Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 102

Friday, February 14 2003

• Nursing a baby on Shabbos
• multiple minyanim
• Re: sound guidelines: barber shops and bathrooms
• Re: Half a pasuk
• Re:Re: Half a pasuk
• Re: navi/nasi
• Re: Badim on the Mizbei'ach Nechoshes
• Fanaticalness
• RE: Rambam and Yisshchar Zvulun
• re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• RE: History, Truth, Memory: Nemonus of Baalei Mesorah
• Re: Rav Zevin and army service
• re:manipulating the pshat
• Re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• RE: Fanaticalness
• Re: Fanaticalness
• Re: Fanaticalness
• re: Mitzvah of Living in Israel- R Leff
• re:manipulating the pshat
• Re: Mishloach Manot
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun

Recently came across an issue which tests the limits of the halachic
process. What is the hetair to nurse a baby on Shabbos?

1) Kesubos 60a indicates that there is a doreissa prohibition of mefarek.

2) Shulchan Orech 328:34-35 in Biur Halacha also indicates there is an
issur doreissa in the nursing process

3) Ohr Someach Hilchos Shabbos 8:10 states that if the milk has the status
of food rather than drink than there is a hetair of milk being placed
on top of food. However if it is considered drink then the only hetair
is pikuach nefesh. Not sure how the first drop gets into the baby's mouth.

4) Shemiras Shabbos 36:17 in footnote raises the question of nursing
close to the end of Shabbos. If the baby can wait there is no longer a
hetair of pikuach nefesh. He notes that R' Shlomo Zalman permitted it
because of various doubts even though there are others that say to wait.

5) Shemiras Shabbos also cites a teshuva of R' Pesach Frank that states
that there is not a blanket hetair because of sakkana. He was responding
to a psak that it would be permitted to put milk in a cup for use later
on Shabbos since it is sakana (Yevamos 114a) for the baby not to have
milk. He noted that the sakkana is limited to the time the baby actually
needs the milk and is not a general hetair.

Question - since the hetair seems to be pikuach nefesh it would follow
that if there is similac available or one can store milk safely from
before Shabbos there is in fact no hetair to nurse a baby on Shabbos!?


I have gotten three types of responses to this question and members of
each category strongly rejects the other views.

1) "It is really dumb question since a baby was obviously created to
be nourished by the mother." However this answer is problematic since
this gemora Kesubos 60a needs to find a posuk to prove that human milk
is kosher and indicates that without the posuk it would not be kosher.

2) "It is an interesting intellectual question (pilpul) but obviously has
no practical meaning since the baby is sinning not the mother". Problem
being why Shemiras Shabbos, Ohr Someach and R' Frank take it seriously.

3) It is a valid question and there are practical consequences of how
the issue is understood and obviously everything is governed by halachic
analysis rather than gut feelings (or as one Breslover Chasid distainfully
put it "Chassidishe vortlach").

Daniel Eidensohn

What are the rules for answering(eg at the kotel) Kaddish and Kedusha
from other minyanim - are they the same as those for a yachid whose
minyan is at a different point or are there separate rules?

KT
Joel Rich

On 9 Feb 2003 at 21:05, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> He also notes that if one hears a neighbors radio etc it is also
> considered onas and is mutar lchatchila.

If there was an issur hana'a involved in hearing the neighbor's radio
(e.g. in EY on Shabbos), why wouldn't it be a question of lo efshar
v'kamechaven (Psachim 25), in which case even if it's ones you should
be required to take steps to avoid hearing it.

-- Carl

On 9 Feb 2003 at 11:55, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> I had commented a few weeks ago concerning the minhag of hakafos at the
> levaya of Rav Landau z"l. One thing that I noticed is that they said
> only part of the pasuk "ki ata Hashem machsi" (in the shir shel pegaim).

> Could this week's daf yomi wherein it seems that they did so during
> hosafa al ha'ir be a makor for this?

I understood that as half the perek of Tehillim and not half a pasuk.

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com> writes:
<<I understood that as half the perek of Tehillim and not half a pasuk.>>

The Gemara actually quotes the entire pasuk and the hagahos haGra takes
out the second half.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Simcha Goldstein wrote:
>In Machberes Menachem by R' Menachem Ben Sruk Hasfardi who is
>mentioned many times in Rashi he writes that the root is just the first two
>letters nun-beth and comes from niv sefosayim

Note that R' Menachem Ibn Saruk believed, as did most of his time
and earlier, that there were roots of one and two letters. It was the
chiddush of the Sephardim (R' Yehudah Ibn Charug?) that roots were almost
exclusively three letters. You can see in R' Yonah Ibn Janach's Sefer
HaShorashim that almost all words have three letters. In each section,
after the three-letter roots come the four-letter roots (and not too
many of them).

Ira Jacobson wrote:
>Doesn't ANYONE suggest bet vav alef?

Yes, Ibn Ezra. See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n100.shtml#01>

Gil Student

In Avodah V10 #101, MBerger wrote:
> According to R' Yosi, the mizbei'ach in the mishkan was 3 amos high.
> But according to R' Yehudah, it was 10 amos.

I think you switched who said what. In case you don't have access to
a BT Z'vochim, see RaShY on Shmos 27:1.

> But according to R' Yehudah, it was 10 amos. That would put the badim
> at around 5 or 7 amos above ground level, or in modern terms at least 7.5'
> (2.5m) or so. How would that help anyone carry it?

Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz, in a d'var Torah this past Shabbos, quoted ibn Ezra
on the Aron's two sets of rings and badim, with the set used for carrying
(and removed when the carrying was done) being at the bottom of the Aron,
not its top, such that the Aron was visible above the bearers' shoulders.
Clearly, the Mizbach N'choshes was taller than the Aron, but it was wood
with a copper covering, not two boxes of gold enclosing one box of wood,
so having the majority of its height above the badim wouldn't necessarily
constitute a major center-of-gravity problem. Given where R' Yosi would
place the rings (based on 27:4-5 and what I incompletely recall of the
sugya), I think the badim would actually be 4 amos above ground level
(i.e. the karkov went down to 6 amos from the top), such that the
bottom of the mizbaiach would come pretty close to ground level while
being carried but not such that it could only be carried by giants.

Time for us to "hit the books" and revisit the sugya :-).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

(Note that my title is from the noun form I found in the dictionary -
I did not see, where I looked it up - fanaticism.)

The definition: 
marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

I think RALS and RMB are on to something - and RCL picked up on it in
Areivim 10:468 - so much so that I think we might be able to swing an
Avodah discussion out of it.

What may bother Micha, what Chana Luntz noted [on Areivim -mi] - wrong
as opposed to assur - is what RALS expounded upon.

What should make us leery of any phenomenon is the association with it
of excesssively enthusiastic and often intensely uncritical devotees.

Fanatic anti-medinah, fanatic pro-medinah.

Fanatic anti-Torah only, fantic pro-Torah only.

Fanatic TuM, fanatic anti-TuM.

Fanatic Charedi, fanatic MO.

Fanatic Chassidic, fanatic Brisker. 

Etc. 

How does one avoid becoming marked by excessive enthusiasm and often
intense uncritical devotion?

Not by sheer intellectual approaches.

As we know, scholarly individuals are capable of lining up evidence
in a manner marked by marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense
uncritical devotion.

Certainly, it would seem, not by sheer emotional approaches.

Emotion is a ready maidservant of excessive enthusiasm and often intense
uncritical devotion.

So what is the eitzah? 

I am formulating ideas. 

But not for now, perhaps if this goes onto Avodah. 

YGB 

WIth respect to the rambam's tshuva:
RDR
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.
mr
Yes, but the rambam does not address the function of the profits at all -
he is responding to the question.
The only reason the function is important is that because it wasn't a
personal store, laws of inheritance didn't apply, and therefore the
caliphate had claim on the property - the issue wouldn't have airisen.

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.


The rambam characterizes saving any money of any jew (or at least shomer
mitzvot jew) from a non Jew who has claim to it which is not valid under
Jewish law as being a mitzva. He is exquisitely clear in the tshuva.
The mitzva isn't the use of the usufruct - it is that it is saving
Jewish money from a non Jew who does not have a halachic claim to it.
The fact that when saved, it may be used for a purpose the rambam objects
to is a separate issue.

In his perush on pirke avot, with his diatribe against supporting
yeshivot, the rambam starts out that he wasn't going to say anything,
because he knows his opinion is not the opinion of most other rabbanim,
but then, he saw people claiming it was actually a mitzva to support it,
and he felt that he had to speak out. It is quite clear from the perush
hamishnayot that
1) the rambam was well aware of the common practice of supporting scholars
with money
2) He felt that it was assur and bizayon hatora
3) This includes supporting yeshivot - it isn't a mitzva
4) He knew that most wouldn't listen to him on this issue (he was
right....), and therefore did not insist on always raising the issue
- there had to be a reason.

In this case, the community, by the existence of the shop, rejected the
rambam's position - but they asked him about another. As he specifically
says in the perush hamishnayot, that he in general keeps quite on this
issue, I wonder how one can learn anything from the fact that he kept
quiet on this issue in this case.

RDR
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.

The rambam does distinguish between students and sages - in one of his
letters, he explains the sugya about 10 batlanim as refering to people who
are already learned, so they are available for general communal needs.
It does not apply to students - who, because of their need to study,
should not be used for general communal needs. However, there is no
source to suggest that the rambam ever waivered in his strong opposition
to support of talmide chachamim.

Incidental question on the rambam's tshuva - how many rabbanim today
would pasken like the rambam that one may lie under oath (with a silent
reservation) in order to preserve jewish money owed to a non jew under
secular but not Jewish law? Furthermore, why didn't dina d'malchuta dina
apply there?

Meir Shinnar

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.

riceman wrote:
>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.

Could you specify exactly where the Rambam says this? Aside from that,
the Rambam in yad makes no indication that they were being reimbursed
for time missed from their jobs, but rather were receiving a standard
salary.

gofman wrote:
>  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.

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.

See Rambam in hilchos tshuva 9:1, 10:1 where he states repeatedly that
olam haba is a composite reward for mitzvos and knowledge of torah.
Consequently, olam haba goes beyond yedias hashem and therefore could
be a commodity.

motya

RMF wrote:
>My impression is that the opponents of history (as opposed to newspaper
reporting) are not motivated primarily by a fear of gossip. Rather they
are afraid that their world view will be challenged. R' Schwab wrote
(as quoted by RDE):

    We should tell ourselves and our children the good memories of
    the good people, their unshakable faith, their staunch defense of
    tradition, their life of truth, their impeccable honesty, their
    boundless charity and their great reverence for Torah and Torah
    sages. What is gained by pointing out their inadequacies and their
    contradictions?

What if their inadequacies and contradictions undermine the whole notion
that their ways are to be emulated? Alternatively, what if it turns out
that what R Schwab considered "inadequacies and contradictions" are such
only from a charedi perspective--i.e., the gedolim (such R YY Weinberg)
weren't as charedi as their talmidim have made them out to be?<<<

Who crowned historians with the laurel of objectivity? More often
than not, any particular historian is attempting the forward his
own interpretation of events. Under the guise of "historic truth," he
attempts to prove justify and uphold his own philosophies. Your argument
could equally be reversed. Perhaps those who are seeking to show that our
gedolim were "less charedi than we think" are seeking to find a haskama
for their own lifestyles through history. If no such nod of approval is
forthcoming from current gedolim then conscience forces us to find some
basis for our decisions. Perhaps through history we can prove that the
gedolim would have really been on our side.

motya

Thank you Gil student for your post about Rav Zevin. It seems to me
that Alfred Cohen does not address the content of the letter quoted
by Rav Zevin's grandson but rather dismisses him as a well-meaning
but misguided relative. However, the article, whose authorship is
uncontested, stated emphatically that Rav Zevin did not dare touch the
yeshiva system but rather saw hesder as an opportunity to save boys
who would have otherwise become not frum. To the best of my knowledge,
Rav Goldvicht zt'l was discreetly fired from his post as rosh yeshiva
of KBY for stating exactly this point, namely, that hesder was a b'deived.

motya

RRW wrote:
>Do we sinceerly believe meforshim are really giving us the original
intended meaning or are the giving us their spin on the original
statement?

Let me be perfectly clear. The meforshim's "spin" on a statement might
actually be the more Halachically authoritative one, nevertheless
it does not necessarily mean that it is intellectually- epsaking the
accurate one!<<<

Are you essentially saying that the meforshim are manipulating the text?
This assertion reminds me of the commonly heard claim "The rabbis could
be matir any aguna or any womens' minyan if they so desired." Is that
your conclusion?

motya

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:29:47PM +0200, gofman wrote:
: See Rambam in hilchos tshuva 9:1, 10:1 where he states repeatedly that
: olam haba is a composite reward for mitzvos and knowledge of torah.
: Consequently, olam haba goes beyond yedias hashem and therefore could
: be a commodity.

Leis din veleis dayin? Or is justice a commodity.

There is also the "ba'asher hu sham" issue, as well as my other
sources.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

>  So what is the eitzah? 
>  I am formulating ideas. 

The Rambam's shvil hazahav.

---Rena

At 12:06 PM 2/10/03 -0600, sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:
>How does one avoid becoming marked by excessive enthusiasm and often
>intense uncritical devotion?
>
>Not by sheer intellectual approaches.
...
>Emotion is a ready maidservant of excessive enthusiasm and often intense
>uncritical devotion.
>
>So what is the eitzah?

I think that Fanaticalness is identical to the Frumkeit that R' Shlomo 
Wolbe excoriates.

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 Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 07:32:28AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I think that Fanaticalness is identical to the Frumkeit that R' Shlomo 
: Wolbe excoriates.

I would have thought they were opposites.

RSW's "frumkeit" is observance through culture, an unthinking knee-jerk
observance. Mitzvos anashim meilumada. A dirth of fanaticism, not an
over-abundance.

Unless you believe that the fanatic is one who is overcompensating for
an underlying vacuum of passion...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

> The Mitzvah of Living in Eretz Yisrael
> By: Rabbi Zev Leff

> Is there a mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisrael? This question has long been
> disputed by the greatest halachic authorities.

> The Ramban says ...

I think this was written 10 years ago. After a series of thefts in the
community, I think I remember Rav Leff saying that he was now considering
locking his door at night.

See also questions 141 and 16 at
<http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/ask/archives.htm>, or download them
in audio format at <http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/ask/25/146.wax>
and <http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/ask/05/16.zip>

Shlomo Zalman

On 10 Feb 2003 at 23:57, gofman wrote:
> RRW wrote:
...
>> Let me be perfectly clear. The meforshim's "spin" on a statement might
>> actually be the more Halachically authoritative one, nevertheless it
>> does not necessarily mean that it is intellectually- epsaking the
>> accurate one!

> Are you essentially saying that the meforshim are manipulating the
> text? 

I understood him as saying that halacha does not necessarily agree 
with pshat in the text.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

At 02:31 PM 2/9/03 +0200, Daniel A. Schiffman wrote:
>What I have in mind is that there is a lack of personal contact; you just
>write someone's name on a sheet and pay money. I was under he impression
>that the mitzvah is intended to promote keruv levavot, and here is being
>turned into an impersonal thing. It's not ish lreieyhu but through an
>office. On the other hand, mishloach implies that shlichut would be OK.
>And we accept this sort of arrangement for fulfilling matanot laevyonim.

As you note, since it is "mishloach" clearly it is the receiving, not the 
personal delivery.

The issue is more how you identify two manos. Bereira should work, were 
there enough manos per sender per recipient, because MM is a d'Rabbonon.

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

In a message dated 2/5/2003 11:15:36 PM EST, mgofman@zahav.net.il writes:
> 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.

while I heard what you are saying it is unlikely that the Rambam himself
meant to allow for such a chiluk.

If you see my gazilloni posts re: "it's not what is said what counts
but it's how it is understood or implemented that counts" then I would
say this

1) The Rambam probably never meant to allow for such a loophole
{intellectual honesty}
BUT
2A)Poskim have a right to use their interpretive powers to read into
the text

OR
2B) Klal Yisrael can see it in a slightly different manner and not take
things as orignally intended.

{FWIW lehavdil there are parallel machlokesen re" the US Constitution
and the idea of "original intent"}

As I posted re: the 13 Ikkarim, the Rambam indeed may have wanted it
to re understood one way but the facts are they they were not accepted
exactly as stated but rather with some caveats and limitations.

There is a sugya like this in Arvei Psachim re: Shmuel and bracha or
kiddush bimkom s'euda. General we pasekn like Shmuel re: Kiddush be
makom s'euda but Shmuel himself was macmir to repeat kiddush going
down from the Gag to the ground floor. Of the many ammoraim cited as
agreeing with Shmuel many did NOT agree with Shmuel regardgin this PRAT,
rather according to many mimakom lemakom in a bayis is not conisdered
shinuy makom! --pun intended--

So it's not that we pasken like SHMUEL, rather we pasken like Shmuel's
STATEMENT ein kiddush ella bimkom se'udah and therefore we may continue
to haggle about the way Shmuel himself would have paskened all the pratei
on a case by case basis.

Similarly it is IMHO silly to read into the Rambam something he did
not mean. It is not necessary to attribute this to the Rambam himself.
Rather we can see that Rambam lehsitasso might have had an extreme chumra
wihtin his psak on this matter that was impossible for most to accept so
they disputed the various prattim surrounding the original statement,
imlying even if you accpet the basic psak of the Rambam you would not
implement it as harshly as he might have.

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

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


[ 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         ]