemittah is di'Oraisa?

I have heard from Rabbi Chaim Frazer that there are some views that a
majority of each tribe needs to live in EY for yovel/shmita to be
di'oraisa.  (I am cc'ing him this in case he can provide mekomos).

-- Eric

> Mazal Tov, Yizku Lgadlah Ltorah Lchupah Ulma'asim Tovim.

Halfway serious question....

IIRC the source for "Torah, Chupa u'Maasim Tovim" is a Gemara at the
end of Psachim, and the Maharsha says that Torah is Bar Mitzva, Chupa
is Chupa and Maasim Tovim is Gmilus Chasodim that you can really only
perform properly after you are married.

BUT, I have found that there are differences in minhag as to the Mi
Sheberach for a newborn girl. When I lived in the States, I davened in a
"RW" Yeshiva, and when a girl was born they only said "Chupa u'Maasim
Tovim." A friend told me that he was almost kicked out as a gabbai in
either Boro Park or Flatbush (I forget which) for saying "Torah" for a
girl. In Yerushalayim, AFAIK, everyone says "Torah" for a girl. I started
writing/saying "(ben) Torah" years ago (pre-aliya) because I figured
it conveyed a bracha that could be interpreted as being only for girls
(if you are gores the "ben") but will be less offensive to those who
would not normally bless girls with "Torah."

Are there mkoros for this that anyone knows about? Hamburger brings
"our" Nusach in Volume 1 of Shoroshei Minhag Ashkenaz P. 396, but he
just puts "Torah" in a parentheses without saying if that parentheses
is because some people don't say "Torah" for girls, or because "Torah"
is not said for girls.

Anyone?

-- Carl

[An explanation relocated from a later email... -mi]

P.S. I realize now that when I posted last night from Shoroshei Minhag
Ashkenaz, I was not clear. The word "Torah" is in parentheses. It is not
muvan mey'ailav that the parentheses are intended to exclude the word
"Torah" from the Mi Sheberach for girls according to some or all minhagim,
or whether it is in parentheses for another reason, but it appears to me
more likely than not that what they meant by putting it in parentheses
was that at least some people don't say "Torah" for girls.

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

RC Sherer wrote:
> IIRC the source for "Torah, Chupa u'Maasim Tovim" is a Gemara at 
> the end of Psachim

Isn't it a baraisa in Kiddushin 29a?

>                                             In Yerushalayim, AFAIK, everyone 
> says "Torah" for a girl. I started writing/saying "(ben) Torah" years ago 
> (pre-aliya) because I figured it conveyed a bracha that could be interpreted 
> as being only for girls (if you are gores the "ben") but will be less 
> offensive to those who would not normally bless girls with "Torah." 

I know some Agudah shuls in Brooklyn that say "Ben Torah" and it REALLY
annoys me. Everyone, no matter how frum, agrees that women are obligated
to learn SOME Torah.

Gil Student

I heard an explantion for using Torah legabei women that women are
obligated to SUPPORT Torah even if they do not activley LEARN torah,
hence Torah applies to them too

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On 20 Sep 2000, at 10:23, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> I heard an explantion for using Torah legabei women
> that women are obligated to SUPPORT Torah even if they
> do not activley LEARN torah, hence Torah applies to them too

I think that my answer to RGS would apply here too - that a 
woman's purpose in life is not to support Torah as a man's is to 
learn Torah.

-- 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.

On 20 Sep 2000, at 10:15, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> Isn't it a baraisa in Kiddushin 29a?

You may be right. I did not check.

>   Everyone, no matter how frum, agrees that women are obligated to learn SOME
> Torah.

If that's the case, how would you (or someone else who holds that way)
justify the minhag of omitting the word "Torah" for the birth of a girl?

Furthermore, I think one can be mechalek, between a boy whose purpose
in life is supposed to be limud haTorah, and a girl who has a chiyuv to
learn certain things in Torah that are nogea in her, but for whom Torah
is not meant to be her purpose in life.

Furthermore, I still have not seen mekoros for any of these minhagim....

-- Carl

>I think that my answer to RGS would apply here too - that a 
>woman's purpose in life is not to support Torah as a man's is to 
>learn Torah.

I'm confused.  Women live through shabbos, too, no?  Besides "challah,
niddah, and ner", there are 248 negative mitzvos that theoretically apply
fully to women, right?  

Don't they have to learn Torah in order to do those things correctly?
Women (and men) cook, right?  Would you trust _anyone_ to be in your
kitchen on a shabbos that didn't know Torah?

-- Eric

On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 05:36:29PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: I think that my answer to RGS would apply here too - that a 
: woman's purpose in life is not to support Torah as a man's is to 
: learn Torah.

Man's purpose in life is to /learn/ Torah? So I could ignore the other
619 mitzvos? (See my recent post about bittul Torah and yissurin.)

Why not just say that women can be einum metzuvos vi'osos? Or that we're
talking about lilmod al minas la'asos?

Or, for that matter, why is "liTorah" assumed to be limud Torah and not
likayeim?

-mi

RE Simon wrote:
> I have heard from Rabbi Chaim Frazer that there are some views that a majority
> of each tribe needs to live in EY for yovel/shmita to be di'oraisa.  (I am 
> cc'ing him this in case he can provide mekomos).
     
The simple reading of the gemara in Arachin 32b is that all of the tribes have 
to be living in their ancestral portions for yovel and all the mitzvos that 
depend on it to be mide'oraisa.

However, Rabbeinu Tam understands that gemara to mean (I'm not sure how) that 
representatives from each of the tribes have to be living in Israel - not 
necessarily all or a majority of each tribe and not necessarily in their 
ancestral portion.  This happened when some of the 10 tribes returned during the
First Temple and, since they mixed in with the remaining two tribes, was also 
true for the entire Second Temple period and probably today as well.

Gil Student

Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
>> The Dor Revi'i cited Sanhedrin 12a which forbids intercalating 
>> a shemitah year, because, Rashi explains, a leap year would 
>> prolong the prohibition against working the land.  The Dor Revi'i 
>> observed that, under the fixed calendar now in effect, the 
>> shemitah year of 5724 was intercalated.

> Maybe this is a proof to Shitas HoRambam Hil. Kidush Hachodesh 16:4, and see 
> Margoliyas Hayam on Sanhedrin Al Asar.

I don't see how it be a proof to the halakhah that you cite since the 
Rambam there seems just to be codifying the beraita or tosefta cited
in the gemara.  Actually when I mentioned this Rambam to my brother-
in-law he tried to bring a proof against the Dor Revi'i from the Rambam
(generally not a strategy with a high probability of success) because
the Rambam says that if the Beit Din did intercalate a shemitah year
the extra month would be added despite the prohibition.  I don't think
that is relevant to the Dor Revi'i's point, because what he was arguing
is that a Beit Din capable of intercalating the year is a pre-requisite
for the institution of shemitah, not that the calendar that we have today
would somehow be invalid.

I don't recognize your second mareh makom.  Could you please enlighten me.  

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Micha Berger wrote:
> If current trends continue, the majority of Jews alive in 5768 will live
> in Eretz Yisrael.
> Doesn't this mean that we're going to have to deal with dinei yoveil, in
> which case shemittah is di'Oraisa?

Don't the sh'vatim have to be in their respective territories for this?

KVCHT
steve

Gil Student:
> However, Rabbeinu Tam understands that gemara to mean (I'm not sure how) that
> representatives from each of the tribes have to be living in Israel - not
> necessarily all or a majority of each tribe and not necessarily in their
> ancestral portion.  This happened when some of the 10 tribes returned during
> the First Temple and, since they mixed in with the remaining two tribes, was
> also true for the entire Second Temple period and probably today as well.

This Rabbeinu Tam (RT) above is proably yet another example
of the TB saying one thing and Tosfos going in a different direction.

What prompted Tosfos to do this?
The answer frequently - though not always - is Mesorah.
And this ties in once again {Sorry Micha} to the concept that Tosfos
was reconciling an Ashkenazic Mesorah to the TB.

I cannot say this is definitely an example of this phemomenon, but
it is a typical suspect.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

> This Rabbeinu Tam (RT) above is proably yet another example of the TB saying 
> one thing and Tosfos going in a different direction.
     
> What prompted Tosfos to do this?
> The answer frequently - though not always - is Mesorah.

I think this is due more to apparent contradictions between gemaras.  Some imply
that throughout the Second Temple era yovel etc. were de'oraisa while others 
inply that they were derabanan.  Tosafos resolved these conflicts one way while 
other rishonim resolve it differently.  See the rishonim to Gittin 36a.

Gil Student

RYGB:  
>: See Yerushalmi Kiddushin 20a, R' Ze'irah would not quote shemu'os of R' 
>: Sheshes because he was blind - hearing is incomplete without seeing.

See also Bavli Eiruvin 13b "Hai Dmichadadna Tfei...Vhou Einecha Ro'os Es 
Morecha" also see Krisus 6a, and brought Lhalacha Rambam Hil. T"T 4:2.

RMB:
>  This doesn't say that one is more primary. Rather, that the two together
>  have a synergy, so that neither alone is of the same quality.

>  IOW, how do we know that R' Zeirah wouldn't consider sight incomplete
>  without hearing as well?

By Matan Torah both were required Ro'in Es Hanishma.., and that is why they 
had to get cured especialy in those Mumim that have to do with learning of 
Torah seeing talking and hearing (see Rashi Shmos 20:15.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/20/00 2:24:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> The simple reading of the gemara in Arachin 32b is that all of the tribes 
> have to be living in their ancestral portions for yovel and all the mitzvos 
> that depend on it to be mide'oraisa.

And this is the way the Rambam rules Hil. Shmita Vyoveil 10:8

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

RMB
>  IF the letter vav was pronounced /v/ in Bavel (as opposed to /w/),
>  it can't be said by someone tooth-less, and therefore neither could
>  "vi'eemma".

AIUI it means Abba *or* Imma, in any case we find (Sukka 42a and brought
in S"A Horav begining of Hil. T"T) that when a child begins talking we
teach him (her) to say, Torah *TZIVA* Lonu... do we have to wait untill
he be able to pronounce it properly, (I mentioned recentlt the MaHaRShA on
Soteh 11b that young children can't say a proper Reish (as in "ToRah")).


Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/19/00 8:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
>  On Yom Kippur we are atoning for our sins.  Therefore, it is important for
>  us to understand what "our" sins are (i.e., not our parents' sins, unless
>  we repeat them). 

Then why not say this in Maariv, at the earliest opportunity?

> Especially if one believes that R. Elazar HaKalir lived in
> tannaitic times (which I don't), it would make sense that he might be 
> making sure that people accept the Jewish rather than Xian version of
> tshuvah.

This Piyut was written by a R' Yehuda not RE Hakalir.

>  While Zoharitic explanations are fine, I think that our tefillah is relevant
>  also to people who do not necessarily accept kabbalistic doctrines.

The point is that if one reads what the Payton wrote at the end he would
see what the purpose of it is, "Chanun Habitah Mimromim Tishpoches Dam
Hatzadikim... Vhaveir Ksomim. exactly the point of the Zohar brought
Lhalacha.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/19/00 8:29:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, RCS writes:
>  Hamburger brings "our" Nusach in Volume 1 of Shoroshei Minhag Ashkenaz 
>  P. 396, but he just puts "Torah" in a parentheses without saying if 
>  that parentheses is because some people don't say "Torah" for 
>  girls, or because "Torah" is not said for girls. 

The L. Rebbe writes that the RaShaB (5th L. Rebbe) says to say also Ltorah 
for a girl based on the Gemara in Brochos 17a that women have Zchus in Torah.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Gil Student:
>> This Rabbeinu Tam (RT) above is proably yet another example of the TB saying
>> one thing and Tosfos going in a different direction.

>> What prompted Tosfos to do this?

>I think this is due more to apparent contradictions between gemaras. Some imply
>that throughout the Second Temple era yovel etc. were de'oraisa while others
>inply that they were derabanan.  Tosafos resolved these conflicts one way while
>other rishonim resolve it differently.  See the rishonim to Gittin 36a.

Could be you are correct, I did not research this.

OTOH, it could also be that a Mesorah prompted RT to favor one gemoro
over another.

IOW, it's just a thought as to what sometimes prompts RT to "kvetch"
inside an apparently straightforward sugya...

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

YZ
>> In the sources I quote in a different post, some hold that Reuvain is
>> culpable.

RRW  
> Reuven MIGHT have been present, jsut not according to Rashi.

The culpability I was referring to was not his being there, rather as
the Beis Yosef writes in his "Magid Meishorim" that Reuvain should have
spoken with Yehuda to make sure that nothing unwanted happens, and see
the Zayis Raanon on Yalkut Shimone Simon 142 that Reuvain received his
share of the 20 silver pieces.

>  Other position: (I think Sipporno and some others) is that the Midyanim
>  pulled Yoseif out.  

This is brought in the Rashbam as Oimek Hapshat, however this is a Das Yochid.

>  The story of the harugei malchus could actually flow BETTER if the
>  10 guilty borthers were only INDIRECTLY guilty
>  A) they would have had a teirutz, and that is what makes Hashem
>  stop their pleading

Haga Batzmoch, HKB"H Ovid Dina Bloi Dina R"L ?, and Bpashtus in Derech
Hateva according to the Payton (based on Medrash) they asked them what is
the Halacha of Goneiv Ish Umchoroi they should have answered this was not
the case, furthermore he filled his palace with shoes, they should have
said we never got the money, and see PDR"E Perek 38 and the RaDaL there
for sources that the Asara Hargugei Malchus were Gilgulim of the Shvotim.

>  This indirect responsiblity is closely analogous to the zkeinim
>  in the egla arufa which of course has its own connection to the
>  yoseif story...

Actualy not being Moche is less then by Egloh Arufo that requires a direct 
action towards the Nirtzach, Loi R'inyuhu Upatrinhu Bloi Mezonos Ubloi Lviya.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/20/00 4:51:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, DGLASNER@ftc.gov 
writes:

> I don't see how it be a proof to the halakhah that you cite since the 
>  Rambam there seems just to be codifying the beraita or tosefta cited
>  in the gemara.  Actually when I mentioned this Rambam to my brother-
>  in-law he tried to bring a proof against the Dor Revi'i from the Rambam
>  (generally not a strategy with a high probability of success) because
>  the Rambam says that if the Beit Din did intercalate a shemitah year
>  the extra month would be added despite the prohibition. 

This is exactly what I meant, but in an Eidiler way, the Rambam rules not 
only that "IF (my emphsis) the Beit Din did intercalate a shemitah year the 
extra month would be added despite the prohibition" but that the prohibition 
was never meant in that case and that they would Lchatchila do so. The Rambam 
who was a Baki Nifla in Kiddush Hachodesh (see famous Ravad Hil. KD"H 7:7) 
knew the calender and saw that ultimately there is possability of having a 
Shana Muberes in a year of Shmita, maybe he concluded from this that it can 
and should be done. 

> I don't think
>  that is relevant to the Dor Revi'i's point, because what he was arguing
>  is that a Beit Din capable of intercalating the year is a pre-requisite
>  for the institution of shemitah, not that the calendar that we have today
>  would somehow be invalid.

I don't follow this, AIUI the D"R was saying that since we see a Shmita year 
come together with a Shana Muberes we must say one of 2 things either that 1) 
it isn't a Shmita year (the point he wanted to make) or 2) that we would need 
a B"D that could rearrange the calender so that it shouldn't be a Shana 
Muberes.

>  I don't recognize your second mareh makom.  Could you please enlighten me. 
 
The Margoliyas Hayam (authered by R' Reuvain Margoliyas) on the Gemara in 
Sanhedrin discusses the Rambam and brings Seforim that deal with it, perhaps 
in one of those sources they may discuss this point too.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

>  I think that my answer to RGS would apply here too - that a 
>  woman's purpose in life is not to support Torah as a man's is to 
>  learn Torah.

 The Beis haLevi at the end of Parshas Mishpatim states that men are 
obligated to learn kol ha Torah kulah, even the parts that aren't halacha 
lmaaseh or dealmsoley binyanei tumah vtaharah. This Torah lishma. OTOH, women 
are obligated to know the halachos that effect them . This is no trifling 
matter because it includes business ethics, shemiras halashon, kashrus and 
dinei Shabbos and Yom Tov. This is not torah lishma because it is geared 
solely towards shmiras hamitzvos.
                               Zeliglaw@aol.com
                                 Steven Brizel

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>                          IOW, if we limit rolling back the line, then
> why not take it to the logical conclusion -- bedieved, now that minhag
> is pluralized, we don't role back at all.

In a lecture on the life of the GR"A, an interesting issue was raised.
Apparently, MaR"N put together the Shulchan Aruch with the intention
that it become the single unifying codex of the Jewish people. Also,
apparently, this was done as a pre-requisite for Ge'ula.

As we know, the Shulchan Aruch did not become a single unifying codex
(even some Sephardi communities did not accept it).

The GR"A also decided to try once more to put together a unifying codex.
To do so, he determined that it had to be done in Eretz Yisrael, and
that is why he set out for there. The evidence of this idea was found
in Amsterdam, where he went prior to his attempt to reach Eretz Yisrael
(sorry, the lecture was a few years ago, and I don't recall the details).

One of the goals of the Chief Rabbinate, as envisioned by Rav Kook was
also creating a unifying codex for the Jewish people.

I wonder if we'll ever be able to do so.  I hope so.

Shannah Tovah!
Shoshana L. Boublil

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


[ 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         ]