Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 038

Monday, July 7 2003

• Re: tzedakah
• Re: tzedakah
• Ki Yesh Sachar
• Re: 'nun hafucha'
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re: tzedakah
• Re: Mishebeirachs: mentioning name of person needing Refuah
• Re: Salting the HaMotzi
• (Fwd) Kidushin 030: obligation to teach child to swim
• amoraim aruing with tanaim
• Re: existential angst
• Re: quietism: was existential angst
• Baalei teshuvah
• Re: Nigunim in Shul
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re: Salting the HaMotzi

On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:56:13PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: whatI can see, there is no Rayah that Beis Din can focibly "tax" Klal
: Israel in the sense that a government can. If the Chiuv is of Maasar
: Ksafim is 10% than all Beis Din can do is enforce that. They can not
: impose an additional 5%.

According to R' Frand (one of his tapes), it's quite likely that ma'aser
kesafim is a minhag, not a chiyuv, and that the minhag orignated with the
convention for kehillos taxing 10% for tzedaqah.

-mi

<< . . .from what I can see, there is no Rayah that Beis Din can forcibly
"tax" Klal Israel in the sense that a government can.>>

Sorry if this source has been raised already, but cf. S'A, O'C 150:1
"kofin bnei ha'ir ze es ze livnos beis hakneses . . " and see the
sources in the M'B there in alef and beis.

Moreover, there are shitos that beis din can be kofeh on lifnim mishuras
hadin -- even though, ostensibly, lifnim mishuras hadin is 'voluntary.'
See S'A, C'M 12:2. A rayah that I like to bring in connection with that
shitah is that the lashon "v'asisah" from the pasuk "v'asisah hayashar
vehatov" may hint at k'fiyah since v'asisah is learned as a lashon of
k'fiya elsewhere. See, e.g., R'H 6a on the posuk "motzah s'fasecha . .
.v'asisah."

RHM:
> I think that what Chazal may have meant by "al menas she-lo lekabel
> peras" is that knowing that there IS... a reward/punishment system,
> one should strive to do it out of love of God rather than reward. IOW
> reward should be secondary. However, without any reward or punishment
> at all it would seem that God wouldn't really care what we do.

R' CY Goldvicht gave a derasha on this mishna and the medrash at the
beginning of Va'eschanan where HQBH promises Moshe the reward for going
to Eretz Yisrael, which surprisingly implies that Moshe really wanted the
reward) in which he distinguished between al m'nas l'kabeil p'ras (bad)
and k'dei lekabel p'ras (good), with the mishna specifically proscribing
only the former. According to his interpretation (assuming the focus
of Creation was to allow the earning of reward), striving for the reward
via mitzvos is actually important, but making observance conditional on
reward is not.

Meyer

I wrote:
: An Aristotilian spin (pun intended, although I probably shouldn't admit
: it) would be to say /hpk/ means change because it is to emerge min
: hako'ach el hapo'al. This would relate it in a Hirschian sense to /npk/,
: to breath in.

As REMT pointed out in private email, my poor spelling skills tripped me
up.

Hirsch relates it to /npk/, which means to mine small stones. Not /npH/,
to exhale into something else ("vayipach be'apav).

In either case, it's salvagable:
    ore : gem :: ko'ach : po'al.
Change is mining the potential in the object.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 6/30/2003 7:33:39 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:05:32AM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
>: The Talmud (could be a midrash) states that God acted as Kohen.

> Pity it doesn't fit the lashon of the gemara ("... osah sha'ah Ani
> kohein...") 

AFAIU the Psik in the Gemara is "Kovod Godol...osah sha'ah, Ani Kohein,
(especially according to the Girsa of the Shita Mk. there), and see
Sanhedrin 39a "E-lokeichem Kohein Hu" and see Margoliyas Hayam there.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:52:08PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:05:32AM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
:>: The Talmud (could be a midrash) states that God acted as Kohen.
: 
:> Pity it doesn't fit the lashon of the gemara ("... osah sha'ah Ani
:> kohein...") 

: AFAIU the Psik in the Gemara is "Kovod Godol...osah sha'ah, Ani Kohein,
: (especially according to the Girsa of the Shita Mk. there), and see
: Sanhedrin 39a "E-lokeichem Kohein Hu" and see Margoliyas Hayam there.

Sorry.

I meant:
Pity the following (about a kohein being metaheir in his role as
sheli'ach leMaqom) doesn't fit the lashon of the gemara...

Because it doesn't, I don't understand how HQBH would reassume the right
that He already gave away to kohanim. I asked by parallel to Hashem's
lack of authority to state the halachah is like R' Eliezer (RElazarMT
noted to me privately that I misnamed the tanna last time).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

<< . . .from what I can see, there is no Rayah that Beis Din can forcibly
"tax" Klal Israel in the sense that a government can.>>

Sorry if this source has been raised already, but cf. S'A, O'C 150:1
"kofin bnei ha'ir ze es ze livnos beis hakneses . . " and see the
sources in the M'B there in alef and beis.

Moreover, there are shitos that beis din can be kofeh on lifnim mishuras
hadin -- even though, ostensibly, lifnim mishuras hadin is 'voluntary.'
See S'A, C'M 12:2. A rayah that I like to bring in connection with that
shitah is that the lashon "v'asisah" from the pasuk "v'asisah hayashar
vehatov" may hint at k'fiyah since v'asisah is learned as a lashon of
k'fiya elsewhere. See, e.g., R'H 6a on the posuk "motzah s'fasecha . .
.v'asisah."

I heard this last week (Shelach): The Ozrover Rebbe once asked the Gerrer
Rebbe to daven for him and gave him his mother's name; The Gerrer Rebbe
asked (much as Simchah G did): "Doesn't the gemara learn out from Moishe
Rabbeinu when he was mispallel for his sister Miryom with the words 'keil
na refoh na lah' that one doesn't have to mention the name of the Choleh
when being mispallel?". To which the the Ozrover immediately answered:
'keil no refoh no loh' is Gematria: "Miriam Bas Yocheved."

MiInyan LiInyan, about the name -- "HaCholeh": The Munkaczer, I believe,
objects to and questions the advisedness of designating someone as
"HaCholeh"; (the Chabad Siddur merely writes "Es (Ploni b. plonis)":
perhaps this is more widespread); there is what to be said for not
designating someone as such BiTzibur by a Shliach Tzibur.

Nachman Levine

On 30 Jun 2003 at 18:26, sba@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> Just wish to point out Minhag Chasam Sofer z'l and many Oberlender
> [Yekkes?]that on Friday night the challah is not dipped into salt.

Why? 

-- Carl

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

Thought this might be of interest to the Chevra. I'm pretty sure we've
discussed this before.

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:49:46 +0200
From:           	Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.co.il>
Subject:        	Kidushin 030: obligation to teach child to swim
To:             	discuss list <daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il>

(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
                 THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
             Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                      daf@dafyomi.co.il
 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________

Kidushin 030: obligation to teach child to swim
Chaim Baruch Silverman <jsilv003@umaryland.edu> asked:

The gemorah does not elaborate on the obligation except for giving the
reason of potential lifesaving.

1) Is this halacha? On both sons and daughters? How far does the reasoning
of protecting the life go? Is it necessary to teach one's child about
fire? CPR? Etc.? What do some of the commentators say?

2) Is there any other similar reference in Shas about obligations to
teach or know lifesaving skills?

Thank you. 
Chaim Baruch Silverman, silver spring, md

----------------------------------------------
Rabbi Feinhandler writes replies:

Dear Chaim Baruch,

1) It seems that the Gemara here is referring to a person who lives
near the water, but people like us who live inland, have no obligation
whatsoever to teach swimming. It is also interesting to note that some
Rabbis feel that it is forbidden to do so, as the great majority of
people that drown every year are those that know how to swim.

2) Knowing how to save a person's life is not mentioned at all.
According to "Aliyos Eliyahu," the Vilna Gaon's father forbade him to
learn doctoral skills, fearing that having such knowledge would obligate
him to use it constantly to save people's lives and would thus detract
him from his Torah study.

Best wishes,
Rabbi Yisroel Pesach Feinhandler, Rabbi of Avney Yashpe Synagogue
feinhan@zahav.net.il

The Kollel adds:

2) The point of teaching one's children swimming skills is in order for
them to save their *own* lives should they fall into a body of water. The
Gemara abounds with this type of "lifesaving" lessons. For example, we
are taught many pointers for avoiding the plottings of evildoers and for
self-protection. (See Avodah Zarah 25b, "Ashrei Rebbi Akiva v'Talmidav,
she'Lo Baga Bahen Adam Ra me'Olam"; Shabbos 19a Bava Basra 167a and
Chulin 105a "Kevar Kadmuch Rabanan," to name just a few.)

If you are referring specifically to protection from *natural* calamities,
there are many Gemaras which teach a person to protect himself from
harm through natural occurences as well. (See, for example, Kesuvos 30b
with regard to Tzinim and Pachim, Shabbos 147a "Ein Yordim l'Kurdima",
Rosh Hashanah 16b "Kir Natuy" etc.)

Learning the skills needed to save others, such as CPR, is of course,
a different subject. The Gemara tells us quite clearly the importance
of "ha'Matzil Nefesh Achas mi'Yisrael...." In many places we find that
if one has the ability to benefit others -- whether it be by teaching
them or by rebuking them or by physically providing for them -- he will
be punished if he not put his ability to use. Saving another person's
*money* from harm is a Mitzvah d'Oraisa of "Hashavas Aveidah," all the
more so saving his *skin* (see Bava Kama 81b).

M. Kornfeld

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
majordomo@shemayisrael.com with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss

------- End of forwarded message -------

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.

I received (from R. Mordecai Kornfeld of the internet daf yomi) some
sources on the topic of amoraim and tanaim arguing


the Marei Mekomos that I found were in a Sefer "Eizehu Mekoman" on
Zevachim 16a, who cites:
    Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra 170a #633
    Rabeinu Yonah cited by Shitah Mekubetzes Bava Basra 131a
    Peninim v'Igros Mishmar ha'Levi (Rav Wosner) #46,47

does anyone have access to the sefer by R. Wosner or
to Eizahu Mekoman.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
>My point was that, at least ideally, we should do mitzvos even if there
>were no olam ha-ba. Whether out of hakaras ha-tov or simply a desire 
>for kirvas Elokim, we are supposed to do mitzvos she-lo al menas lekabel
>peras (or: al menas she-lo lekabel peras).

>What is the difference between doing mitzvos not-for-a-reward and 
>doing mitzvos knowing that there will be no reward? Shouldn't be any, 
>although. I understand that most of us don't reach the ideal.

I remember R' Yakov Weinberg zt"l would say we can do mitzvos for the
reward and it will still be shelo al menas likabel pras. This is possible
if you do the mitzvos because you know Kaviyachol wants to give us a
reward (to avoid nahama dikisufa, or such) as a chesed to us. You give
Him the oppurtunity, as it were, to do His chesed. On the one hand you're
doing the mitzvos to get reward, but the ultimate kavana is insure that
Kaviyachol's plan is successful.

Regards,
Mordechai Dixler 

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 05:08:59PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: 1. quietism
...
: 1. There's a machlokes haposkim about whether asking God for things one
: needs is the mitzvah of Tfillah l'chatchilla (as in H. Tefillah 1:4),
: or whether it's an unfortunate b'dieved, and the l'chatchila is praying
: for tzaros haShechina (as in Ruah Hayyim 3:2). I speculate (and it's an
: argument by analogy so it's not conclusive) that R Hayyim's adherents
: would consider any distress about one's personal situation to be a
: flaw in character which disqualifies the person from studying kabbalah,
: whereas the Rambam's adherents would not.

How is either position "quietism"? Rather, one is a focus on one's own
cause for disquiet, while the other focusses on the Borei's.

In any case, I don't see your analogy. One is about what problems ought
one daven to resolve. RCV is arguing that if my problems were not cosmic
in effect, they wouldn't be real problems deserving of resolution.

Tefillah, however, isn't bakashah. One doesn't learn in order to releave
distress.

-mi

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

Posted by: gil@aishdas.org
> Let me put it to you this way. How many ba'alei teshuvah become frum
> out of fear of punishment and how many out of the desire to do mitzvos?
> I believe the latter is the main reason and is how we all should act.

In my experience, a fair number of baalei teshuva do start out from
the fear of punishment. The motivations for accepting ol mitzvos are
someitmes quite complex. There are certain recognizable behaviors and
discomfort with complexity that characterized this early stage for those
that begin in it.It is the job of a wise mentor to shepherd them past
this stage to a more mature way in avodas hashem.

M. Levin

>won't sing Kail Adon. The Chasidim will sing both of these,

Not in Vizhnitz.

-----------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

In a message dated 7/2/03 12:23:01 AM ET, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I don't understand how HQBH would reassume the right
> that He already gave away to kohanim. I asked by parallel to Hashem's
> lack of authority to state the halachah is like R' Eliezer (RElazarMT
> noted to me privately that I misnamed the tanna last time).

1) As already pointed out if he isn't Kohein so then no Tumah in first
place, so Hapeh She'osar Hu Hapeh She'hitter

2) "Lo Bashomayim He" says in Torah itself, OTOH that HKBH is still
Kohen also says in the Torah "Vyikchu *Lee* Trumah"

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer " <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> sba@iprimus.com.au wrote:
>> Just wish to point out Minhag Chasam Sofer z'l and many Oberlender
>> [Yekkes?]that on Friday night the challah is not dipped into salt.

> Why?

Because one of the reasons for salting bread is because 'shulchan domeh
lamizbe'ach' and 'al kol korboncho takriv melach' - and there was no
haktoro on Friday night. The 2nd reason ie - that salt is a shmirah
- which is not required on Shabbos [that taam would apply to Shabbos
day too.]

SBA

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


[ 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         ]