Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 052

Wednesday, July 21 2004

• Nine Days Question
• RE: 9 days question
• Re: Nonjews and Tefillin
• Re: Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Re: Matos-Masei - Q#1 - inheritance for Gad & Reuven
• Re: Matos-Masei - Q#2 - humans as plunder
• Re: 2 Daf Yomi questions
• Re: Tfillin not worn
• Re: 9 days question
• 9 days question
• Who was Iyov (if he existed)?
• Re: Nonjews and Tefillin
• Re: Evolution
• source for "No Talmidei Chachamim b'zman haZeh" needed
• Re: Evolution
• Re: Foreknowledge vs free-will
• Re: 9 days question
• Re: who yaaseh shalom alein
• Re: Yizkor
• Re: Singing the Zemer 'Bar Yocha'i in Shul
• Re: The Dynamics of Anger
• Re: source for "No Talmidei Chachamim b'zman haZeh" needed
• Re: source for "No Talmidei Chachamim b'zman haZeh" needed
• Re: The Dynamics of Anger
• Re: source for "No Talmidei Chachamim b'zman haZeh" needed

RSN asked re use of the tune of Aicha or Eli Tzion either for Birchas
HaChodesh or during Shabbos Chazzon. I have heard the tune of Eli
Tzion used during Lcha Dodi and Kel Adon. I have not heard the tune
of Aicha used . I have seen possibly in Moadim Uzmanim in the name of
the CI question whether the use of the Eli Tzion or a similar tune is
aveilus bparhesiyah ( public mourning). Anyone recall whether other
Poskim discuss this ? IMHO, in the case of a Tisha Bav that comes out
on Shabbos, could not one argue that in such a case, only the fast and
certain aspects of aveilus are suspended, as opposed to other apsects
of aveilus btzina ? IIRC, RYBS discussed this at length. See Shiurei
HaRav and Harrei Kedem, Vol 2. for detailed discussions of this issue.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

> anyone aware of use of...2] use of elli tzion niggun for lecha dodi
> on shabbat chazon?

The two shuls that are closest to me have different policies. The Agudah
affiliated shul does *not* use the elli tzion niggun for lecha dodi, since
"It's Shabbos and public mourning is prohibited." The OU affiliated shul
*does* use the elli tzion niggun for lecha dodi, since "It's Shabbos
Chazon and we should remember Tisha B'Av is approaching."

(On a related 9 days issue, see
http://kashrut.org/halacha/?law=Tisha+B%27av for a teshuva from R' Abadi
about taking showers during the nine days.)

KT,
Aryeh

>>>> God forbid ! See: Rambam Hilchot Melachim 10:9. It is categorically
>>>> prohibited for a gentile to put on tefillin (or to observe any mitzva).
>>>> Chachamim hizaharu b'divreichem !!!

>>> And read the very next halachah, 10:10 - "ben noaH sheratsah la`asot
>>> mitsvah meshe'ar mitsvot hatorah, keday leqabel sechar, 'ayn mon`in
>>> 'oto la`asot 'otah kehilchatah..."

>>> "A Noahide who wished to perform any of the other mitsvot of the Torah 
>>> (besides torah study and shabbat), in order to receive a reward, we
>>> do not prevent him from performing [that mitsvah] according to halachah".

>> Look at the RADBAZ there: "u'mikol makom b'mitzvot she'tzrichin kedusha
>> v'tahara kegon TEFILLIN, sefer torah u'mezuza, ani chochech l'hachmir
>> SHELO YANICHU otam " (the Rav David Ibn Zimra, a major commentary
>> on the Rambam, specifically prohibts a Ben Noach to have anything to do 
>> with holy objects like TEFILLIN).

Yes, but who says the Rambam would agree with the Radbaz?

> Now, I had trouble with his citations of 

> + the Rambam in 10:9 (who only assers shabbat and torah study, albeit
> with a warning per his later teshuvah on the subject
> (chayav mitah =/= neherag));

> + Radbaz (who seems to express only minimal hesitation about letting
> non-Jews wear tefillin, given Jastrow's construal of "chocheich" as
> "hesitation);

>   Also, I just noticed that the Radbaz's girsa has another word that
>   Josh left out: "SHELO YANICHU otam LAASOTAM". Is it possible that
>   the Radbaz was talking about *making* sifrei STA"M, rather than USING
>   them?  So "lo yanichu otam" doesn't mean "putting them on", which
>   doesn't make sense in terms of S"T and mezuza, but "letting them".
>   Clearly, *we* can't use such STA"M, but could a goy use tefillin that
>   he had made for himself?

Actually, I think you're both misreading the Radbaz. R Josh is reading
'shelo yanichu otam' as 'they should not put them (i.e. tefilin) on'.
You are reading 'shelo yanichu otam laasotam' as 'we shouldn't let
them make them' (i.e. sta"m). The plain meaning of the Radbaz is that
we should not allow the goyim to *perform* those mitzvot that involve
handling sta"m.

Note that this does *not* contradict the Rambam. The Rambam says the goy
has the right to put on tefilling. The Radbaz doesn't disagree; however,
he says *we* should not permit him to do so. If he goes ahead and does it
without our permission, there's nothing we can do about it, and he is not
doing anything wrong. And, of course, you're right that the Radbaz doesn't
make a definite statement, but merely tends towards a strict stance.

It is possible that the Rambam would agree with the Radbaz, or at least
say that we should steer goyim towards other mitzvot; OTOH, it is equally
possible that he would not agree.

Meanwhile, Rebbi seems to have had no problem at all with sending a
mezuzah to Ardeban, and the gemara that repeats the story seems to have
had no problem with it either.

In any case, R Josh's '(or any other mitzvah)' seems completely unfounded,
and contradicts the gemara (and navi) that in future goyim will keep
Succot.

In Avodah V13 #51 dated 7/20/04 Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
writes:
> Thus the solution that deeds determined second marriage while mazel 
> determines first marriage.

Zivug rishon and zivug sheini are not necessarily first and second
marriage. Your first zivug is your ideal mate, your soul mate, the one
the bas kol announces before you're born. Depending on your deeds and
the way your character develops as you mature, you may or may not ever
even meet this person. You may meet her but not choose to marry her.
Your first wife may be your zivug sheini--the one you got because you
didn't "earn" your zivug rishon, or the two of you just grew apart
(without ever having met).

Leah was Yakov's first wife, but Rochel was his zivug rishon. Leah was
in fact Esav's zivug rishon, but he lost her by the exercise of his own
free will--by choosing to be evil.

Of course, since so many people don't end up with their zivug rishon, an
elaborate game of musical chairs ensues in which all sorts of people end
up marrying all sorts of people with whom they were not originally paired.
Some of these marriages end up happy, others not so.

My understanding is that a heavy dose of hashgacha pratis is involved
in a zivug sheini, too, maybe even more than in zivug rishon--maybe the
reason Hashem is so busy with shidduchim! To find a zivug rishon, there
may be some complicated logistics involved. (Mike was in South Africa,
for example, while I was in NY--and we met in Israel. Assuming he's my
zivug rishon!) But at least the people were already created from the
get-go to match each other. But to bring a zivug sheini together--boy,
that gets REALLY complicated.

 -Toby Katz

In a message dated 7/18/04 10:12:31 PM EDT, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
> What happened to the land of Gad and Reuven during Yovel years?  Did 
> property revert back to original ownership, etc.?

Yes, see Rambam Hil. Shmita vYovel 10:8-9.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/18/04 10:12:43 PM EDT, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
> End of perek 31 in Bamidbar (e.t., vv 40, 46-47).
> The plunder/tribute/booty/whatever, included people. What was done
> with them? What about the (see v 40-41) the 32 given to HaShem? Or the
> 50 that were given to the Levi'im in v 47?

1) on the last line it should read 1/50 (which equaled 320 people).
2) they would be used as slaves, WRT those given to Hashem compare with
Vayikra 27:28.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/7/04 12:25:23 PM EDT, afolger@aishdas.org writes:
> * in the 1st chapter of Bekhorot, we learn about the possible tumas okhlin
> of donkey, the question being whether it needs ma'hshavah or not (Rabbi
> Shim'on vs. Rabbanan). Why does this question exist at all. After all,
> donkey has tumah 'hamurah of nivlat beheimah tmeiah?
> See Rashi Al Asar (9b).

> * in the second chapter, the mishnah (16ab, IIRC) discusses what one
> should do if there is doubt as to which animal is a bekhor. What strikes
> me is that hamotzi me'havero 'alav harayah rules, even though giving the
> sheep to the kohen is a mitzvat 'aseh. Shouldn't we say that indeed, the
> kohen can't require the sheep, but it is in the interest of the owner,
> in the spirit of safeq deOraitah, to give both sheep?

I see RDS already was Mitzayin to the Rit Algazi on 9b and 16b. some
explain that since (according to some) Sofek d'Oreisa is Ossur Midrabonon
the Chachomim were not Machmir by money. (it is also important to take
in consideration that this is (according to some) mitzva based on giving
IOW Momon.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/16/04 1:14:57 PM EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> The gemora in Shabbat(130a) mentions mitzvot that B"Y kept during gzerat
> malchut and those that they weren't moser themselves on. Tfillin is the
> example of the latter and therefoe it is "adayin mrafeh byadam". Tosfot
> 49a seems to say this was still the case in his day(unless I'm
> misreading).

Any thoughts on why Tfillin was in this category especially since it is
an ot?

Because Tfilin require Guf Noki, see at lentgh SM"G (Mitzvah Asei # 3),
and Chinuch Mitzvah 421.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Saul Newman asked about using the tune of Elli Tzion for Lecha Dodi
on Shabbos Chazon.

In 1996, R' Baruch Schwartz posted (to the Mail-Jewish list) some
research he had done on this question. I was fascinated by the many
arguments he found to support using that tune. To me, the strongest
argument to support the idea that this sad tune can be used on Shabbos,
is the fact that so many shuls use it every Yom Tov! -- <<< In the musaf,
it is clearly audible at the words "beneh vetcha kevatehilla vechonen
mekdashcha al mechono". >>>

That post is available in its entirety at http://tinyurl.com/4jtnl

On the other hand, another Mail-Jewish thread cited Rav Ahron Soloveichik
as opposing use of that tune (and several other things as well) on
Shabbos. See the second post at <http://tinyurl.com/6kf9e>

Akiva Miller

From: "Newman,Saul Z" <>
> anyone aware of use of
> 1] eicha niggun in birkot hachodesh for menachemav and
> 2] use of elli tzion niggun for lecha dodi on shabbat chazon?

IIANM that is minhag Oberland and/or Pressburg [although not done here].
And IIRC, it may have been so for all the Shabbosim of the 3 weeks.

I think they also had a special niggun for Lecho Dodi during sefireh.

There is also a minhag of Birchas Hachodesh for Ellul - using the yomim
noro'im nusach.
Our present Rov [very chassidish] does it so, although the earlier ones
didn't. So it may have been done all over Hungary.

> any pros and cons?

AFAIK chasidim hold that there should be no signs of aveilus on Shabbos.

SBA

B"B 14b ff has a long discussion citing numerous possibilities. I
once heard R' N Helfgot discuss "the universal rule of conservation of
personalities"(or something like that) as to why the gemora says things
like Eliyahu hu Pinchas. Any ideas on why the Gemora here seems to take
the flip side and identify so many different possible ID's especially
since the Gemora seems to focus on Moshe as the author.

KT
Joel Rich

Jonathan Baker wrote:
>Rav Dr. Josh and I are having an argument in email over the permissibility
>of a non-Jew (in this case a Reform convert) putting on tefillin.
>He suggested we appeal to the group wisdom of Avodah.

I think there are two different concerns.
The first is whether a non Jew can meaningfully perform a mitzva such
as tefilin.

The second is a general concern that if he acts or looks like a Jew he
will be accepted as a Jew.

See for example Shulchan Aruch O.H. 20:2 where there is a prohibition
of selling a talis with tzitzis to a non Jew because he will pass for
a Jew. This is based on Menachos (43a). There are similar concerns
about teaching a non Jew Torah or mournng the death of non Jewish blood
relatives or slaves.

>  Would you say that rapid genetic change is impossible under conditions of
> high ambient radiation levels, for example. The  evolutionary theories that
> invoke jumps are reasonable and within the scientific method. The Netsiv can
> be updated in that langauge without any violence to the laws of science.

You're suggesting an agreement between the Netziv and modern science
in the same way that Schroeder suggests agreement between Bereshit and
modern science. It strikes me that in this case the evidence would be
quite sparse to suggest that genetic change to this scale could have
occurred in so little time, even with 'high radiation'. High levels
of radiation tend to destroy life. So you can refine your theory.
But tomorrow science will turn around and modify it's theories, and
you'll have to start again, and you'll be discredited. This is the risk
with getting into specific connections between Ma'ase Bereshit according
to Jewish sources and according to science. If you had a time machine
you could go back and work out what each source means precisely, and
you might discover some rishonim or acharonim were wrong, like their
contemporaries, especially as there are contradictory opinions among
the Jewish sources. I view all this as unnecessary. We can acknowledge
that through modern science we are still attempting to follow one road in
unlocking the secrets of Ma'ase Bereshit, and we'll be busy on that for a
good long time. If we have the absolute emperical truth, we would expect
the Torah to concur and we would have no problem interpeting the Torah
to match it. If we had no guidance for emperical proofs, we would take
the pshat of the Torah. At the moment, we are still in an intermediate
stage of investigation. So the two realms cannot be combined without a
ziyuf of one of them. Because science is not certain, the interpretation
of the Torah to match science is not certain, and therefore relatively
meaningless. It may be off academic interest, but I don't know if it
would qualify as Ma'ase Bereshit. Neither is there any reason to reject
scientific evidence on the basis of the Torah, as we have discussed.
As to changing conditions - without any evidence for such change, then
why would one suggest it? It's probably true to say that most kinds
of changes of the scale required would leave a geological record of
some kind. So in fact in most cases there is evidence against change.
Suggestions made around the Mabul and geological records were reasonable,
but have since been mostly disproven.

In any case surely the scientific method comes to look at the facts and
try and deduce from them, and doesn't approach the facts with preconcieved
ideas! If the record indicates higher radiation levels, then we might
deduce them, and then notice that it would indicate higher levels of
mutation. Most likely that would not lead to a 'young earth' hypothesis
because of the overwhelming astronomical and geological evidence for an
old earth. It would be explained by some other 'pasuk shlishi', or it
would be placed in the 'tzarich iyun' box. This conflict occured between
Lord Kevin and the evolutionists at the beginning of the century and
in the end a pasuk shlishi was found, in favour of the evolutionists,
and it was the generation of heat by radioactive materials which has
kept the globe warm for these millions of years. Quite a ramble, but
there's just so many ways to approach the subject. jonathan

I'm writing a response to an article i last week's HaModiah -- and I
need a source for the idea that there are no "Talmidei Chachamim" as
defined by halacha b'zman hazeh.

IIRC the subject came up about 6 or 7 months ago.

Anyone remember the source? IIRC it was in Y.D.

TIA
Akiva

--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:36:21AM +1200, jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
: Take this genetic analysis issue as an example. If you're suggesting an
: abrogation of the principle of uniformity in the period of the beriah,
: you're simply invoking 'magic'. You can invoke 'magic' if you choose, and
: clame that HKBH did all sorts of weird and onderful things at the beriah
: to make things look like they are now. That's fine, but it's avoiding the
: issue. It makes no statement trying to harmonise Bereshit with science
: even, because it just says - well the laws of nature were abrogated.

Why are you assuming that someone is invoking lema'alah min hateva (*)
to avoid the question? He could very well be doing so because he believes
that such was what actually occured.

Or, to put it another way: What is your basis for limiting your selection
of usable solutions to be one's about which you can reason scientifically?
Being usable or interesting is not a necessary criterion for truth, just
as being simple and non-disprovable is no proof of falsehood.

(* BTW, was there even a tava to be lema'alah min yet?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

I think I've identified the point of departure between RDE and myself.

To my mind (RZS posted similarly), a bas qol is an action, and therefore
in many opinions well beyond the subject of foreknowledge. Most
resolutions of hakol tzafui require that the tzipiyah remain HQBH's and
outside of time. Bas qol would -- according to these opinions (including
the Rambam and the Or Samei'ach) -- be a forcing, an assumption of yad,
in ways that Hashem's Foreknowledge alon does not.

We don't know Rashi's position. Therefore, we have no indication that
a statement of his limiting bas qol says anything about his limiting
Divine Foreknowledge.

The difficulty RDE sets out to resolve arises from his identifying bas
qol with Omniscience, and therefore that Rashi limiting what information
Hashem may posess.

I'm not trying to prove that Rashi believed in total Foreknowledge. Just
that he doesn't do so in this case. Thus, I'm trying to prove silence,
not the 180deg opposite of RDE's position.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In a message dated 7/21/2004 5:49:01 AM EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> From: "Newman,Saul Z" <>
>> anyone aware of use of
>> 1] eicha niggun in birkot hachodesh for menachemav and
>> 2] use of elli tzion niggun for lecha dodi on shabbat chazon?
...
>> any pros and cons?

> AFAIK chasidim hold that there should be no signs of aveilus on Shabbos.

Yekkes indeed have a tune for bein Hametzarim that is similar to Eli
Tziyon and for Shabbos Chazon we use the Eli Tziiyon itself. Thre is a
note in our music book {Japhet} to use this tune for the Shabbos before
Shavuos, too - I would guess because it is the only other occasion that
Av Harachim is said.

Thre is a sefira meolody for lecha dodi, but I have no evidence that it
is a mourning melody because it is used for biglal avos at the end of
the ge'ulah following brach dodi on Passover

FWIW Lecah Dodi is NOT recited on shabbos because we do hamakom yenachme
AFTER lecha Dodi in virutally every shul that welcoms an avel to shul
during shiva. So the entire idea of aveilus befarhesya is a red herring
during lecha dodi. Just plain bad analysis.

Now during my shiv'a for my Mom someone said to me shabbos hi milnachem.
I never heard this before Bar'chu before. Was it after shkiah? Maybe.
To me it was eina elo min hamsmihin!

So far as I know the Eichah tune is used almost universally for Haftaras
Chazon. Now explain to me how THAT would be OK while lecha dodi using
the Eli Tziyuon meoldy is not OK!

Using these tunes MIGHT be construed - or AISI mis-construed - as aevilus
on Shabbas. But that's not the poinof these tunes rather the point is
that tunes are often SEASONAL. Regardless of the lack of Aveilus on
Shabbos this is the season to mourn just as other seasons have THEIR
melodies. After all you don't get married on Shabbos but you DO sing
od yisham at sheva brachos! You don't mourn on Shabbos but you can make
reference to the calendar.

FWIW, their is a kina meoldy used at the seder for vayehi bachazi halaylo
becasue of the Passover- Tisha b'av link

And yes, the motif of beeni veis'cha kevatchila IS a deriviative of the
eli tziyyon melody.

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 7/16/2004 1:14:23 PM EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> The MB quoting the MA on O"C 123 makes aa big deal of saying
> who yaaseh shalom aleinu,
> vaal kol yisrael.
> No reason is given  for the importance of the pause at that point.

I don't know the deal but I CAN give you a bit of tirivia on this.

When I was saying Kaddish in Breue'rs for my Dad OBM Chazzan Kenner told me
to pause after Aleinu and NOT after Shalom. I was referred to the MB although
the Mechaber himself says so. I asked Rav S. Schwab OBM about this and he
splained that ose Shalom Bimromav was from Iyyov and that the next phrase
should be hu ya'aseh Shalem Aleinu, and implied that v'al kol Yisrael was
sort of an afterthought, IOW first we recite the phrase, then the bakasha
for Shalom upon us, and derech agav for all of Israel.

I did some independent research at the time into the Tur/SA and Nos'ei Keilim
and found out that to pause after Aleinu was opposed to an anonymous shitat
that said to pause after Shalom. But I could find NOTHING re: this alternate
shita. FWIW Artscroll is very carefull to put the comma in the correct place
and if you see the Siddur Chinuch they make this very clear in the Kaddish
at the ned of the Siddur.

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 02/07/2004 08:07:23 EDT, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> Rabbi Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel told me that Yizkor on YT is an extension
> of Matnas Yad.

See more info on this topic at OU Website

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 7/5/2004 8:50:49 PM EDT, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> How about Yhonoson ish anvasan in Akdamus.

Yatziv pisgam not Akdamus

This is an intor to Tragum Yonassan and that is why it is in there...

See Artscrol's Akdamus etc.

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 7/7/2004 12:23:35 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> To me the question seemed as follows:
> Did they never adopt or even consider the minhag to say it; or
> Did they have a real argument (e.g. Sabbatean concerns) not so say it?

I've heard both sides of the argument
Most Yekees also do not say Ana v'ko'ach Friay night either, ostensibly
for the same reason

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:26:01PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Nedarim (22b): Whoever becomes angry not even the Shechina is important
: to him...

This can be understood using either the notion that ka'as is from a lack
of bitachon (self-evident), or from a lack of anivus. The person who
lacks anivus places himself before everything -- including the Shechinah.

: Ran ( Nedarim 22a): Whoever gets angry suffers all the types torments of
: Gehinom. That is because anger brings a person to deny G-d as it says
: Shabbos(105b). Whoever breaks things out of anger should be viewed as
: some one who worships idols.

The first statement is too vague to pin down. The second one is a
pragmatic statement about the effects of anger -- not a statement about
its cause. The seifa is as the gemara, above.

: Reishis Chochma (Humility #3): When a person fully realizes that all
: that happens is from G-d who supervises every little detail as it says
: (Chulin 7b): A person doesn't bruise his finger unless it has been
: decreed in Heaven - he won't get angry. Because a person doesn't get
: angry at what G-d does.

This needs a lot more study, as a sha'ar on anavah is discussing bitachon.
It would be nice to find a connection that isn't so distant as to be
able to connect any two middos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In a message dated 7/21/04 3:35:15 PM EDT, akiva@atwood.co.il writes:
> I'm writing a response to an article i last week's HaModiah -- and I
> need a source for the idea that there are no "Talmidei Chachamim" as
> defined by halacha b'zman hazeh.

Y"D 243, 334 and many other places.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Akiva Atwood wrote:
>I'm writing a response to an article i last week's HaModiah -- and I
>need a source for the idea that there are no "Talmidei Chachamim" as
>defined by halacha b'zman hazeh.

There are quite a few sources. In my Yad Yisroel to Mishna Berura page 
699 on the topic of Talmid Chachom for example 240(6), 547(12)

Daniel Eidensohn

R. Micha Berger wrote:
>In Iggeres haRamban, the Ramban says that ka'as come from too little
>anavah. R' Dr Alan Morinis is convinced this is because anger comes
>from a "Why did this happen to ME?" And without that overemphasis on ME,
>anger wouldn't follow.

Interestingly, the chief fault which Moshe Rabbeinu had (according to
many) was anger, yet he was anav m'kol ha'adam.

I therefore believe that the Ramban's statement (along with many of the
statements cited by R. Daniel Eidensohn) was referring to a particular
type of anger--anger deriving from resentment, especially resentment of
divine punishment. But there are other types of anger: anger deriving
from impatience, self-righteousness, etc.

Kol tuv, Moshe

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but try  Shach C"M 87:41
KT
Joel

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


[ 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         ]