Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 070

Tuesday, September 16 2003

• Fwd: Coalition: Touched By An Angel
• Valid vs invalid change in halachah
• Why do aveilim say Kaddish? (was: Women and kaddish)
• Re: community approval
• RE: ze sefer toldot adam
• re: yasom and kaddish (was: women and kaddish
• re:gender of Shabbos
• Re: gender of Shabbos
• Re: yasom and kaddish (was: women and kaddish
• Re: Faxing on Shabbos
• RE: ze sefer toldot adam
• RE: ze sefer toldot adam
• Re: pythagoras
• Re: pythagoras
• web on shabbat
• Zeh Sefer...
• RE: Faxing on Shabbos

-------- Original Message --------
From: Mail@JewishAmerica.com
Date: Sun, September 14, 2003 9:22 am
To: micha@aishdas.org

Touched By An Angel
Rabbi Yaakov Salomon
Am Echad Resources

I had seen him for years, but basically ignored him. I guess that's
what many people do with kids who have Down syndrome. Ignore them.
It's "safer" that way. They're so unpredictable.

But this past Rosh Hashanah, all of that changed.

Moshe is almost 17. I'm no expert, but I suppose his retardation is
moderate to severe. He's been coming to synagogue since he was 8 or
9. His mother brings him for the last 30-45 minutes of the Shabbos
morning service.

Moshe's routine has not changed dramatically in these last 8 years.
He ambles in to the Sanctuary on his own and goes directly to his
father. Dad greets him with a huge, welcoming smile, displaying no
discomfort or embarrassment whatsoever. Sometimes he will sit; other
times he stands. More often he paces.

Up the aisle, around the bend -- sometimes stopping to stare at a
random congregant for a few seconds -- while other times his trip is
the non-stop variety. On some days he visits the cantor at the front
lectern or the Rabbi; other times he skips them. No rhyme or reason,
no destination. No apparent purpose.

Moshe rarely says anything either. His speech is rather garbled;
his vocabulary limited. His favorite word seems to be, "Amen," always
recited a second or two after the congregational, "Amen," and always 2
0r 3 decibels louder than ours.

It is curious how little attention he garners. Most of my co-worshippers
seem to hardly notice him. No stares, no questions, little, if any,
interaction.

And Moshe does not demand our attention. Other than the occasional "in
your face," 3 second wordless stare, he just goes about his business. What
exactly is that business? I have no idea.

I do wonder, though. In his darkened world of limited intellect, how much
does he really comprehend? Does he recognize us from week to week? Does
he feel the pain of his limitations? Does it matter if we smile and are
friendly to him? Does his soul yearn for more?

Four years ago Moshe celebrated his Bar Mitzvah with a small gathering
of family, faculty and schoolmates. Apparently, this event was quite
meaningful to him -- the Bar Mitzvah picture album is his constant
synagogue companion. In between his wanderings, Moshe will sit quietly
and methodically turn the pages of this most treasured tome. Over and
over and over again. Flipping, staring, awkwardly adjusting his recently
acquired eyeglasses and sometimes slowly running his fingers over the
cherished photographs, as if never wanting to leave those joyous memories.

Then came Rosh Hashanah. For the last 22 years, I have had the awesome
and humbling privilege of leading the congregational service. I am not
a cantor by profession, but my synagogue, like many, prefers to employ
regular members like myself to lead the prayers instead of going the
professional route. It is a responsibility I take very seriously and an
honor I embrace.

This year was no different than most. My preparation, as usual, began
many weeks before the Holiday. My family and close friends know all the
telltale signs. The most obvious one is hypochondriasis. The mysterious
"tickle" in my throat, the Vitamin C and E that I ordinarily scoff at,
and the garlic regimen make their annual appearance. My mood becomes a
tad edgy and more serious.

Yet there was something a little bit different about this year. The
world. The world is different. Al-Qaida, suicide bombings, anthrax,
Saddam, a rash of kidnappings, reality TV etc. The list is pretty
extensive... depressing... and frightening. And then each one of us
has his own personal anguish and tribulations to add to the list. No
wonder the pre-Rosh Hashanah preparation period can be quite daunting --
especially this year.

But sometimes a strange phenomenon occurs. The fear, the dread, and the
pessimism can be so great and so awful, that instead of propelling us
to greater reflection, change and prayer -- the opposite takes place. We
become inured... numb... almost indifferent. Thoughts like, "What's the
use? Nothing will change," and "What's next?" begin to creep in to our
mindset. Despondency rules. The feeling that we are just sitting ducks
for the next misfortune or upheaval permeates our psyche. System overload
cripples and overrides our inclination for inspiration and hope.

And that's what happened to me. Standing at the cantor's lecturn,
on the holiest day of the year, I found myself in this very spiritual
funk. The day had arrived. No more time for preparation; no more garlic or
introspection -- just me, the prayer book, hundreds of fellow congregants
waiting to be led and inspired, and God. But something was wrong. I began
the Amidah -- the focal recitation of the day -- and invoked the names
of the Patriarchs, but something was missing. Something inside. Something
deep. Something very important. System overload had taken my heart away.

"How could this happen?" I frantically wondered. "Where is my
compassion... my spirit... my soul? Where are my tears???"

My lips kept moving and the words were still audible, but they were
perfunctory, listless, detached, and alone. Never before had I been so
keenly aware of my disconnected feelings and my desperate need to remedy
my disengagement.

And then, things got worse. Enter Moshe. As if my mind wasn't distracted
enough already, I looked up from my prayer book only to find his silent
stare just inches from my face. I felt like I had just driven over a
six-inch pothole at 60 miles an hour. "Now?" I thought. "My concentration
is in deep enough trouble as it is. Can't he just visit the Rabbi for
a spell?" I pondered callously.

Uncharacteristically, Moshe seemed to linger at the podium. He just
stood there, looking at me. Expressionless. Seemingly, frozen in time
and in no rush to continue his conventional stroll.

And then something happened. It's not easy to explain, but I think for
the first time, I saw Moshe. His gentility. His innocence. His soft hands
and his silent eyes. I sensed Moshe's simplicity and wholesomeness. Here
was a soul that was totally without sin, without blemish -- the very
definition of purity right in my midst. Staring at me; somehow silently
communicating with me. My lips continued to perform, but my mind was
now lost in this angelic emblem.

I felt my pulse quicken. Suddenly I was riding the crest of an enormous
spiritual wave, powered by the mere presence of a beacon of godliness.

Then without warning or fanfare, Moshe abruptly emerged from his momentary
stupor. His eyes broke away from mine and fixed on the far end of the
lectern. There, lying quietly and innocently, were a few stray tissues
that I had placed as a usual precaution prior to beginning the service.

To my near amazement, I watched as Moshe looked at the tissues, looked
back at me, and then carefully lifted one single tissue and tenderly
placed it in the palm of my hand. It was the first real contact he had
ever made with me. My prayers continued -- they had to -- but my mind
was now far, far away. I looked at Moshe and firmly curled my fingers
around my newfound gift. It was only a tissue, but at that moment from
that person it was a precious symbol of the deepest understanding and
care. The tears, only moments ago so distant, were suddenly unleashed.

It was then that I felt Moshe's warm touch as he reached out and began
to tenderly stroke my hand. It was warm and comforting. He understood
something about me and he wanted to help. One stroke and then a second.

I peered through my newly blurred vision, hoping to catch a glance at
the expression of my newfound friend, but he was gone. Having completed
his calling, Moshe was already en route to some new unidentified pew. My
now rejuvenated prayers, buoyed by the simplest of offerings, resounded
with passion and reverence as never before. And for the next two hours,
I never released that thin, frail tissue from my grasp.

I made a new friend that day -- a friend who I thought understood so very
little about this world. And he reminded me of a wonderful expression
I once heard about children like Moshe. Some people come to this world
to learn; others come to teach.

(Yaakov Salomon is a psychotherapist in private practice in Brooklyn,
New York and an author and editor for the Artscroll Publishing series.)

RSB wrote:
> We also frequently see
> Mishna Rishonah vs Mishna Acharonah, etc as an explanation. See also
> the intro to Igros Moshe in which RMF explains the dynamism of Psak
> halacha and the shiurim of RYBS with respect to our acceptance of
> chidushim from within and our rejection of shinuim from without.
> After the Chasimas HaShas, this dynamism exists within psak and
> chidushim reached after Chasimas HaShas, but not beforehand....

Why are you jumping from the legitimacy of machloqes between a rishon
and an amora to the subject of chiddushim vs shinuyim? The rishon is
trying to establish chiddush, the question is whether that's
legitimate. And shinuyim were never legitimate, even before chasimas
hashas.

-mi

R Harry Maryles wrote:
>> First, the purpose need not be halakhic. If it's mutar, and there
>> is an aggadic point, change could be justified.

> What do you mean by an Aggadic point?

>> Second, your issue isn't a halakhic one anyway.

> It is more of an Hashkafic reason....

By "aggadic point" I meant "a point of aggadita", a phrase that would
include your "hashkafic reason" of providing zechuyos for the niftar.

>> I disagree. Yes, it is incidental to its original purpose.
>> However, as RYBS describes it, Qaddish is an opportunity for
>> someone in the depths of despair to leave the state of existential
>> doubt (perhaps a aveil - aval connection?) and declare the basic
>> truths.

> Perhaps this is true and I certainly would not disagree with RYBS.
> But Isn't RYBS really explaining a secondary benefit, albeit an
> important one? Are you saying that RYBS does not hold that the
> primary purpose of Kaddish is to exalt the name of God? ...

I agree that it's not the primary benefit of qaddish itself.

However, I understood RYBS as giving the primary benefit the one
element of having aveilim bedavka lead qaddish.

> And wouldn't you
> think that RYBS himself would have advocated woman saying Kaddish if
> this was enough of a reason to do so? I do not remember ever hearing
> or reading anything resembling such a Psak from RYBS.

Why would there have been? According to previous posts, it was
accepted practice in Litta. Unlike the other issues on the table,
women saying qaddish from behind the mechitzah is not innovation.
Holding like those who say they can't, is.

>> RYBS describes the halakhah as being aimed at healing that angst.
>> It's not "more to do with", as addressing the feelings is the
>> source of the din.

>> But the purpose for any alleged change need not be found in the
>> din itself.

> Are you saying that RYBS held that the purpose of Halacha is healing
> angst? This is not how I read him. The purpose of Halacha is to
> synthesize the spiritual realm with physical universe by using our
> cognative abilities....

He also describes it as a means to navigate the dialectics of our
souls. But in any case, this is theodicical angst. It's crying out
one's faith in G-d when one has the natural inclination to ask "Why
me?" I don't think our answers contradict.

R I Kasdan wrote:
> At least in the case of the passing of a parent, it may be that the
> child assumes, or *inherits* (is yoresh), the sins of the departed...

Where is the din veDayan in that? I'm reminded of how the rishonim
handle "poqeid avon avos" bedavka to avoid this concept of inherited
guilt and punishment for another's sin.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and 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.

RAM:
> Anyway, RMB continued <<< Either Q will be influenced, or there is
> now a divide between T and Q. In fact, we noted this divide actually
> happening bemitzi'us. If the LOR in T would defer to a rav that all
> of MO (including the shuls named R, T, and Q) accept, then the split
> is far less likely to occur. Also, the feedback loop pushing T & R
> toward more and more innovation has a break, there is someone
> recognized by both saying ad kan vesu lo.>>>

> I'll agree that this is the mechanics of how it all works, and that
> a split will be less likely if all three shuls defer to the same
> rav.

So, then do you agree with my maskanah -- that an LOR who chooses not
to ask that rav is taking into his own hands questions that affect his
kehillah's relationship to other kehillos, and therefore playing with
things outside of his league?

> But I'm concerned about another problem as well: What happens if we
> change the beginning of the story. Suppose it wasn't T that moved to
> the left, but Q that moved to the right!

It's equally a problem. However, that's not what's happening
lema'aseh. The radicals are looking to change gender roles. Not that
the conservatives are trying to restore an illusory previous state.

...
> This is all fun armchair sociology, but I think we've said here many
> times that although there are many rabbonim who will say "ad kan
> v'su lo", we have way too few among us who will actually listen and
> obey. Each group will move as it pleases, in accordance with what it
> feels is proper, and with due attention to what the neighbors are
> doing and saying.

This kind of "do one's own thing" with no care to the broader kahal is
an American malady, not a guideline a rav ought to follow. When the
coupling is minimal is one thing. To ignore it when it's not is
something else.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and 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.

[Micha:]
> I'm amazed by this last statement. It's being made by someone who
> insisted at great length that the mabul and migdal Bavel were allegory
> despite a solid tradition of peshat.

> This OTOH is an aggaditah from shas, for which there is a long tradition
> in general not to take at face value, and therefore peshat is not
> necessarily the default position. Not to mention the relative centrality
> of chumash vs some inyan in gemara. And here you DO insist on sticking
> to the tradition?

Several answers:
1) leshitato - RYGB has been insistent in the past that things be solidly
based on rishonim - and here...

2) The issue is not hilchot deot and allegorical interpretations -
about which I have no problem - (quite the reverse, as RMB has pointsbut
has fundamental practical impact on our understanding of our primary
obligations. This is more a midrash halacha than an aggadic midrash
(see eg. malbim).

3) While the notion that our responsibility to better ourselves is
crucially important has major roots, the notion that it exceeds our
communal obligations is something that I think is something that is a
foreign import - foreign to hazal - and (WADR) I find morally obnoxious
- and therefore the issue of its basis in a drashat chazal therefore
becomes important.

Meir Shinnar

>> R' Avraham ben Chiya Hanasi mi'Barcelona wrote: Anyone who thinks that his
>> sons saying kaddish can benefit him after his death has false thoughts
>> considered worthless by all the chakhamim and the knowledgeable (anshei
>> mada' - not in the modern sense).

> How does he deal with the R' Akiva story?

Deja vu again. This question was disposed of most thoroughly and astutely
in www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n123.shtml

EMT

<Given the quotes from Yeshaiah, why do I still say that Tanakh is
consistant? LAD, in Yehshaiah the person is guarding Shabbos, lest he
render himself chol. There is a basic question of what chilul Shabbos
means. It is possible to make the etzem of yom haShabbos chol?>

Though the p'shat in the posuk could be, its buttressing on the basis
of the question asked is on shaky grounds. After all, the posuk says
"M'chal'leha mos yumas," where the chilul certainly refers to the Shabbos.
And can Shem Shamayim, chalilah, be b'etzem made chol?

EMT

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 03:45:00PM -0400, Elazar M Teitz wrote:
: Though the p'shat in the posuk could be, its buttressing on the basis
: of the question asked is on shaky grounds. After all, the posuk says
: "M'chal'leha mos yumas," where the chilul certainly refers to the Shabbos.
: And can Shem Shamayim, chalilah, be b'etzem made chol?

Can the words "be'etzem" and "sheim" be used together? I would say that
literal "chilul haSheim" /is/ possible because it's not referring to
etzem. However, given that I'm arguing that "chilul Shabbos" ought not
be taken literally, I could see the same thing about "chilul Hasheim".

But your ra'ayah from Shemos eliminates my whole argument. One can be
mechaleil Shabbos itself, r"l. Perhaps this is peshat in the previous
phrase, "qodesh hi *lakhem*". But it's strange; our qedushah comes from
Shabbos's, not the other way around. IOW, while yours is a clear upshlug,
I still don't see how my sevarah was flawed.

The real reason for my suggested peshat in "mechalelo" as referring
to the chilul of the shomeir is that it eliminates the need to treat
Yeshaiah 56's use of lashon zachar as an exeption.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and 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.

In a message dated 09/14/2003 5:48:38 PM EDT, remt@juno.com writes:
>>> R' Avraham ben Chiya Hanasi mi'Barcelona wrote: Anyone who thinks that his
>>> sons saying kaddish can benefit him after his death has false thoughts
>>> considered worthless by all the chakhamim and the knowledgeable (anshei
>>> mada' - not in the modern sense).
 
>> How does he deal with the R' Akiva story?
 
> Deja vu again. This question was disposed of most thoroughly and astutely
> in www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n123.shtml

Here's the relevant section from that discussion, perhaps SM can expand - did 
R' Avraham simply reject the concept that the deeds of the living can benefit 
the dead (or else why wouldn't saying qaddish - as an example of being osek 
bmitzvot - work) or was there a belief that doing this alone was sufficient ?

KVCT
Joel Rich

				   -=-=-=-=-

This is enough for now. But the point I wanted to make is even though
this medrash is known to many, if not all, rishonim, there is no unanimity
about a) who the Rabbi was in the story, and b) what the son had to do to
gain the father's release. The common demonimator in all is that the son
has to serve as the leader of the tzibbur, but it is not clear for what:
haftoro, bar'khu, qaddish, Shatz.

That is why R' Avraham Hanasi mi'Barcelona could say that anyone
who believes that one's saying kaddish can help the dead is neither
knowledgeable nor a chakham. The custom came from Ashkenaz, and RAHmB
probably had heard about it, but knew nothing about it from the Talmud
(neither Talmud mentions the whole inyan). He may not have known of the
medrash (it was not in old editions of the standard medrashim), it was
aggad'ta, not halokho, and even if he did know of it, it may have been
interpreted as meaning that the only way to save the father is to have
the son learn and be oseq in mitzvos.

Best regards,
Seth Mandel

R David Bannett wrote:
> Are posters not mixing nolad and molid?
>
> AIUI:
>
> Nolad is a kind of muktzeh because the item involved didn't exist
> before Shabbos.
>
> Molid is the creative act of making that item, a kind of Tikkun kli
> d'rabbanan.

I think we all really mean nolad.

To repeat again the case, it's the reception of a fax during Shabbos
sent from a timezone in which Shabbos hadn't begun yet or had ended
already.

Since shevisas keilim was already ruled out, and the person sending
the fax isn't birthing anything on his Shabbos, the question AIUI is
that of picking up the fax to read it once it arrives.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

RGS
> I found that R' Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov in his Derashos on parshas Devarim,
> quoted in Yedei Moshe in the Vilna Midrash Rabbah, explains the machlokes
> R' Akiva and Ben Azzai similar to the way RYGB and I explained.  

There is a very crucial difference - which goes to the point that I was
upset about. (BTW, I am not sure from the abbreviations whether this
rav shemtov ibn shem tov, or midrash shocar tov).

First, the source actually has a completely different text (it is curious
abouts its origin) - rather than a bifold distinction, it has a trifold -
and rather than the word clal (with several potential different meanings)
it talks about which mitzva subsumes the most mitzvot - and has three
options - veahavta le'reacha camocha (understood by the author as ben
adam lechavero), shma yisrael (yirat shamayim), or ze sefer toldot adam
- understanding one's zelem, and therefore refraining from all rishut.
The issue is about subsuming the most mitzvot

There isn't,however, the tension set up by RGS and RYGB between individual
perfection versus social responsibility - as if there are contrasting
ideals.

Meir Shinnar

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>First, the source actually has a completely different text
>(it is curious abouts its origin) - rather than a bifold
>distinction, it has a trifold - and rather than the word
>clal (with several potential different meanings) it talks
>about which mitzva subsumes the most mitzvot - and has
>three options - veahavta le'reacha camocha (understood by
>the author as ben adam lechavero), shma yisrael (yirat
>shamayim), or ze sefer toldot adam - understanding one's
>zelem, and therefore refraining from all rishut.  The
>issue is about subsuming the most mitzvot

This is a matter of interpretation and you are interpreting this
explanation of R' Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov (that is to whom RMM Kasher
attributes this explanation in his Torah Shelemah) in a way that make
you more comfortable.

I believe that RSTiST is referring to the three-way split of mitzvos into
bein adam la-makom (Shema), bein adam la-chaveiro (ve-ahavta le-rei'acha),
and bein adam le-atzmo (ze sefer). As with many midrashim, none of the
opinions are arguing but, rather, are emphasizing different aspects
of Torah.

Gil Student

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, S Goldstein wrote:
> RET wrote that the Rash in Kilayim 5:5 disagrees with the Pythagorean
> Theorem.
...
> Please note that the Tosafos Yom tov there and Chazon Ish Kilayim 12:1-3
> reject the Rash, proving him wrong.

I believe that the Bet Yosef before them disagreed.
What I found interesting was that the Rash disagreed with Pythagoras by
quoting a Mishna against him.

The Chazon ish was quite familar with modern geometry and would of course
not accept the Rash.

Shana Tova,
Eli

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 01:12:57PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The Chazon ish was quite familar with modern geometry and would of course
: not accept the Rash.

By the time the Rash was alive, Pythagoras was 1775 years dead.
Not quite "modern geometry". The Rash's rejection of it is not all that
less startling than would be a 20th century gadol's.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

Is there any problem in reading a web site from Israel (eg JPost)
when it is shabbat in israel but not in the US/Europe

Eli Turkel

At 03:59 PM 9/14/2003 -0400,Meir Shinnar wrote:
> [Micha:]
>> I'm amazed by this last statement. It's being made by someone who
>> insisted at great length that the mabul and migdal Bavel were allegory
>> despite a solid tradition of peshat.

>> This OTOH is an aggaditah from shas, for which there is a long tradition
>> in general not to take at face value, and therefore peshat is not
>> necessarily the default position. Not to mention the relative centrality
>> of chumash vs some inyan in gemara. And here you DO insist on sticking
>> to the tradition?

> Several answers:
> 1) leshitato - RYGB has been insistent in the past that things be solidly
> based on rishonim - and here...

What Rishonim?

> 2) The issue is not hilchot deot and allegorical interpretations -
> about which I have no problem - (quite the reverse, as RMB has pointsbut
> has fundamental practical impact on our understanding of our primary
> obligations. This is more a midrash halacha than an aggadic midrash
> (see eg. malbim).

Really?

> 3) While the notion that our responsibility to better ourselves is
> crucially important has major roots, the notion that it exceeds our
> communal obligations is something that I think is something that is a
> foreign import - foreign to hazal - and (WADR) I find morally obnoxious
> - and therefore the issue of its basis in a drashat chazal therefore
> becomes important.

You're tilting at windmills. Just because we don't agree that communal
obligations are at the pinnacle of Ben Azzai's concern does not mean it
is not at the pinnacle of our concerns.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 03:30 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> WRT to Midrash Rabba (parsha 24)
...
> This second part seems directly linked to the machloket of ben azzai
> and rabbi akiba - which is also the way that the classical mefarshim of
> midrash rabba also understand it - (and hard to understand in other ways)
> - the midrash questions rabbi akiba, which seems to limit our obligation
> to kamocha - but not to treat him higher - therefore, if you are being
> shamed, it is ok to include your friend to be equally shamed - and
> ben azzai, by means of ze sefer toldot adam - says that our obligation
> is higher, as we have to remember the zelem elokim in the other. ben
> azzai's position is viewed as a statement on our obligations to others,
> because ze sefer toldot adam means that they (rather than merely I)
> are descended from adam created in zelem elohim, rather than merely our
> obligations to ourselves.

Frankly, you are reading the Midrash in a self-serving manner. I saw no
elaboration of Ben Azzai here, and I believe there is none. The shakla
v'tarya and R' Tanchuma concern R' Akiva.

> The malbim offers my pshat, as referring to our obligations to others.  the
> ra'avad does too - can't cite it off the top of my head)(IIRC, he is cited
> in the torah shlema to breshit if you have access to that)

> Again, while one can darshen the pasuk in many ways, including yours and rav
> Kornfeld's, this is not the most natural pasuk to give that message, while
> it naturally gives the message as understood by  the ra'avad, malbim, and
> me, so your pshat is problematic in ben azzai.

The Malbim, last I checked, was an Acharon. A Ra'avad neither of us have
seen - well, that really doesn't mean very much, especially in an Agada
where we are not meshu'abad to Rishonim.

YGB 

Yosef G. and Shani M. Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
ygb@aishdas.org

[Micha:]
> Since shevisas keilim was already ruled out, and the person sending
> the fax isn't birthing anything on his Shabbos, the question AIUI is
> that of picking up the fax to read it once it arrives.

In the one psak I'm familiar with, the rav ruled that it's assur to send a
fax to someone while it's shabbos there, even if it won't be read until
after shabbos.

(I can't remember which of two Dayanim in London made the psak...old
age creeping i I guess :-)

Akiva

===============
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long
to return."
                     --Leonardo da Vinci

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


[ 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         ]