Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 100

Saturday, February 8 2003

• Re: navi/nasi
• Re: Rambam and Yissachar Zvulun
• Re: Mishenich'nas Adar is not in SA
• Re: sanhedrin
• [none]
• Re: Rav Zevin on army service
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun
• melo chol haaretz Kevodo
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun
• Re:Shoresh of Navi
• Re:
• Re: save on or save on miYisrael
• fallen sefer
• Mishloach Manos
• Re: Mishloach Manos
• Reading in the bathroom

Simi Peters wrote:
>A colleague of mine and I were trying to figure out what the shoresh of
>"navi" is....

Rashi on Shemos 7:1 says that "navi" comes from "niv sefasayim".  Ibn Ezra
there disagrees and says that it comes from the shoresh NBA.  See Radak on
Shmuel 1 9:9 who seems to have an in-between view.

Gil Student

"Shinnar, Meir" wrote:
>  The
> case in tshuva 210 was a store whose profits were dedicted to support of
> talmide chachamim (not enough details given to know how). The current
> manager was not the legal heir (by Muslim law), so by Muslim law,
> the sultan could confiscate it - the question was whether the manager
> could lie (even under oath) - the rambam permits him to lie, as under
> Jewish law he was entitled to run the store - the purpose of the store
> is irrelevant to the psak, so the rambam does not raise it.

> It is hard to extrapolate more than that the rambam didn't feel it
> necessary to raise the issue of supporting talmide chachamim in every
> context.

As I said it's not a full proof, but I think it indicates more than
RMS says. First of all, the questioner considered the function of the
profits to be relevant.
Second, not only does the Rambam not object to the use of the profits,
he characterizes saving the property as a "mitzvah". If the Rambam
believed that the dedication of the profits was binding and assur then
saving the property can hardly be a mitzva since its usufruct (isn't
that a great word - see what you can learn from Marcus Jastrow) is wholly
and permanently dedicated to an aveirah. RMS believes that the Rambam held
the use was assur. He argues that the Rambam's silence does not indicate
that the oath was binding, but I think that it is at least a strong hint.

Incidentally, Blau translates the recipients as "bnei Torah", which I
understood to mean students rather than sages. To me it's more plausible
to explain that, while the Rambam thought it was assur for someone to
refuse to work in order to learn full time, he also thought that it's
still a kiyum of the mitzva of tzedakah to give money to such a person.

David Riceman

In a message dated 2/2/2003 10:07:57 AM EST, dannyschoemann@hotmail.com writes:
> I was looking at the most famous "halocho" of Adar.

> Strangely enough it seems that even though it's in the gemora, (Taanis
> 29a/b) "just as we decrease simcha as Av begins, so we increase it when
> Adar begins" and the Rosh, Ran and Tur bring it, I couldn't find it in
> Shulchan Oruch.
...
> 1. Any ideas why it's not brought down in the SA

Question - is this mentioned in the Beis Yosef?

If yes, what does the mechaber say there? Ommission from SA may be
better understood from that background

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/15/2003 9:18:59 PM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> To me, it seems much simpler to say that the initial premise is mistaken,
> and that no kofer was ever allowed to sit on the Sanhedrin.

The assumptoin is that there was ONE and ONLY one Sanhedrin

This is misleading. There may have been many "sanhedrins"

ONE of them is the Halachically importatn Beis Din Hagadol in the lishkah.

The term Sanhedrincan be sonidered to be a lot like the more modern
Term Senate or Soviet and therefore can refer to various and sundry
official councels.

In our Survery course with Rabbi Professor J. Reiner he mentioned this
possiblity re: the Sanhedrin headed by the Kohein Gadol.

So could tzadukkimn be on A sanhedrin, Very likely. Were they on THE
Sanhedrin? Well that is a different issue.

And don't forget, Yochann Kohein Gadol was in office BEFORE he became
a tzadukki. A lot of judges on the US Supreme Court changed their
ideologies AFTER being appointed for life

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I have a different he'orah on this targum. It is well accepted that
Greek and Jewish views of right and wrong differed in the nexus of
action vs. virtue. In other words, we consider actions as either good
or bad. The Greeks looked at it from the point of a virtuous person or
dissolute person. So that in Aristotle's Ethics virtue is defined as a
character that is in the golden mean between extremes, not as forbidden
or prohibited actions. This TY translates the 10 commandments into
those terms.

M. Levin

> Rav Zevin on Army Service

All of this is well known . However, it is also known that in Hamoadim
BHalacha that R Zevin suggested that with Hakamas HaMedinah that
the halacha of tearing kriyah might not be in effect because of the
restoration of Jewish sovereignty, ( as per the shitas HaBach and Rishonim
quoted therein)

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

RMS wrote
>WADR, RMF's creative interpretation is one of many attempts to
>understand the rambam in light of what has been standard practice -
>see the kesef mishne, who in the end concedes that the rambam meant
>what he said. RMF's pshat is difficult both in place and in view of
>the rambam's perush on pirke avot. Isn't is simple that for most of us,
>our learning suffers qualitatively if we have to divert time to make a
>living?? Isn't the rambam aware of this fact?? Yet, he paskens as he does.

>WR to physical labor - this isn't creative interpretation, but simple
>pshat. Again look at the perush hamishnayot, and try to reconcile your
>pshat with the perush hamishnayot. the tannaim are not praised for an act
>of hasidut for working and learning - it is viewed that it would have
>been wrong for them and for anyone else to accept money. The rambam is
>quite against current standards, but he is exquisitely clear.

I believe that you have misrepresented the Kesef Mishne's conclusions.
The KM's primary interpretation of the Rambam is that the halacha is
refering to someone who has the means to support himself and chooses
not to; however, a person who can not support himself is allowed to
take money from tzedaka. Only then does the KM suggest that the Rambam
poskens consistently with his comments in Avos. As is meduyak v'afilu
ne'emar she'ein ken daas rabeinu.

In our correspondance, you have yet to explain the Rambam in hilchos
shekalim 4:4, 4:7 where he poskins that those talmidei hachamim who
teach the kohanim hilchos shehita and hilchos avoda receive money from
the trumas halishka. Furthermore, the magihei sefarim and dayanim also
are supported by those funds, see ibid.

In order to maintain perspective, I simply want to mention that despite
the fact that you view the Rambam as being "exquisitely clear," the Biur
Halacha, the Aruch Hashulchan, and R. Moshe Fienstien all interpret the
Rambam other wise. (Were they being honest or just trying to justify
the common practice? What do you think?)

A number of times you have mentioned that the Rambam would prohibit
any form of Yisachar Zevulun. The basis for the Rambam's psak is that a
person must not benifit from divrei torah in this world. However, Yisachar
Zevulun is a business deal. The one learning is offering 50% of the olam
haba produced by his learning in return for support. .This is an exchange
of services; therefore, it would not violate the Rambam's prohibition.

motya

I was just looking at 'Rav Dessler' by Yonoson Rosenblum (Artscroll)
and saw some material relevant to the recent discussion here.

In chapter nine of the book, about Rav Dessler's time in England, entitled
'Stranger in a Strange Land', the visit of R. Yitzchok Horowitz (Reb
Itche der masmid) is mentioned. Footnote 51 on page 130 is of special
interest. It states that Rav Dessler's view that there is no fundamental
difference between the GR"A and Baal hatanya re tzimtzum was rejected
by both sides of the debate. Rav Yoel Kluft, chief Rabbi of Haifa z"l,
on behalf of followers of GR"A and sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe on behalf of
other side. He says however, to see a lengthy defense of Rav Dessler's
position by his son-in-law R. Yehoshua Geldzahler, in three lengthy
letters to R. Aryeh Carmell (Kodshei Yehoshua, volume V, siman 421-23,
pp. 711-736).

Mordechai

gofman wrote:
> In our correspondance, you have yet to explain the Rambam in hilchos
> shekalim 4:4, 4:7 where he poskins that those talmidei hachamim who
> teach the kohanim hilchos shehita and hilchos avoda receive money from
> the trumas halishka. Furthermore, the magihei sefarim and dayanim also
> are supported by those funds, see ibid.

RMS needn't explain that, since the Rambam explained it himself in the peirush
hamishnayoth.  He permits payment of obvious opportunity cost, i.e. if the
recipient has a regular job for which he is paid hourly he may be reimbursed
for the specific hours he misses due to judging/teaching.

>  Yisachar
> Zevulun is a business deal. The one learning is offering 50% of the olam
> haba produced by his learning in return for support. .This is an exchange
> of services; therefore, it would not violate the Rambam's prohibition.

The Rambam postulates a mechanism for getting olam haba: one's olam haba is
proportional to one's yedias hashem.  For the Rambam, therefore, olam haba
cannot be a commodity which can be sold.

David Riceman

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 09:42:41AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: The Rambam postulates a mechanism for getting olam haba: one's olam haba is
: proportional to one's yedias hashem.  For the Rambam, therefore, olam haba
: cannot be a commodity which can be sold.

I have a problem about this bichlal.

The notion that sechar is payment for deed is meant literally rather than
a much simplified mashal for emotional impact is not only asserted by the
Rambam.

Yishma'el was judged "ba'asher hu sham", not because of his history of
aveiros and mitzvos. Also personal state, albeit not necessarily yedi'ah.

In Or haShem, RCC argues with the Rambam that the personal state ought
be defined by yedi'ah. To him, we are judged by our ahavah, not our
yedi'ah. Again, personal state -- not history of actions.

Similarly Nefesh haChaim, although to him the state in question is
sheleimus.

Etc...

:-)88!!
-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

Subject:   [Areivim] navi/nasi
Posted by: familyp2@netvision.net.il
Posted on: Feb 4, 2003, 3:16 PM

> Rashi on Shemos 7:1 says that "navi" comes from "niv sefasayim".
> Ibn Ezra there disagrees and says that it comes from the shoresh NBA.
> See Radak on Shmuel 1 9:9 who seems to have an in-between view.

This is a good example how understanding dikduk can help clarify diificult
droshos of cazal. As the Ibn Ezra points out, the shoresh niv means
speaker (dabran). In parshas V'Yeira, Hashem tells Avimelech tha he
should return Avrohom's wife "ki navi hu". Chazal in B"K 92 and Makkos
say that this means that Avrohom "limad" learned out,made a derivation -
"Aksanai shebo leir, al iskei achila... shoalin oso o al iskei ishto
sholain oso?". Realizing the meaning of the shoresh niv allows one to
realize how the Chazal understood avrohom being called a navi as his
ability to speak out an insight in psychology of the local population.

M. Levin

In a message dated 2/5/2003 11:15:10 PM EST, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> I have a different he'orah on this targum. It is well accepted that
> Greek and Jewish views of right and wrong differed in the nexus of
> action vs. virtue. In other words, we consider actions as either good
> or bad. The Greeks looked at it from the point of a virtuous person or
> dissolute person. So that in Aristotle's Ethics virtue is defined as a
> character that is in the golden mean between extremes, not as forbidden
> or prohibited actions. This TY translates the 10 commandments into
> those terms.

So can we extend this concept to pronouncments?

Can a Tzaddik say something wrong or bad and still be construed a Tzaddik
and Conversely can a Rasha say something good and worthy and still be
deemed a Rasha.

or IOW is WHAT is said crucial or WHO said it crucial - in terms of
value judmgents...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/29/2003 11:05:59 AM EST, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> RRW also wrote:<<We DO know that the older version of the last bracha
> [of shmoneh esrei] is actualy oseh hashalom and NOT hamevareich es amo
> yisrael bashalom>>

> IIRC, oseh shalom is the Eretz Israel nusach while hamevareikh et 'amo
> Yisrael is the nusach of Bavel. What is the source or basis of oseh
> hasholom being older. This brakha was the subject of many posting on
> the list in the past, including one where I remember mentioning that
> there is evidence that oseh hashalom had been known or used in Bavel as
> well. This is not really proof os it being older.

Aside from several scholars that have suggested this during lectures,
my authoritative source for this assertion is Baer's Avodas Yisrael p. 103

re: ham'vareich - This Chasima goes unmentioned by the Kadmonin and the
nusach hakadmonin is Oseh Hashalom....

FWIW One lecturer asserted this change was also true for Roei Cholim
instead of Rofei cholei amo Yisrael but I have not {yet} found any
corroborating evidence and therefore I assume he said this al pi svara
w/o proof.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I remember learning of picking up a sefer from the ground and learning
from it rather than kissing it. Does anyone know of a source for this
minhag (or have you even heard of it?)

KT
Joel Rich

RDS asked [on Areivim -mi] about communal MM - this is really an Avodah
topic as it entails issues of bereirah, etc. I am sure our lomdishe
crowd can deal with it very nicely - can we move it over here?

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

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:43:52AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: RDS asked [on Areivim -mi] about communal MM - this is really an Avodah
: topic as it entails issues of bereirah, etc...

Wouldn't anyone participating have two people that aren't on the mossad's
list? So the actual qiyum hamitzvah isn't at doubt.

If the question is one of hiddur, I would think that communities in
which the hiddur mitzvah has been tainted by competitive spirit and has
damaged simchas Adar would be better off not bothering.

That said, we only participate in giving to those people who'd be offended
that we didn't do it through the shul. (The shul board, the organizers
of the MM basket project, etc...)

:-)88!!
-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

Tangential to a conversation on the Mesorah list, R' Shlomo Abeles said
<<< Isn't "Shabbos" also a name of Hashem? I have heard this as the
reason some don't say it in the mikvah. >>>

R' Daniel Levy challenged <<< Can you give me a source for this?
I thought that one should not say Shabbat Shalom in the mikveh because
Shalom is a Name of Hashem. I never knew that Shabbat Shalom was two
Names. >>>

and similarly R' Micha Berger said <<< Still, we don't take care when
bringing fiction (frum fiction, where events may happen on Shabbos)
into the bathroom. But now we're drifting from Mesorah to Avodah turf. >>>

As per RMB's suggestion, let's continue it here. Exactly what are the
parameters for what can be brought into the bathroom?

Rav Moshe has a teshuva (I'll find it if anyone wants) about whether an
audiotape of properly pronounced brachos may be brought into a bathroom.
As I recall, he says it has no kedusha at all, and may even be audibly
played in the bathroom, *provided* that there is no person in the bathroom
at the time, because of the thoughts it would cause that person to have.

Based on that I'd refine RMB's comment as follows: If a book simply
mentions visiting a friend on Shabbos, for example, I don't know why that
might be assur to read in the bathroom. But if the book has a character
saying something like "Don't forget to daven!" -- Isn't that a halacha?
Can one read such a thing and not be reminded of that piece of Torah?

It is certainly not a very in-depth piece of learning, but it *is*
learning isn't it?

For the same reason, I will not bring a newspaper or magazine into a
bathroom, even one published by non-Jews, if I know that it contains
an article which will remind me of a halacha, such as a New York Times
article dealing with Ilan Ramon's a"h plans for Shabbos, or a Sports
Illustrated which mentions Tamir Goodman's plans for Shabbos.

Any other thoughts on what may be brought into the bathroom? (Please,
no snide remarks about whether certain newspapers may be brought *out*
of the bathroom.)

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]