Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 069

Wednesday, December 4 2002

• handshake
• Menorah
• Rambam Information Request
• "Ha dooda-im nasnu ray-ach"--ze Reuven she-hee-tzeel es Yosef
• RE: rambam's shitta
• Re: Astrology
• Origin of Dreidel
• Re: Origin of Dreidel
• Re: donkeys
• Re: Living in Yerushalayim
• simultaneous brachos on hadlaqas ner chanuka?
• simultaneous brachos on hadlaqas ner chanuka?
• RE: simultaneous brachos on hadlaqas ner chanuka?
• Re: Asher malach beterem kol
• RE: rambam's shitta
• Women lighting hannuka menora
• Re: donkeys

Someone asked is it possible to consider a handshake between a man and
a woman as an issur of y'hareg v'al yaavor. See Beis Yosef YD 195 that
according to the Rambam a man taking the pulse of a woman is an issur
of the level y'hareg v'al yaavor. Is the halacha like the Rambam? The
Beis Yosef seems quite concerned that this is the case. In SA the Beis
Yosef omits the Ramban's leniency.

Even according to the Shach there who is lenient for doctors, RMF posits
it is difficult to extend this leniency to a handshake. Therefore,
it goes back to being an issur of y'hareg v'al yaavor. See the Ran at
the beginning of Perek Kol Shaah that a lav of the issur arayos, even
if the lav does not have a death penalty, is still y'hareg v'al yaavor.

As to the idea of distinguishing between what type of woman is present:
Jewish or not; married or not, this Shach does NOT seem to make this
distinction because he brings a proof from the minhag of doctors treating
non-Jews. Presumably this minhag is not due to doctors specializing in
only treating married non-Jewish ladies. Perhaps the Shach is based on
Tos AZ 36b that according to ALL opinions there is a Torah prohibition for
a Jew with a married non-Jewish lady. Since for non-Jews to be married
according to halacha merely requires their public consent to be together,
it seems that all couples fall under this rubric. Basically like the
state of CA palimony laws. Therefore, the likelihood of stam women in
the shuk being a non-Jewish penuia is minimal. Therefore, shaking hands
with a stam woman seems to be an issur of the level y'hareg v'al yaavor.

Shlomo Goldstein

Ramban in b'ha'aloscha writes that the smichus haparshiyos of menorah
to chanukas hamishkan by the nesi'im is because Ahron needed a nechama
since he was not able to bring a present with the other shevatim.
Ramban says korbanos were not used as a nechama bec. it is not l'doros,
but menorah is a remez to ner chanukah as well which is a mitzva l'doros.
I thought you could explain this based on the chakira of the Brikser
Rav whether a zecher l'mikdash is a new mechayev, or just a reason for
extending the old chiuyuv which existed in mikdash (e.g. sefiras ha'omer -
is it the same chiyuv as b'zman habayis extended, or is zecher l'mikdash
a new mechayev?) Ramban holds the new mitzva derabbanan of ner chanukah
is an extension of the chiyuv d'oraysa of hadlakas menoras mikdash given
to Ahron, not a new mechayev. Fits with the ramban in milchamos that
ner chanukah has to be dumya to the menorah in mikdash.

Kashe on Ramban in why is menorah a nechama for Ahron - the gem. in
yoma 24 says hadlaha is not avodah and is kosher for a zar to light.
Ramban compares it to nesiyas kapayim - one is a mitzvas kehunah and
one isn't. Ramban in Naso says chanukas habayis is a miztva d'oraysa.
Meshech chochma writes that although hadlakah is kosher b'zar, the
hadlakah which is mechaneich the menorah must be done by a kohein.
So perhaps chanukah menorah is not just an extension of the hadlakah
per se, but of the din of being mechaneich the avodas mikdash through
the hadlakah.

Could be that is the mach. B"Sh and B"H whether to follow yamim
hanichnasim or yamim hayotzim - is the ikkar the zecher to the kiyum of
chanukas habayis, so the 1st night is most significant, or is the ikkar
the zecher to the mitzvas hadlakah, so the longer the shemen lasted the
greater the nes.

Good Shabbos & Good Chanukah,
-Chaim B.

Perhaps someone could save me some time if they have this information
READILY at hand or if they know of a secondary source for this information
(please do not go out of your way to do special research):

1. Somewhere in his Perush Ha-Mishnah (?) the Rambam states that he
only disagreed with the Rif on ten (?) occassions. I would appreciate
if someone could provide the citation.
2. Citations to the places in the Mishnah Torah where the Rambam doe
not follow the Rif.
3. Citations to the places in the Beit Yosef and/or in the (Karo) SA
where the Beit Yosef/Mechaber does not follow the Rambam.

KT
Eliyahu

From: "nwitty@ix.netcom.com" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
> I seek a midrash that states as follows:
> "Ha dooda-im nasnu ray-ach"--ze Reuven she-hee-tzeel es Yosef
> "Ve-al be-sachaynu kol megadim"--ze ner chanukah

I'll be surprised if you find it in any of the 'conventional' Midroshim.
The Satmar Rebbe z'l who was well versed in Midrash, when quoting it twice
- in his sefer Divrei Yoel on Chanuka - brings it from the Chasam Sofer.

[BTW, anyone who is interested in some really beautiful drush for
Chanukah should get hold of that volume.]

I saw this Midrash explained with a short vertel from the Ksav Sofer z'l
saying that Reuven was makpid not be fall under any chashad of gneiveh
by picking the Dudoim from hefker. (Ayin Rashi Vayetzei). And we pasken
that someone with 2 doors should light candles at both - to ensure no
chashad oh him failing to light.

Thus "Hadudoim nosnu re'ach - zeh Reuven (who was makpid not to come
under a chashad - and similarly 'v'al "pesocheinu" [loshon rabbim -
if we have 2 doors] - zeh ner Chanuka - that both doors must -
 for the same reason - have neiros..

Meanwhile, a nice pshat I saw in the sefer Toldos Yisroel (by Rav Volf
Ginzler z'l, rov of Feherdyarmat in Hungary) on Maoz Tzur.

[BTW, he quotes the above Midrash and also a second version
"Hadudoim...zeh Yissoschor shenosan re'yach Torah"]

To explain "Uminosar Kankanim" he brings the Beis Yosef's kasheh -
why we have 8 days Chanuka and not 7 ....?

The Pri Chodosh answers that one day is to celebrate the 'nitzochon
hamilchomo'.

The Taz says that there was a nes every day - as there was leftover oil -
even after the first day.

The TY quotes the Taz explaining why Purim we have 'maachol umishteh'
and on Chanukah - 'shir urenonim' - on Chanukah they were trying to
turn us into sinners whilst on Purim we celebrate the winning a battle.

Now according to the PC's pshat, we should at least celebrate the first
day of Chanuka with 'Mishteh vesimcho' - as that extra day is - according
to him - for 'nitzochon hamilchomo' - as is Purim...

However, according to the Taz's pshat (leftover oil) - that problem
doesn't exist...

Un dos iz pshat  -
"Uminosar kankanim [even day 1] naaseh neis lashoshanim -
[they had leftover oil] and because THAT that was the neis [and NOT
nitzochon Milchomo], therefore - Bnei Vino yemei shemone - 8 days daykeh -
kovu - [only] shir urenonim - [and not mishteh veseimcho..].

(I hope my translation doesn't lose too much of the flavour.
If you want me to better explain it - feel free to call...)

And finally - the Nitra Rov shlit'a writes that he heard the following
from the SR z'l - Chanuka 5715.

On the Bes Yosef's answer (to his famous kashe) that the oil was
originally divided into 8 parts and that 1/8th did its job - al pi nes,
the Pri Chodosh queries how they could do this? It is ossur to prepare
less than the required shiur ("m'erev ad Boyker" - ten lo kemidoso..)

The SR suggests that they prepared the oil in the menorah - early in
the afternoon and decided to wait and see what happens. If miraculously
the menorah fills - then they know they will have enough for 8 days -
and if not then they can still be mekayem the 'ten lo kemidoso' later on..

Accordingly this also explains the Rambam's opinion that on the 25th
Kislev "nochu m'oyvehem" and only started lighting on the 26th. But
according to the above - the nes already occurred on the 25th - when
they were preparing the lights for later in the evening...

SBA

me (old)
>it is not so clear, even given the rambam's explicit statements in the
>Moreh against Aristotle, what his true beliefs were. However, in the MT,
>he is willing to rely on the eternity of the world (by the way, I recall,
>though can't look up right now, tha the Or Sameach on yesode hatorah
>i,5 understands the rambam similarly - this isn't merely an academic/MO
>cabal misreading the rambam) - clearly not a reliance on mesora.

RYGB
: The OS just refers you to the MN (p. 124 in the RYK ed.).

: I am not sure exactly what the point of this post might be.

: This Rambam states not a whit about the eternity of the world.

: If "tamid" means eternal in the sense of kadmus, then we are declaring
: kadmus every day when we say "ha'mechadesh b'tuvo b'kol yom TAMID ma'ashe
: Bereishis." Clearly tamid means constantly - after Creation.

: If "ein ketz" means ladmus, then we have been and will be suffering
: forever and ever, as we say on Chanukah: "V'ein ketz l'yimei ha'ro'oh!"

: Rather v'ein ketz means ceaselessly.

THis is the problem of refusing to read what the rambam is writing about,
and using dictionary definitions and core principles to read psha.

Clearly, one definition of eyn ketz and tamid can be constantly after
creation.

However, the rambam is using the constancy of the movement of the heavens
as proof for the existence of god - and if they only existed for 5000
years, that wouldn't be a proof. In context, the meaning of tamid veyn
ketz has only one meaning - eternal, uncreated.

This is precisely what the Ohr Sameach is pointing to in his reference
to the rambam (perek 71 helek 1),

and therefore you will find that always in what I composed in legal
matters (sifre hatalmud) when an occasion occurs to mention the principles
of faith, and I will come to speak about proving the existence of god,
that I will prove it through statments that incline towards an eternal
world, not that I believe in eternity, but that I want to prove his
existence in our faitht through proofs that have no possible controversy.

Clearly, the rambam is saying that in his halachic works, he will use
statements consistent with an eternal world - and that is the simple pshat
of hilchot yesode hatora 1:5, and that is clearly how the ohr sameach
understands it, which is why he refers to this Moreh nevuchim passage.
As RYGB says, there is no other way to learn the rambam.

Meir Shinnar

I find the entire effort to find specific justifications for the Rambam's
view in chazal misguided. The Rambam does not need a specific source
for every detail of his hashkafa; rather, a detail may be a logical
corollary of an axiom which does have follproof support.

Since he sees the First Cause as being responsible for everything that
happens in the sublunar spheres (and remember that time is only an
artifact of motion - therefore everything that happens is essentially
directly caused by G-d, see beginning of book II of MN), there is
no place for astrology as popularly conceived, or for magic for that
matter. That is a basic belief, that stars do not have an independant
power to determine events follows; it does not need to be separately
proven. That stars may reflect what will happen is not logically
inconsistent, explaining the references that were shared here.

The point is, the Rambam does not need specific sources in Chazal for
his opinion for it is a logical extension of his shitah which is well
proven, in his view, to be held by Chazal.

mlevinmd@aol.com

Who put the NUN, GIMMEL, HEY, SHIN/PAY on the dreidel? Obviously(?) it
was not on the ones the children played with in caves b'shas maaseh.
Is this written up historically somewhere ? Or alternatively, among
the many drushes on the meaning of the letters...which is the oldest
(i.e. the letters this were there then)?

Chaim

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:11:35AM -0500, H G Schild wrote:
: Who put the NUN, GIMMEL, HEY, SHIN/PAY on the dreidel? Obviously(?) it
: was not on the ones the children played with in caves b'shas maaseh.

I don't think we invented the dreidle. In his peirush on Alice in
Wonderland, Martin Gardner explains the reference to a "teetotum".
This was a four sided top with a letter on each side. If if landed
"T" side up, you got "totum" -- all.

Sound familiar?

It would also explain why the minhag about gambling also generated
card games. The pseudo-bitul-zeman came first, dreidle and cards
were specific implementations based on what games of chance were
popular.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

>> Who says that it originated with the Koran and even if it did - the use
>> by the above sources surely justifies it.

>The reason for my question was to find out if it originated with the
>Koran. Would you feel the same way if the above quoted sources were
>unaware of the source but used what was a common expression(I don't know
>that to be the case)?

Why don't we turn the situation around. What examples can you cite
of improper sources being widely accepted for at least 700 years and
then after being discovered to be from these types of sources being
rejected. As Rav Moshe indicates with non Jewish names - there can be a
process of gerus or as he indicates with clothing - how do we know that
it didn't originate with Jewish sources.

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

R MHoffman:
> Regarding Shlomo Goldstien's statement "There is NO obligation to live in
> Yerushalayim despite its maaleh," I would like to add the hashkafic
> ramifications.  The gemara in K'suvos 110b states that a woman can force
> her husband to divorce her (and retain full kesuba rights) if she wants to
> be oleh to Yerushalayim and he refuses. The Rambam poskens this halacha
> in Hilchos Ishus 13:20. If, in fact, there is no obligation to live in
> Yerushalayim, that would mean that a woman could force a divorce simply
> because her husband refused to pursue a "simple" maaleh, as opposed to
> having violated an obligation.

I don't think this follows. The residence is presumed joint, so the cause
for divorce is not the husband's virtue, it is the wife's inability to
pursue a "maalah".

David Riceman

When being motzi one's wife in hadlaqas ner Chanuka, it would seem that
the other family members who light for themselves should be silent,
so the wife can listen to the husband's bracha and avoid "t'rei qalei"
problems. Yet it seems popular practice that all family members (except
the wife) together make the brachos and light. Any ideas why? (Or is
my observation of common practice incorrect?). Even if the wife is not
present it would seem preferable that each family member make his/her(*)
own bracha so the others can answer amen.


(* For extra credit we can take a survey of whether girls light ner
Chanuka)

Thanks.  A freilichen chanuka.

From: dmill945 <dmill945@yahoo.com>
<<Or is my observation of common practice incorrect?)>>

never heard of everyone making the berachos together.

<<(* For extra credit we can take a survey of whether girls light ner
Chanuka)>>

Until bas mitzva.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> <<(* For extra credit we can take a survey of whether girls light
> ner Chanuka)>>

> Until bas mitzva.

What's the sevarah? Because of chinuch for a mitzvah that they'll never
do when they are gedolos? Seems to me that either: (1) girls should
never light--as per the Chasam Sofer, or (2) girls & women should light
(af hein hayu b'oso ha'es), except that a married woman and her husband
count as one individual (ishto k'gufo).

I, of course, follow RYBS' shittah that women of all ages should light,
including the situation when their husbands are lighting. I believe this
is based on the Rambam, who says that mehadrin min hamehadrin means that
you light candles representing all b'nei habayis. The Ramo is based on
the Rambam--just avoids Tosfos' kasheh on the Rambam by having separate
menorahs for each individual, so that you can tell how many days of
Chanunkah have elapsed.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:29:37AM -0500, Jay Spero wrote:
:> We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
:> anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.
:> How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?

: The Ohr Gedayahu talks about this on the first page of his chelek on 
: Moadim. He says that ein melech belo am is mitzad the briyah, but mitzad
: HKBH, being that He is malah min hateva, He is  King with or w/o an am.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:46:51PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Rav Gedaliah Shor addresses this in Ohr Gedalyahu. He says that the
: idea of ein melech belo am is _also_ a beriah. Now, go explain that <g>!

Li nir'eh both are saying the same thing.

This seems akin to a machloqes Rambam and Ramchal identified by R' Aryeh
Kaplan (I think it's also in writing in the first volume of collected
articles). I've explained it at greater length in the past. The Rambam
holds that sine HQBH's essence is Emes, He can not defy logic. The example
in the Moreh is the impossibility of creating a round square. Omnipotence
means the ability to do anything meaningful -- paradoxes are meaningless.

Ramchal holds that logic is a beriah, and therefor HQBH is not limited
by it. I wondered in the past (as RGD does here) how one is supposed to
study hashkafah once one reaches that claim. What tools can you think
about it with, without logic at your disposal? For that matter, didn't
the Ramchal use logic to create the syllogism (that H' creating logic
implies its inability to limit Him)? How do you use logic to prove
logic doesn't work?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

I am not sure why my good friend desires to harp on this point, but if so 
it is, then so be it. Yagdil Torah v'ya'adir:

At 08:14 AM 12/2/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>This is the problem of refusing to read what the rambam is writing about,
>and using dictionary definitions and core principles to read pshat.

Shucks. Here I thought that Hebrew was a language that I understood, and 
now RMS is telling me that I do not!

Actually, I think what he is saying is that the dictionary is wrong, no?

RMS is actually suggesting re-define many words in the Hebrew language - 
for example, the Rambam earlier in that first ("rishon" - another word RMS 
seems to find obscure) perek, first halacha, says Hashem was "mamtzi kol 
nimtza" - to me that means "brings into existence." Reb Meir, what does 
that mean to you?

The fifth halacha, therefore, may be phrased somewhat ambiguously to cover 
as much as possible (hence the reference to the Moreh) - but not as a 
counterpoint to the notion of HKB"H as Borei.

>As RYGB says, there is no other way to learn the Rambam.
>
>Meir Shinnar

YGB says so again.



Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

I have never understood how the achronim apply ishto kegufo to hanuka
candles. The only halachic parameter I know for ishto kegufo is the idea
that a man may be able to recite shma while holding his wife's hand. How
it got to hanuka beats me-- the gemora says they light, why should we
argue with it? yehudis or no yehudis.

Zvi

In a message dated 12/02/2002 9:26:59 PM EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> Why don't we turn the situation around. What examples can you cite
> of improper sources being widely accepted for at least 700 years and
> then after being discovered to be from these types of sources being
> rejected. As Rav Moshe indicates with non Jewish names - there can be a
> process of gerus or as he indicates with clothing - how do we know that
> it didn't originate with Jewish sources.
 
I'd be interested in seeing this tshuva inside-cite?
What is the status of the first group that names or clothes -are they
doing wrong but the continued actions make it right later?

KT
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]