Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 082

Monday, August 26 2002

• Re: Hakhel - vol II num 3
• Re: Chata'im Velo Chotim
• Re: The "nature" of heavenly fire
• Re: Chazarah in Mishneh Torah
• hakhel
• Re: Chazarah in Mishneh Torah
• Re: elu v-elu
• Re: Kotel Kam on Shabbos
• Re: Gerim as shul president
• Re: Gerim as shul president
• Re: hakhel
• Hahkel bulletin
• Re: women drivers
• "halachik intuition"
• amira le'akum x 2
• Re: liDovid Hashem Ori....not universally recited in Ellul-Tishrei holiday season
• Re: liDovid Hashem Ori....not universally recited in Ellul-Tishrei holiday season
• Uru uru yesheinim meshinas-khem!
• Afar va'eifer
• TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• RE: TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• RE: TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• Re: TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• RE: TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• Re: amira le'akum x 2

 From Avodah V9 #79:
> 15. Shalom Aleichem. On leil Shabbos, as we sing the Shalom Aleichem,
> it appears that we ask numerous times "Mimelech Malchei HaMelochim." Who
> is the King of kings?... And that we respond: Hakodosh Boruch Hu! In
> fact, the words "Mimelech Malchei HaMelochim" are not a question at all,
> but a statement-that the malachim who have just entered our homes are
> sent from the Malchei HaMelochim-Hakodosh Boruch Hu.

Not an issue for those who say "Melech..." rather than "MiMelech...."  I
won't get into which nusach is correct :-).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 08/21/2002 4:33:19pm EDT, Yzkd@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 8/21/02 10:35:07am EDT, gil@aishdas.org writes:
>> I saw a ma'amar Chazal that seems to contradict Beruriah's famous statement
>> of chata'im velo chotim.
 
> See Gitin 7a and Tos. D"H Hashkeim.
 
Interesting gemora and one of the basic sources which the rishonim
wrestle with regarding the din of moser (interesting how moser is tied
to rodef by some - it seems a case of neherag al shem sofo - but isn't
ben sorrer a chidush?) The maharsha thinks that tosfot was missing the
words lbet hamidrash and that's why he posits the possibility that it
means tfila. It seemed to me that the language of kalin mealeihen makes
it harder to interpret that mar ukva was specifically to pray for the
choteh to be destroyed but rather to improve himself and the rest would
take care of itself.

KVCT
Joel Rich

Micha Berger wrote:
> IOW, this fire burns birds, but not people or property?

"Ki of hashamayim yolich es hakol uvaal knafayim yagid davar" I think the bird
should not be taken literally.

David Riceman

Gil Student wrote:
> Is it possible that the Rambam changed his mind while writing the Mishneh
> Torah and did not go back and change his original opinion? I know that
> Mishneh Torah was written over a long period and that each book was
> "published" (i.e. copied by talmidim) right after it was finished.
> But since the Rambam made corrections based on she'eilos why wouldn't
> he make corrections based on his own decisions that he was mistaken?
> Yet, I've found respectable sources suggest that a contradiction from
> an earlier book to a later book -- one that can be found even in later
> manuscripts of Mishneh Torah

What do you mean by "later"? One presumes that the Rambam changed his own
version, but he couldn't recall earlier versions which had circulated and
were later copied.  IIRC there is at least one tshuva of R. Avraham ben
HaRambam in which he indicated that this took place.

> -- is due to Rambam's having changed his
> mind while writing the MT. Should I take this suggestion seriously?

Yes.

David Riceman

1. <teaching Torah to non-Jews-what about Chumash? how does one do so in
the workplace when many comments are made in an informal, watercooler
setting, as opposed to a formal classroom?>

Last time I looked the prohibition of teaching Torah to nonJews was a
complicated issue. A number of rabbis have taught in the past. What
about Jewish history courses in universities.
The actual cases brought in hakhel have occurred to me several times
where colleagues have asked questions about Chumash.
I remember in particular being asked about fish during the flood. It
seems strange to me that one can't answer such questions. Rebbi Yehoshua
debated the Greek philosophers and we have many other questions from
Romans to tannaim in the Talmud.

2. In their discussion of tzniut they mention skirts with slits. Is this
also so clear that a slit for the purpose of comfort is prohibited? I am
not asking about a long slit but one at the bottom of a long skirt? What
is the problem and does everyone agree?

I general while I learned a lot from the Hakhel bulletins I suspect that
some of the issues are more controversial then they make out.

Can someone comvince them to put the issues on the web?

Eli Turkel

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> Is it possible that the Rambam changed his mind while writing the Mishneh
> Torah and did not go back and change his original opinion? I know that
> Mishneh Torah was written over a long period and that each book was
> "published" (i.e. copied by talmidim) right after it was finished.
> But since the Rambam made corrections based on she'eilos why wouldn't
> he make corrections based on his own decisions that he was mistaken?
> Yet, I've found respectable sources suggest that a contradiction from
> an earlier book to a later book -- one that can be found even in later
> manuscripts of Mishneh Torah -- is due to Rambam's having changed his
> mind while writing the MT. Should I take this suggestion seriously?

Gil-

In "Introduction to the Mishneh Torah" by Isadore Twersky (the Talner
Reber z"tl, son-in-law of Rav Soloveitchik and father of YU Rosh Yeshiva
Rav Meir Twersky), published by yale University Press, in the
Introduction of the book, if I remember correctly, Rav Twersky writes
that during his lifeimte the Rambam made a number of changes to his
manuscript based on critiques that he accepted. I cannot quote from the
book to you or give you the reference that he uses at the moment since I
do not have the book in front of me (but I should have it in a week).

Yaakov Ellis

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 06:54:14PM -0400, Turkel Eli wrote:
: 1.When taking chumrahs to satisfy all possible opinions brings to greater
: awe of Hashem I agree that this is an admirable trait. However, some
: poskim eg MB take this as a standard psak for everyone.

Except that the MB wasn't written to be a sefer of pisqei halachah.

The question isn't on the CC, but on REW and others who turned his "it
would make sense, in theory, to be machmir" into "one ought be machmir".

-mi

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> already Shabbos in Yerushalayim. Has anyone heard or does anyone know of
> possibl problems with using this to view pictures of the kotel while it
> is Shabbos where the pictures are being taken?
> 
> Problems in Yerushalayim or the US?
> 
> IIRC we discussed the Yerushalayim problem a few years ago as part of a larger
> discussion on security cameras and shabbos, which shifted to a discussion on
> electronics and shabbos melacha.

To clarify the question: Is it permissible for a person in the US (or
anywhere else in a time-zone west of Eretz Yisrael) for whom it is not
yet Shabbos, to view pictures automatically taken and posted to the
Internet by the kotel kam in Yerushalayim after it is already Shabbos in
Yerushalayim?

Yaakov Ellis

In a message dated 8/22/02 9:26:51 PM !!!First Boot!!!, MFeldman@CM-P.COM 
writes:
>> I've also heard that a ger
>> couldn't take leadership positions in a community.

>> I don't know if this applies today, when we don't have 
>> kehillot like they used to have in europe/EY/mizrach.

> See Rambam Hil. Melachim 1:4.  The halacha is learned from the din that one
> cannot have a melech who is a ger, and this is expanded to all positions of
> authority (even the person who is appointed to oversee irrigation ditches!).
> This halacha is derived from Yevamos 45b and Kiddushin 76b.

The Rambam also paskens that these positions are inherited from father to 
son.  I have heard, based on this, that the issurim of nashim and geirim only 
apply to those kinds of hereditary authority positions that existed in times 
of old, and not to current democratic or appointed positions that have a 
fixed term of any sort.  

I do not remember the source.  Rav Herzog comes to mind, though.

Raffy Davidovich

"Feldman, Mark" wrote:

>  From Andy Levy-Stevenson on Areivim:
>>> Is anyone familiar with the idea that a ger (convert) may not
>>> be a shul president?
>
> From: Akiva Atwood [mailto:atwood@netvision.net.il]
>> I've also heard that a ger
>> couldn't take leadership positions in a community.

My chavrusa (not, as far as I know, a ger) just finished a year as
shul president. He views it as a form of avdus, not of leadership.
In which case the halachic discussion is irrelevant.

David Riceman

In a message dated 08/22/2002 6:00:29pm EDT, turkel@icase.edu writes:
> 1. <teaching Torah to non-Jews-what about Chumash? how does one do so in
> the workplace when many comments are made in an informal, watercooler
> setting, as opposed to a formal classroom?>
 
> Last time I looked the prohibition of teaching Torah to nonJews was a
> complicated issue. A number of rabbis have taught in the past. What
> about Jewish history courses in universities.

See Sreidei aish 2:90  and iggrot moshe y"D 2:132

kvct
Joel Rich

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com

:Some hearos:
1) teaching Torah to non?Jews?what about Chumash? how does one do so in
the workplace when many comments are made in an informal, watercooler
setting, as opposed to a formal classroom?

One may, IIRC, teach Torah shebichsav to a nonJew. Rabbi Reisman tells
the story of a prospective ger who started coming to his Navi shiurim,
since someone told him it was OK since it was Torah shebichsav. Obviously
(to anyone who's been to one or heard tapes) that is not the case.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
> Can custom confer a torah issur on its violation?

Minhag hasochrim koneh.

David Riceman

I was listening to a tape from R' Frand where he quoted a Chidah
explaining why we could have things like Tshuvot min hashamayim. The
gist of it was Lo bashamayim he only applies when the halachik process
can reach resolution (eg yachid vs. rabbim) but if not, then can rely
on dreams etc.

KVCT
Joel RIch

Does anyone have a mar'eh makom for the idea that telling an akum to
tell another akum makes it a shevus dishevus?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In Avodah V9 #81, Mordechai writes:
> A friend also just told me that KAJ in Washington Heights (at least -
> presumably this would be at KAJ branches, e.g. Monsey, Paramus too)
> does not say it - although it is in the Rodeleheim siddur he says
> (anyone know about this ? - RRW? RMP?)

KAJ in Washington Heights, following minhag Frankfurt, doesn't say
"L'Dovid" when other communities do; I can't speak for what the other
KAJ branches do (although I hope they follow the practices of the WH
"parent" in this regard). The Roedelheim siddur is nusach Ashk'naz,
but it wasn't used only by minhag-Frankfurt communities.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:52:57PM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: Siddur Eizor Eliyohu ('al pi nusach HaGR"A') says that it is not said -
: that it is an addition al pi the Ar"i and not a part of the original
: nusach Ashkenaz. So nusach haGR"A would not say it.

I don't understand this, and a number of other Gra-isms.

So what if Ashkenaz weren't nohagim to say something? Does that make
saying another kapitl Tehillim wrong? To the point where one would
poreish min hatzibbur over it?

And what's so terrible about adding another pasuq to Aleinu, or, if
you prefer, saying "Vene'emar vehayah H'..." between Aleinu and Qaddish?

Why is an absence of a source considered a source for an absence?

-mi

I wrote the following for a different venue. I'm curious for reactions from
the chevrah here, since that forum has few Jewishly-educated members.

-mi

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:46:17 +0000 (UTC), xyz@abc.ac.il wrote:
:> What is the Hebrew for:
:> Awake! 

: "Uru"

:> Awake from your sleep!
:  "Uru mishinas'chem"

:> Awakening (noun) 
: Hitorerut"

[Comment about xyz's inconsistant transliteration deleted.]

: The first two are part of the Rambam's explanation of Shofar blowing.

The Rambam's exact words are "Uru, uru, yesheinim mishinaschem -- awake,
awake, sleepers, from your sleep". (Laws of Repentence 3:4)

The following is off-the-cuff, comments and criticism welcome.

It's interesting to note that the Rambam has four words here, since
he earlier (ch 1) broke repentence down into four steps:
    1. leaving the sin (azivas hacheit)
    2. regret (charatah)
    3. verbal, articulated, confession before G-d (vidui)
    4. acceptance for the future (qabalah al ha'asid)

The shofar calls us from the ideal, spelling these out in the reverse
direction on its trip from the goal back to the reality.

1- Mishinaschem -- *from* your sleep. This is abandoning the unthinking
rut. Azivas hacheit.

2- Yesheinim -- sleepers. As they say, knowing you have a problem is
halfway to solving it. Being aware that you are one of the sleepers.
Regret. Charatah.

3- Uru -- awake. Do something. Confess verbally, forcing you to spell
out what you did wrong. Vidui.

4- Uru -- awake. And now plan for being a better person in the future.
Azivas hacheit.

Or, to modernize: stop, regret, verbalize, make a plan.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

Also sent to a not-only-frum forum that I'm posting here for comment.

-mi

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:42:17AM -0500, uvw wrote:
: On the other hand (yes, even the Devil gets me as an advocate from time to
: time), we read in Tana"kh (and in a number of prayers) "anahhnu `afar
: va'efer" [we are dust and ashes], which implies that reduction of the body
: to ashes is equivalent, in some sense, to reduction to dust.

Worth commenting on, since the phrase appears in Vidui (confession) said
on Yom Kippur.

Afar has no value. However, potters can make things out of it and give
it value.

Eifer has no value. However, it is often the remains of something that
once had value.

"And I am 'afar va'eifer'" can therefore be understood in two diametrically
opposite ways. Depending upon which of the two is being used to describe
the past, and which the future.

1- I am worthless, always was worthless, and always will be worthless.

Sounds depressing, but remember, the One you're talking to has an inifnite
yardstick. Anything finite is "vanity of vanities -- haveil havalim". So
recognizing one's relative valuelessness is more about recognizing the
chutzpah involved in approaching G-d, had He not granted us permission
to do so.

2- I am worthless now, but I come from potential and retain that potential.
G-d, I recognize all that I'm wasting...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

The way I understand the Rambam in his peirush hamishnayos (Avos
1:6) is that it is forbidden to be choshed someone who is known as a
scrupulous shomer Torah umitzvos of doing an aveirah. Since he is ShTuM,
he has a chezkas kashrus and one must assume that what he does is kedas
uchedin. Even if he does something that looks extremely incriminating,
since we know him to be scrupulous in mitzvos we must assume that this
action is consistent with his record of keeping mitzvos.

We can and must assume that someone who is known as a rasha also keeps
to his pattern of doing bad aveiros. Even when we see him doing something
that looks good we should assume that it is bad.

But someone who is average, usually keeps Torah umitzvos but is not so
scrupulous, you just don't know. He doesn't have a chazakah because
sometimes he does good and sometimes bad. Therefore, you call each action as
you see it. It is praiseworthy do judge him favorably but not obligatory.

Now, let's take the classic case of a tinok shenishbah. A Jewish
child is abducted by cannibals on an African island and is raised
as one of their own. He is a ruthless killer who eats his prey. He
comes to America (on a student visa, of course) and, while walking
down the streets of Smallville, USA, he grabs a child and takes him
back to his apartment. Of course, even if a tzaddik were to do this we
should alert the authorities. But afterwards are we supposed to assume
that this cannibal must have taken the child to teach him Torah in his
apartment? The Rambam's words are based on common sense. You judge people
based first on their record. Only absent a pattern do we judge based on
the specific action.

As much as I want to, I can't see how there can be an obligation to
judge a tinok shenishbah lechaf zechus.

Gil Student

PS See the Rambam in hilchos mamrim 3:3 regarding tinok shenishbah.

[From an Areivim discussion of dan lekaf zechus and the contemporary
non-frum Jew. -mi]

From Micha:
>> If the CC was also excluding the tinoq shenishba from the issur.

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> Whether or not he was is not explicit. I have to believe that he was 
> excluding a TshN. 

You mentioned that the CC is based on Shaarei Tshuva 3:218-19. The ST
requires one to be dan lkaf zchus a tzadik and a beinoni, but not a rasha,
based on the pasuk "b'tzedek tishpot *ami'secha*." He also quotes Mishle
21:12, which specifically deals with a "rasha."

I would therefore assume that the CI would read the ST as not applying
to a TshN if RSB is correct that the CI considered TshN as part of
klal yisrael. (I wonder also whether the CC was as likely as CI to
consider the issue of TshN. At the time that the CC published the CC
in the latter part of the 1800s, weren't most of the nonfrum people not
in the class of TshN?)

Also ST refers to people in the rasha category as either (1) "rov maasav
la'ro'a" or (2) "ein yir'as elokim bilvavo." I don't know whether a
TshN who believes in God is properly described by these appelations.
After all, (1) his aveiros are b'shogeg while his mitzvos count 100%,
and yisrael milayim mitzvos k'rimon and (2) if he believes in God,
he may have basic yiras elokim.

In addition, wouldn't it make sense in the case of a TshN to distinguish
between strictly religious issues as opposed to general moral issues?
A TshN is often just as likely as many frum people to act morally (e.g.,
be honest in business), so it makes sense to be dan him l'kaf zchus.

The other source of the CC is Peirush Hamishnayos l'Rambam 1:6.
The Rambam distinguishes between a tzaddik and rasha but gives little
info on what constitutes a rasha. I believe that the Rambam may be
analyzed in the way I just analyzed the ST.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
> The way I understand the Rambam in his peirush hamishnayos (Avos 1:6) is
> that it is forbidden to be choshed someone who is known as a scrupulous
> shomer Torah umitzvos of doing an aveirah. 
<snip>
> We can and must assume that someone who is known as a rasha also keeps to
> his pattern of doing bad aveiros. <snip>
> But someone who is average, usually keeps Torah umitzvos but is not so
> scrupulous, you just don't know. He doesn't have a chazakah because
> sometimes he does good and sometimes bad. Therefore, you call each action as
> you see it. It is praiseworthy do judge him favorably but not obligatory.

The way I understood the CC Hilchos Lashon Hara 4:7 and Shaarei Tshuva
3:218-19 (which, along with the Rambam you mentioned, is the basis for the
CC) is that for tzaddikim one interprets even the most negative action
in the most favorable light while for beinonim one doesn't do this.
Nevertheless, for beinonim, when an action may be interpreted either
positively or negatively, one *must* interpret it positively. Note that
the pasuk says "b'tzedek tishpot amisecha," not "b'tzedek tishpot
es ha'tzadik." I think that this is also pshat in the Rambam's first
sentence, when, in explaining "v'havei dan es kol ha'adam l'kaf zechus" he
talks about a person who you do not know to be either a tzaddik or a rasha
and action done is one which could be understood in either a positive or
a negative way. He then goes on to say that for someone known to be a
tzaddik, one must interpret even the most negative-seeming action in a
positive way, based on the maamar: "kol hachoshed k'sheirim lokeh b'gufo."

I believe that the typical frum person is classified as a beinoni, not
a tzaddik. Thus, I was arguing that the typical "TshN" in E"Y (believes
in Hashem, believes that He wants us to be nice to each other) merits
the same level of "dan lekaf zechus" as does the typical frum person
when it comes to issues that are bein adam l'chaveiro.

> Now, let's take the classic case of a tinok shenishbah. A Jewish child is
> abducted by cannibals on an African island and is raised as one of their
> own. He is a ruthless killer who eats his prey. He comes to America (on a
> student visa, of course) and, while walking down the streets of Smallville,
> USA, he grabs a child and takes him back to his apartment. Of course, even
> if a tzaddik were to do this we should alert the authorities. But afterwards
> are we supposed to assume that this cannibal must have taken the child to
> teach him Torah in his apartment? The Rambam's words are based on common
> sense. You judge people based first on their record. Only absent a pattern
> do we judge based on the specific action.

> As much as I want to, I can't see how there can be an obligation to judge a
> tinok shenishbah lechaf zechus.

Ah, but we're not dealing with cannibals!  We're dealing with people who are
halachically classified as TshN.  The advantage of their being classified as
a TshN is that their failure to perform mitzvos bein adam lamakom does not
cause them to be considered reshaim.  Consequently, as you yourself noted,
because they are beinonim, one should judge them favorably when it there is a
common sense basis for such judgement.  Therefore, one would judge them
favorably WRT most mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro but not most mitzvos bein
adam la'makom.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>The way I understood the CC Hilchos Lashon Hara 4:7 and Shaarei Tshuva
>3:218-19 (which, along with the Rambam you mentioned, is the basis for the
>CC) is that for tzaddikim one interprets even the most negative action in the
>most favorable light while for beinonim one doesn't do this.  Nevertheless,
>for beinonim, when an action may be interpreted either positively or
>negatively, one *must* interpret it positively.

The Rambam specifically says, at the very end of his comments, that when a
beinoni does an action that can be interpreted either way there is no
/obligation/ to interpret it positively.

>I think that this is also pshat in the Rambam's first sentence, when,
>in explaining "v'havei dan es kol ha'adam l'kaf zechus" he talks about
>a person who you do not know to be either a tzaddik or a rasha and
>action done is one which could be understood in either a positive or a
>negative way.

As a midas chassidus but not as an obligation.

I wrote:
> Now, let's take the classic case of a tinok shenishbah. A
> Jewish child is abducted by cannibals on an African island
> and is raised as one of their own...

Moshe wrote:
>Ah, but we're not dealing with cannibals!  We're dealing with people who are
>halachically classified as TshN.

As was the cannibal in my example.

Gil Student

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
> The Rambam specifically says, at the very end of his comments, that when
> a beinoni does an action that can be interpreted either way there is no
> /obligation/ to interpret it positively.

Are you referring to the words "b'derech ha'maalah"? I don't know
whether that means that it's not obligatory, as the Rambam in his first
sentence--dealing with a beinoni--is clearly interpreting the phrase
"v'havi dan es *kol* ha'adam l'kaf zechus," and this phrase in the Mishnah
is phrased as an imperative. The Rambam afterwards is merely stating
that there is even more of an obligation when it comes to a tzaddik.

Certainly, Shaarei Tshuvah 3:218 is clear about this, as he writes--in
connection to a beinoni--"v'hu mitzvas aseh min hatorah, she'ne'emar:
b'tzedek tishpot amisecha."

> Moshe wrote:
>> Ah, but we're not dealing with cannibals!  We're dealing with people who
>> are halachically classified as TshN.

> As was the cannibal in my example.

No doubt. But my point is that the label of TshN is not the only issue.
The chiyuv of lekaf zechus for beinonim looks at *context* to determine,
as you noted, what the "common sense" interpretation of a person's actions
should be. My common sense interpretation of a cannibal's actions are
very different from my interpretation of bein adam l'chaveiro actions
of a typical chiloni (who, I assume, will not rob or kill).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 02:22 PM 8/23/02 +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>Does anyone have a mar'eh makom for the idea that telling an akum to
>tell another akum makes it a shevus dishevus?

Shearim Metzuyanim b'Halacha, don't have the sefer handy to find precise 
location. Sorry.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

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


[ 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         ]