Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 086

Thursday, January 9 2003

• aver min hahai
• Eldad HaDani
• Saducees in the Sanhedrin
• RE: Chatam Sofer
• Re: Avodah Zarah
• RSRH and Mendelssohn
• Re: RSRH and Mendelssohn
• T.I.D.E.
• Re: Animals suffering
• Re: Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo
• melo chol haaretz Kevodo
• Re: Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo
• Makkos 7 - Tinok She'Nishba
• Re: Hichbad'ti... ve'es lev avadav...
• Re: Hichbad'ti... ve'es lev avadav...
• RMF vs. RSBA
• [Areivim] moshiach
• Re: moshiach
• Eldad HaDani
• Disposable Containers etc. and Muktzeh
• Techeles
• Re: Mesaye'a
• Re: Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo
• melo chol haaretz Kevodo

Rema YD 13 says there is NO issur of aver min hachai with regard to fish.

Shlomo Goldstein

Is the story told by Eldad HaDani taken as historically accurate?
What do frum historians say? Poskim? Yes, I know about shechitah
without a beracha. But what about his stories of what happened to the
various shevatim? If he was correct, what happened to those shevatim?
Any mareh mekomos?

Gil Student

In Avodah 10:84, R' Eli Turkel asked <<< we know that in the days of
Shimon Ben Shetach that the Saducees took over the Sanhedrin. What
happened to kiddush hachodesh at that time? >>>

This is news to me, and I think the ramifications go way beyond Kiddush
Hachodesh. To my history-challenged mind, the idea of Tzidukim taking
over the Sanhedrin is about as reasonable as Hebrew Union College taking
over the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, or the Rabanut HaRashit.

I have to wonder how did such a thing could occur? And if it *did* happen
(by trickery or whatever other method), why would such an organization
be considered legitimate in any sense of the term? That is, why would
anyone in the Torah-observant community bother to pay any attention to
its pronouncements?

Granted that if a Beis Din declares Rosh Chodesh incorrectly, the
declaration is still valid, but that only applies to a properly authorized
Beis Din, not an organization whose members are mostly mumarim, no?

Akiva Miller

> If Harav Moshe Sofer is the posek acharon for all of Israel (or, at least,
> Ashkenazim) as has been proclaimed by some on this list [actually, on
> Areivim -mi] , then our charedi contingent in Israel may have a serious
> problem in halacha.

Most Yerushalmis learn half-day and work half-day. No problem there.

Akiva

Seth Mandel wrote
"The Me'iri is the odd man out here. He says that the whole halokho in
Avodah Zara is only talking about people who worship idols. He interprets
the word Notz'ri (lit. Nazerene, i.e. Christian) used in the g'moro
as referring to people who worshipped N'vukhadNetzar (a very forced
interpretation, since we know of no cult in Assyria to worship that or any
other king, even though we know a lot about their religion. Even if one
were to imagine that there were such a cult, it would have died out long
before the time of the g'moro, there having been many Assyrian kings since
then, and the Assyrian kingdom having been destroyed by the Persians. So
the Me'iri's interpretation is far-fetched, to put it charitably)."

R' Yonasan Eibushits in the end of the introduction to his Sefer Creisy
Upleisy also says that Notzrim refers to Babylonians, but not because
they worshiped Nevkhadnetzar rather because he was their (religious)
leader. Though he speaks positively about the Christians (it doesn't
sound like he was just trying to please the censors) he does not say
explicitly that it's not AZ. BTW can someone tell me what the simple
pshat in Micha 4,5 "For all the nations will go a man in the name of
his god and we will go in the name of Hashem our Lord forever"
                           Yona

R' Mechy Frankel quotes Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch:
"Do you seriously believe that if Maimonides and Mendelssohn were to come
into your midst today they would accept you as one of their own? If they
(i.e. Rambam and Mendelssohn) were to listen to your sermons, read your
pamphlets, which label the Torah and Mitzvoth as antiquated, and if they
could see all your "progressive" doings, they would rejoice in your true
"progress" and praise it as well? Now what about Mendelssohn? He would
approach your chaos in his calm, gentle, and circumspect manner and say
to you 'In truth, I do not see how anyone born into the House of Jacob
can possibly, in good conscience, do away with the Law...Commandments
that have been enjoined upon every son of Israel, regardless of whether
or not there is a Temple service, must be observed strictly according
to the words of the Law..'"

R' Frankel makes two unwarranted inferences from the above quote:
1. that RSRH considers Maimonides and Mendelssohn to be on a par.
2. that RSRH considers Mendelssohn [or his Biur] to be -- I don't know
   what, acceptable, kosher, frum?

But RSRH was not addressing frumer yidden here and urging them to study
Mendelssohn. He was addressing Reform Jews, who continued to respect
only two commentators that could be considered in any way traditional:
Maimonides and, lehavdil, Mendelssohn. And he was saying to those
Reform Jews, "Even by your own lights, if you follow the people YOU
claim to respect, there is no standing for you to have made the changes
in Judaism that you have made. Mendelssohn, whom you claim to respect,
would be appalled by what you have done."

To take this as evidence that RSRH himself thought highly of Mendelssohn
or of his Biur is unwarranted. Imagine me talking to a Conservative
rabbi and saying, "Zechariah Frankel himself would be appalled by your
synagogue!" Then imagine a scholar a hundred years from now saying,
"Zechariah Frankel was an ehrlicher Yid, and even Toby Katz said so,
here's the quote."

TK

From: T613K@aol.com
>R' Mechy Frankel quotes Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch:
...
>To take this as evidence that RSRH himself thought highly of Mendelssohn or 
>of his Biur is unwarranted.  Imagine me talking to a Conservative rabbi 
>and >saying, "Zechariah Frankel himself would be appalled by your 
>synagogue!" Then imagine a scholar a hundred years from now saying, 
>"Zechariah Frankel was an ehrlicher Yid, and even Toby Katz said so, 
>here's the quote."

I'm afraid the unwarrented inferences are rather entirely on RnKatz's
side. Her remarks at the end unfortunately are a direct distortion of
RSRH's position. Particulars as follows;

1. First the trivial matter of the supposed presumption of equality
between Rambam and MM. Rnkatz's suggestion is a strawman unsupported
by anything actually written. If you will re-read the sentence i actually
penned you will note that I referred, quite accurately, to "the un-ironic
coupling of Rambam and MM" in the same sentence. Which is precisely the
usage by RSRH. it does not imply a "par" between the two. rather that
they are on the same side as general good guys. for a direct grasp of
RSRH's attitude towards MM and Rambam, and his esteem for MM, I would
refer you to his Iggeres Tzofon (letter 18)

2. On the more substantive matter of RSRH's actual attitude towards MM, I
confess that, while i can admire the creative juices that can come up with
such a spin, it is difficult for me to understand how one can read the
paragraph I adduced and honestly interpret it as a throw-away reference
to a MM as only a "l'shitaschem" good guy, while I don't think so.

the truth is that RSRH admired MM greatly, though he didn't agree
with everything he said. In particular RSRH bemoaned MM's failure to
adequately "unify" the two cultures (i.e torah and secular) but RSRH felt
it was still a work in progress. Had MM only been able to complete his
work, the Reform movement might never have come into being! (this seems
quaint and you don't have to agree, but that was RSRH's opinion). RSRH
accepted significant components of MM's religio-philosophical opinions
(judaism is a revealed law rather system of beliefs, symbolic essence
of mitzvos. RSRH also quoted - approvingly - MM's "Jeruslaem" a number
of times in his own writings). Speaking of MM directly RSRH calls him
"an excellent and superior figure, a highly distinguished figure,... an
observant Jew who demonstrated that it was possible to preserve a way
of life and at the same time gain distinction as the Jewish Plato"

On the occasion of MM's 100th yohrzeit, in an article written by RSRH's
son, during RSRH's lifetime and published in RSRH's newspaper so we may
assume it also reflected RSRH's opinion, MM is called "one of the noblest
sons of Israel" who "had taken his place amongst the righteous and honest
men in heaven. His memory remains alive amongst men who pay homage and
admiration to his blessed work..he serves as a supreme example of truly
devout Jewish conduct ". i think that an external observer reading these
lines, as well as others quoted, as well as iggeres Tzofon for that
matter, would find it rather difficult to swallow Rnkatz's suggestion
that to think <<...RSRH himself thought highly of Mendelssohn or >of
his Biur is unwarranted>>.

3. Oh yes, the Biur. The references brought actually were meant to
demonstrate RSRH's respect and admiration for MM. We have done so, at
least for those who tend to credit explicitly demonstrated and published
evidence. None of it actually addressed the Biur directly. (Well yes,
come to think of it, it did. Notice the reference to "his blessed work
in above paragraph.) But in any event i shall repair that ommission.
R. Breuer testifies to the esteem RSRH had for the Biur. RSRH's uncle
(named, oddly enough, Moshe mendelssohn! - a different guy) testified
to RSRH's acquisition of all of Wessley's (the author of the vayiqroh
volume of the biur) to manuscripts. Thus the answer to RnKatz's kashrus
question re RSRH's attitude towards the Biur <<acceptable, kosher,
frum?>> is, all of the above.

The insertions of "L'havdil" between Mendelssohn and the Rambam are
also entirely inappropriate. It is a formulation used to separate
appositely posed individuals who find themselves in unfortunate literary
proximity. It is NEVER used to separate more or less fellow travelers who
may be on vastly different levels of greatness or accomplishment. for
example one would never write a sentence such as ""moshe rabbeinu and
L'havdil your LOR..". Thus its insertion here by RnKatz is either meant
to imply that such was RSRH's true opinion, which would simply be false,
as we've already demonstrated, or that it is her own. If the latter,
then she, just like RSBA, is certainly entitled to express an opinion
(though of course she doesn't have RSBA's excuse of spending her time
hanging upside down by her feet, which is bound to interfere with
clear thinking, i.e. the sort which agrees with my own), but other
b'rei samchoh disagree with her. but that would merely reprise the
disagreement we've just aired with RSBA, so lets not go there again.
But she is not free to distort RSRH's position in the matter. actually
i guess she is, but at least we can call her on it.

There is another thought that occurs to me. And that is the notion that
there has long been a history of dispute concerning RSRH's intellectual
legacy. in brief, there are those who have vigorously propounded the
notion that a lot of that torah im derech eretz and cultural openness
stuff that one asociates with RSRH is nothing but a hora'as sho'oh, part
of the kulturekampf with the reformers of the day, but certainly not a
l'chatchiloh derech. Others (me too) disagree. i believe the former
position has been generally discredited but there are still proponents.
I'm wondering whether, perhaps, RnKatz's note does not signify her
identification with a (wrong) side of this machloqes.

Answering RnKatz also provides me witht he opportunity to add yet one more
interesting factoid to the MM-Biur mix which i had forgotten. And that
is that, amongst the subscribers to the Mendelssohn Shir Hashirim volume
in 1848 was none other than one, da da, R. Avrohom Sh'muel Binyomin
Sofer, i.e. the K'sav Sofer! This is particularly curious since,
aside from the KS's father's opposition to the Biur, the CS explicitly
enjoined his children in his Tzavo'oh, that "in the books of R.M.D (rav
moshe dessau - MM) al tishlichu yod". (DDG - perhaps your innovative
interpretation of that line is not completely wacky!).

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

RMF wrote:
> in brief, there are those who have vigorously propounded the notion that
> a lot of that torah im derech eretz and cultural openness stuff that one
> asociates with RSRH is nothing but a hora'as sho'oh,... I'm wondering
> whether, perhaps, RnKatz's note does not signify her identification with a
> (wrong) side of this machloqes.

Whew! Lucky for me, I happen to be on the right side of this one.
I share RMF's belief that Torah Im Derech Eretz was a lechatchila and
not a hora'as sha'ah for RSRH. This may be the last time RMF and I ever
agree about anything, so cherish the moment.

Toby Katz

In message , Mlevinmd@aol.com writes
>The concept of suffering has been extensively analysed in the medical
>and bio-ethical literature. Much of this work was done by Cassel;
>in brief, the relevant point is that there is a distinction between
>pain and suffering. Pain is value neutral and can even be a positive
>experience. Suffering requires interpretation of pain. Thus, for
>example, childbirth is pain but nor suffering

Tell that to the friend of mine who swears she will have a caesarian
next time (if there is a next time)!

> whereas chronic back
>pain is suffering because it is purposeless and is so perceived. If
>so, animals cannot suffer for they cannot judge or interpret pain.

I am not sure that anybody with a pet animal more sophisticated than
a goldfish would agree. If anything it would seem to be the reverse.
Childbirth, to take your example - can be a positive experience only
because there is an awareness of the ultimate purpose, i.e. the production
of a baby. Without any understanding of why this pain is occurring
(take the case of a woman who is intellectually unable to understand
the concept of labour and childbirth) and the natural interpretation
would seem to be one of suffering as you have defined it (i.e. she would
interpret it in the same way as she and anybody else would interpret
chronic back pain). Similarly, my baby when he screams from colic is
suffering - he does not understand why he has this pain, in the same
way as the chronic back sufferer does not understand why they have this
pain. It is certainly not value neutral or a positive experience to him.
A tzaddik, on the other hand, may be able to understand chronic back pain
(or colic) as a form of yissurim shel ahava - making the pain purposeful.

Regards
Chana

-- 
Chana Luntz

RGS wrote:
> An important issue of disagreement between the Gra and the Ba'al HaTanya
> was regarding "melo kol ha'aretz kevodo". From what little I understand
> of this dispute, the Gra claimed that this refers to hashgachas Hashem
> while the BhT claimed that that it refers to nitzotzos of Hashem.
> The Gra considered this to be apikorsus.

This is an oversimplification. The Zohar presents two descriptions of the 
universe after tzimtzum (God's self-contraction in order to allow a finite 
universe, where up until then His Infinity filled all void). One is that God 
is sovev kol 'almin, while the other is that God is memale kol 'almin. The 
question is which is a more ultimate description. Gra held that sovev is more 
accurate while Besht held memale is. For Besht, memale was a form of 
pantheism, God is everywhere, while to the Gra this sounded like panentheism 
(IIRC the term), God is in every thing, which the Gra held was a form of AZ.

> RMM Kasher in his milu'im to Torah Shelemah, Parshas Shemos claims that
> R' Chaim Volozhiner in his Nefesh HaChaim explains this issue according
> to the BhT. As I read this I thought, "Can't be!" Can anyone with more
> understanding shed light on this? Did RCV follow the BhT against the Gra?

Wrong. The Nefesh ha'Hayim explains thoroughly that the Besht's view can bring 
one to worship in the unclean places (toilet) because there, too, Godliness 
is in everything. That passage IIRC is obviously a polemic AGAINST 'Hasidism.


Arie Folger
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

Shaar revei of the Nefesh Hachaim is devoted to this issue by and large.
Indeed Reb Chaim sided with the Besht. Interestingly it revolved around
the meaning of the "burning bush" episode in Parshat Shemos, the Baal
hatanya arguing that the KBHU appeared to Moshe in this fassion in
order to show how the KBHU can be found in every corner of the earth.

Menachem Brick

At 02:56 PM 1/6/03 -0500, Gil Student wrote:
>An important issue of disagreement between the Gra and the Ba'al HaTanya
>was regarding "melo kol ha'aretz kevodo". From what little I understand
>of this dispute, the Gra claimed that this refers to hashgachas Hashem
>while the BhT claimed that that it refers to nitzotzos of Hashem.
>The Gra considered this to be apikorsus.

I do not think this is accurate - REED in the fifth volume has a very nice 
piece on Tzimtzum: according to the Gra there was tzimtzum in the Ratzon 
Hashem while according to the Ba'al ha'Tanya there was not - this has to 
do, I believe, with fundamental issues of how to regard Ra.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

The Gemara learns from "b'shgaga" to exclude meizid and from "b'vli da'as"
to exclude miskaven. The Gemara then asks that meizid would be chayav
misa and not just galus. Rava answers that b'shgaga comes to exclude one
who is "omer mutar" from the chiyuv of galus for murder. Abayei asks,
wouldn't omer mutar be anoos? Rava answers that I might have thought
that omer mutar would have been karov l'meizid and therefore would not
have been eligible to have a kapara by going into galus.

Tosfos there (s"v ela prat l'omer) asks that by Shabbos and cheilev
it says shgaga, and nevertheless one who violates Shabbos or the issur
of cheilev can bring a chatos, i.e. he can have a kapara. Tosfos says
that the Gemara in Shabbos (68b) says that this is referring to tinok
she'nishba. Tosfos then asks why the case of murder (our Gemara)
is different - why should omer mutar for murder be exlcuded from
kapara. Tosfos answers that because the pasuk also says b'vli da'as,
which excludes miskaven, and because we would normally think that
meizid and miskaven are the same thing, we cannot only be talking about
meizid. Therefore, an omer mutar by murder does not go into galus and
does not have a kapara.

In the shiur that I heard, the magid shiur brought a Chasam Sofer
(he didn't say from where) who asks why we could not say that a tinok
she'nishba can have a kapara from murder just like he can have one from
Shabbos. Why should a tinok she'nishba who thinks murder is mutar not
have a kapara. The Chasam Sofer answers that as to murder, any human
being should know not to murder, and therefore there is no such thing
as a tinok she'nishba by murder. Thus the Chasam Sofer is (apparently)
setting up a chiluk between issurim that are intuitive and issurim
that I need the Torah to tell me are assur. When an issur is intuitive
(a minimum standard of human conduct?) like murder, there is no din of
tinok she'nishba, and everyone is equally liable.

I was wondering how much further we could go with the Chasam Sofer's
chiluk. Would it apply to gezel? Would it apply to all of the sheva
mitzvos bnei Noach generally? What about other "bein adam l'chaveiro
type dinim" which are matters of good midos and arguably "common sense"
but not among the sheva mitzvos? For example, not speaking Lashon Hara,
not taking revenge, or not embarassing someone in public. Would the Chasam
Sofer hold that there is no din of tinok she'nishba in those instances?

-- Carl M. Sherer

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 10:1, the heart of Pharaoh and the hearts of his servants are
: announced to have been hardened
: In 10:7, the servants try to get Pharaoh to give in to reality
: So in what respect were the servants' hearts hardened?

The plagues were such a powerful proof of Hashem's existence and power,=20
Hashem had to harden Pharaoh's heart just give him back the ability to
have bechira.

I believe I heard this from Rabbi Frand on one of his tapes but I do not =
know who he was quoting.

Kol tov,
Ezriel

At 08:37 PM 1/5/03 +0000, Bob Miller wrote:
> In 10:1, the heart of Pharaoh and the hearts of his servants are
> announced to have been hardened
> In 10:7, the servants try to get Pharaoh to give in to reality
> So in what respect were the servants' hearts hardened?
> Thanks for your help with this.

According to Reb David Hojda's reference to Egyptian mythology one can 
propose an interesting pshat.

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/vaera/ros.html

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/vaera/spe.html

Hey, guys! 

Instread of arguing about who said what about Mendelssohn, why don't we
talk about the shittos that are the issue?!

 From the online Jewish Encyclopedia: 

His "Jerusalem." 

Mendelssohn's "Jerusalem," which shows frequent analogies with Spinoza's
"Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," but reaches diametrically opposite
results, deals in the first section with the relation of State and
Church, both of which, though having different objects and methods,
should promote human happiness. According to Mendelssohn, the Church has
no right to own property, and Church law is essentially contradictory to
the nature of religion. He again opposed energetically the right of ban
and excommunication, and was the first, at least in Germany, to plead
for the separation of Church and State, and for freedom of belief and
conscience. In the second part he deals with Judaism, which, according
to him, has, in contradistinction to Christianity, no dogma whose
acceptance is necessary for salvation. With Leibnitz he differentiated
between eternal truths, which are based on reason and not on supernatural
revelation, and temporary, historical truths. Judaism is no revealed
religion in the usual sense of the term, but only revealed legislation,
laws, commandments, and regulations, which were supernaturally given
to the Jews through Moses. Mendelssohn did not recognize miracles as
evidences of eternal truths, nor did he formulate articles of faith; hence
he did not say "I believe," but "I recognizethat to be true." "The spirit
of Judaism is freedom in doctrine and conformity in action." Accordingly
he very curiously defined the ceremonial law as "a kind of writ, living,
quickening the mind and heart, full of meaning, and having the closest
affinity with speculative religious knowledge." This is the indissoluble
bond which is forever to unite all those who are born into Judaism. "What
divine law has ordained can not be repealed by reason, which is no less
divine," is Mendelssohn's reply to all those who wished to release the
Jews from the Law by sophistry. "Jerusalem," on its appearance, met with
little favor, yet Kant, then at the zenith of his reputation, called it
an "irrefutable book" and regarded it as "the proclamation of a great
reform, which, however, will be slow in manifestation and in progress,"
and which, as he wrote Mendelssohn, "will affect not only your nation,
but others as well."

Attitude Toward Reform.

A host of reviewers, among whom the Berlin theologians Zöllner, Uhle,
and others, together with many insignificant scribblers, condemned
"Jerusalem," while they decried its author as a rationalist or even as
an atheist. The Jews were little more pleased. Since, on the one hand,
he recognized the basal principle of Judaism to be freedom of thought and
belief, and, on the other, placed its whole essence in the ceremonial law,
both the Orthodox party and the reformers claimed him as their own. He
was conservative by nature, and wished to abolish religious abuses,
such as untimely burial; but he stood immovably upon the foundation of
the ancestral religion. It was through no fault of his that his disciples
took different roads, and that several of his children renounced Judaism
after his death.

There are 3 phrases used in referring to the days before moshiach

ikveta de-nosiach - footsteps of the Moshiach
atkhlatah de-geula - beginning of redemption
chevla moshiach - birth pangs of Moshiach

To the best of my knowledge there is no place in Chazal where they
distinguish between eras before the Moshiach. Hence, all these phrases
should refer to the same concept.
It is clear from the gemara in Sanhedrin that the period before Moshiach
(at least if not done from full teshuva) involves generations with many
troubles both internal and external together with advances. Hence,
the way to Moshiach is not straight up or straight down but involves
many convolutions.
Thus, I infer that the various terms simply stress the more positive or
more negative aspects of the process.

Some people have stated that the terms are different. Outside of the
politics of not wanting to associate Moshiach with the state of
Israel is there any real difference between the terms?
--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 01/09/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim:
>To the best of my knowledge there is no place in Chazal
>where they distinguish between eras before the Moshiach.
>Hence, all these phrases should refer to the same concept.

The first and the last overlap but the second is controversial.
According to many, not least of whom is the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim,
the redemption will begin only AFTER moshiach comes. That means that
ikvesa de-moshiach and chevlai moshiach are before aschalta di-geulah.

The claim that aschalta di-geulah can be BEFORE moshiach is quite
controversial, to say the least. It probably started with R' Tzvi
Hirsch Kalischer and was continued by religious zionists of the twentieth
century.

Gil Student

Posted by: gil@aishdas.org
> Is the story told by Eldad HaDani taken as historically accurate?
> What do frum historians say? Poskim? Yes, I know about shechitah
> without a beracha. But what about his stories of what happened to the
> various shevatim? If he was correct, what happened to those shevatim?
> Any mareh mekomos?

I recall that the Rosh in the beginning of Chulin quotes Eldad Hadani
regarding shechita.

M. Levin

I Am currently involved in the sugyah of muktzeh/ muktzeh machmas gufo.
The following is an issue which just came up - Rav SZA ztl is quoted
(SSK Tikunim perek 9 note 11 and Meor HaShabbos vol 2) as having held
that a milk container once emptied, plastic utensils once used etc =
become muktzeh - and can be moved only when graf shel reei is applicable
- Rav Cahim Pinchas Sheinberg Shlita, however, is quoted in the Shalmei
Yehuda pg 60 as holding that if the reason for disposale is simply =
because we don't reuse these items (because we can afford to discard etc)
and not that they are intrinsicly unfit to be reused -they do not become
muktzeh as they are still "kelim" - does anyone have any = additional
hearos (i.e. know of other poskim who have spoken/written) onthis sugyah?

kol tuv
wac

The hot of the press Artscroll Schottenstein ed. Menachos II contains a
masterful, indeed, brilliantly done, exposition of the Techeles issue,
written by Avodah member Reb Hehoch Moshe Levin; with many citations of
list member Rabbi Chaim Twerski.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

Jon Baker wrote:
>>>OTOH, if the Tosfos case has the extra pull of habit,
>> Because Tosafos begins by saying that it applies to all other issurim.
>So?
>When you have a prat and a clal, doesn't the prat teach you about the
>clal?

Not in this case. Tosafos is a peirush on the gemara so he has to deal
with the gemara's case.

>>also Tosafos, Shabbos 3a sv bava that does not give your answer (and see
>>the Rosh there).
>I don't see that he contradicts it either.  Furthermore, he seems to hold
>that trei ibrei even for Jews is d'rabanan there.

No. Tosafos say that even in this case of hotza'ah, when the ba'al
ha-bayis is placing something in the hand of the ani AND IS NOT t'rei
abrei de-nahara, there is still an issur derabbanan.

Gil Student

> REED in the fifth volume has a very nice piece on Tzimtzum:

The Lubavitcher Rebbe felt strongly that the Michtav M'Eliyahu
misrepresented the dispute in his attempt to show that there was really no
dispute. He strongly criticized the Lubavticher chasid that Rav Dessler
relied on for his information. He also asserts that the Nefesh HaChaim
(3:7) disagreed with the Gra and followed the view of the Lubavitch.
[See Shaarei Emuna volume I page 74-75] There is a recent Lubavitch
publication which has an article on Tzimtzum.The author of the article
notes that it is ironic that the Lubavtichers are the ones who are
correctly describing the shitah of the Gra while the Litvaks are
misrepresenting it.

                                                Daniel Eidensohn

The issue of the meaning of Kavod is older that the Gro and the Besht. It
ultimately goes to the question of the relationship between G-d and the
physical matter. As R. M. Kasher had shown, there are many references
prior to the Besht that imply his position.
It seems to me (and if I am misunderstanding this, can someone more
knowledgeable enlighten me), that this goes to the machlokes among the
mekubolim whether the material world is the last stage of emanation out of
Malchus or came into being as a disconnect, in an act of Tsimtsum. This
would be third tsimtsum - the first created space, the second created
keilim and this one created matter. My impression is that the Gro held
the lattter view although I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to cite
a source. The Besht could find G-d in the material as he held that it
was also a direct emanation, the end stage of Elokut. It is not that
R. Chaim Volozhiner followed the new ideas of the Besht over his own
teacher but that he took a side in an older machlokes.
For some sources see EJ Schochet, The Chassidic movement and the Gaon
of Vilna pp.61-66 and my shortly (1-2 months) forthcoming book on the
Shema p. 37-40

M. Levin MD

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


[ 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         ]