Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 032

Wednesday, June 15 2005

• daled, dalet
• Alarm Clocks On Shabbos
• Re: Dalet Amos shel Halachah
• Schar VeOnesh
• Re: Revenge
• Re: daled, dalet
• Re: daled, dalet
• When does mixed swimming mean?
• Re: Learning Halachos from Agadah
• The Appropriate Use of Chitzonius
• Re: When does mixed swimming mean?
• Re: When does mixed swimming mean?
• Re: 13 Middos she'ha'torah nidreshes ba'hem
• Re: 13 Middos she'ha'torah nidreshes ba'hem
• Re: hashkafa and psak

[Micha:]
> (Nit: the name of the fourth letter is "dalet", as in "Shomer  Dalsos
> Yisrael". The gemara spells it with a  tav.)

Yes, and the Greek equivalent is "delta." But in Yiddish, the name of
the fourth letter is "daled" and I will start saying "dalet" when I
start saying "chamim" instead of chulent or "payah" instead of sheitel.

I suspect that originally, thousands of years ago, the "sav"" at the
end of the word was pronounced like a soft "th" so that it would have
been something like "daleth." But German (Yiddish) speaking Jews couldn't
pronounce the "th" so it became "d." You might ask why ALL the un-dageshed
tav/thav/sav's didn't become "d" but that's not really a question. It
just happened, no reason, that's how languages are.

You find a similar development with the letter ayin, which we no
longer know how to pronounce. (Possibly Taimanim do retain the original
pronunciation, or something pretty close). We pronounce it voicelessly
like an aleph, but traces of its original guttural pronunciation are
retained in two places: the Yiddish nickname Yankel for Yakov, and the
fact that the cities of Aza and Amorah somehow came to be called Gaza
and Gemorrah in English (German? Latin?).

 -Toby  Katz
=============

On Thu, 19 May 2005 Gershon Seif wrote:
> This past shabbos I was  told by someone that a well known Maggid shiur
> in our city quoted some  teshuva that said that it is proper for bnei
> Torah to not use alarm  clocks on shabbos. Does anyone know of the mekor
> for this?

If we're talking about the same maggid shiur, I believe he made a specific
distinction between clocks, which are permanently set (and therefore not
subject to the noise making issue), and alarm clocks, which are typically
set right before a person goes to bed (in our case, Shabbos night).

Ezra

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> And yet, among the reasons given for the churban was that no one went
> *lifnim* mishuras hadin (Yuma 9b). So, while people were keeping the 4
> amos of halakhah, they caused galus haShechinah.

I once asked one of my rebbeim a slightly different version of this
question, i.e., that there are places where the gemara describes lifnim
meshuras hadin as obligatory. His explanation was that it is obligatory,
but that one has personal discretion about when and how. So it's not
obligatory in any particular instance, but it is obligatory that everybody
do it sometimes. So in this case people were failing precisely because
they were satisfied with the minimum and never went lifnim meshuras hadin.

David Riceman 

The opposite of someone performing mitzvos and having no thought of
s'char would be someone who doesn't perform mitzvos and has no thought of
onesh. I find this to be an interesting dichotomy. The converse of someone
performing mitzvos and having no thought of s'char would be someone who
performs the mitzvos for the purpose of s'char. The converse of someone
who doesn't perform mitzvos and has no thought of onesh is one who doesn't
perform mitzvos and fears onesh (which is also an interesting dichotomy).

The bottom line is that one who from birth is steeped in mitzvos by
observant parents probably would be performing the mitzvos automatically
and would not be thinking of s'char. Conversely, one who is born into
an non observant family and not observing mitzvos would not fear onesh.

So it would logically seem that a baal teshuvah would be more likely
to perform mitzvos with the thought of s'char and a person born into a
frum family would suffer guilt if s/he decided to leave Torah Judaism as
s/he was taught and might very likely fear onesh by the non performance
of mitzvos.

Any thoughts?

[Micha:]
> 2- Revenge. I think we can rule this out, because the individual is
> prohibited from taking neqamah.

Only against "benei amecha". It's part of the mitzvah of avahat yisrael.
It's not that revenge is disapproved of, it's that we should love another
Jew so much that when he does something bad to us we automatically
forgive him, and don't *want* to take revenge.

But one can only forgive a crime committed against oneself, not one
committed against someone else. Which is why when the victim is killed,
and therefore not around to forgive, his son *must* avenge him; not to
do so would mean that he doesn't care what happened to his father.

> While this allows for the possibility
> that the individual is banned because it's the kehillah's job, it seems
> clear that we hold that role is entirely HQBH's -- and even then it's
> only an anthropomorphication. "Kel neqamos Hashem." "Hashem yiqom damo."

Neither of these mean that revenge is *reserved* to Hashem; merely that
Hashem *does* avenge the wronged, if nobody else will. They are cries
of the helpless to Hashem - "vehaya ki yitz'ak Elai". Hashem is also
"Chonen Dal", but that certainly doesn't mean nobody else is allowed
to help the poor! And when we wish that Hashem should send someone a
refuah, we don't mean that no doctor may help them!

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On 6/9/05, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> [Micha:]
>> (Nit: the name of the fourth letter is "dalet", as in "Shomer  Dalsos
>> Yisrael". The gemara spells it with a  tav.)

> Yes, and the Greek equivalent is "delta." But in Yiddish, the name of
> the fourth letter is "daled" and I will start saying "dalet" when I
> start saying "chamim" instead of chulent or "payah" instead of sheitel.

Bimhera beyamenu! But on that day you should start saying "chamin", as
in the Mishna. "Chamim", a modern coinage, means warm.

<T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> [...] But in Yiddish, the name of the fourth letter is "daled"

East Yiddish only. Old and West Yiddish have "dal(l)es".

> I suspect that originally, thousands of years ago, the "sav"" at the end  
> of the word was pronounced like a soft "th" so that it would have been  
> something like "daleth."

No. The other form ending in Dales was pronounced with a "soft" (voiced)  
-th, and the form ending in Tav with an unvoiced -th.

> But German (Yiddish) speaking Jews couldn't pronounce the "th" so it  
> became "d."

Might have happened even in pre-Yiddish times. Obviously, in France Dales  
with Dogesh was different from Dales without Dogesh, probably d vs. voiced  
th.

> You might ask why ALL the un-dageshed tav/thav/sav's didn't become "d"  
> but that's not really a question.

Yes, it is.

> It just happened, no reason, that's how languages are.

No, not at all. (Wouldn't have expected such a anarchic view from a purist  
like you. Well, thinking again, I would. :-) )

> You find a similar development with the letter ayin, which we no longer  
> know how to pronounce. (Possibly Taimanim do retain the original  
> pronunciation, or something pretty close).

Yes.

> We pronounce it voicelessly like an aleph

At most, all too often as zero. But there were people in the time of
the Mishne who did the same.

> but traces of its original guttural pronunciation are retained in two  
> places: the Yiddish nickname Yankel for Yakov

Yes, and the Sefardic pronunciation of Germany and Holland is always ng
( without a seperate "g" sound, just like in "singing"), even at the
beginning of a word, like ngal. (I've also seen for German Ashkenazim:
"shemang yisro-eil".)

> and the fact that the cities of Aza and Amorah somehow came to be called  
> Gaza and Gemorrah in English

No, this is because there were two different sounds, which merged into
Oyen already in loshen mikre, but not necessarily in local Semitic
dialects.

> in English (German? Latin?).

Almost. Greek -> Latin -> English.

LPhM

Hello,

Is there any precise definition of what mixed swimming is?

When does mixed swimming mean?

For example, if I am doing laps in a large pool and a woman enters and
swims on the other end, is that mixed swimming, etc.?

Thank you,
Avroham

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:56:08PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: BTW, Rambam ADDS miSinai. Rav Simlai's Drasha is that MOSHE commanded
: 611 and HKBH gave us 2 directly. Torah Tziva lanu moshe is in V'sos
: habracha, about 39+ years AFTER Sinai. In no way does Rav Simlai demand
: that all 613 be given at Sinai, none before and none after.

IIRC, the Sifri on Behar ("Mah inyan shemittah eitzel har Sinai?") gives
a machloqes as to whether all of halakhah was given at Har Sinai (except
perhaps the laws of inheritence when the deceased had no sons r"l, see
below) peratim and kelalim, or only the kelalim. Rashi only quotes the
tzad that include "kelalsehah, peratehah vediqduqeihah". According to both,
the kelalim were, and therefore all 613 were given at the mountain.
Even the law WRT benos Tzelafchad was not
an entire mitzvah of the 613.

(As an aside, the Rambam says "Sinai", not "Choreiv". How do you know he
means the mountain and not the midbar?)

An interesting side-issue is whether giving a din means spelling it out,
or giving the means of darshening it. Rashi quotes a medrash on Rus that
others didn't know about Moavi velo Moavis because it wasn't darshened
yet (as opposed to beong forgotten). And yet he holds "peratehah" were
given at Sinai! This implies that "only" the means of derivation were
given. This gets back to our whole "what is a machloqes" discussion, WRT
peratim in de'Oraisos. If the latter, HQBH could have given the laws of
inheritence, but no one found the derashah when benos Tzelafchad wanted
a pesaq.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:19:36AM -0400, L. E. Levine wrote in
the thread "Beards - Past and Present":
: Readers unfamiliar with the Derech of Lithuanian yeshivas before World War
: II may find it hard to comprehend this approach to beards and Tzitzis.
: However, the truth is that in yeshivas such as Slabodka, Telshe, and
: Mir, unmarried bochrim were not allowed to wear beards...      "... The
: Lithuanian influence, especially by the mussar teachings of the Mir
: Yeshiva, dictated that any outer demonstrations of frumkeit (piety)?like
: black clothes, peyes, etc.?were signs of gayve (haughtiness) and had
: to be shunned. Hence the emphasis on light-colored suits and hats and
: clean-shaven faces - even among the oldest talmidim."[i]...

Who were then proud of the supposed lack of yuharah, and of wearing the
then-yeshiva uniform. (As was evidenced even still in my day by those
who wore straw, grey and blue hats.)

The basic problem is that there is no neutral clothing, particular when
speaking of how to set communal policy rather than taking it as a given.

My clothing will be used by those who see me to pigeonhole me into
one camp or another. Trying to avoid it by dressing oddly, or mixing
elements from multiple camps' uniforms simply gets one pegged as being
in the "oddball" camp. There is always a statement being read into one's
clothing. People who consciously realize it's silly to judge people
by dress still do so preconsciously. There is no neutral territory. And
people who are proud of their camp are therefore proud of their clothing.

The second problem is that an aspiring baal teshuvah is told by the gemara
(when wearing all black was rare) Qiddushin 40a to dress in black. And
yet the Maharshah on Sotah 22b decries the very same practice!

I seem to recall (maybe in vol1, if not mail-jewish) an email which
pointed out the difference between levishah and khofah, which would
be covering one's head in mourning, in this case, mourning the beis
hamiqdash.

There's a difference between wearing clothing in order to cause a change
in self image and motivate living up to it, and doing it in order to
look like one who already lives up to it when one in actuality doesn't.

Personally, there are times I was prevented from behaving inappropriately
because my tzitzis were out, and the increased concern of chilul Hashem
was enough to overcome the yeitzer hara.

This gets to a topic RYGB suggested for a Shabbaton that we ened up not
going with. "The Proper Use of Chitzonius".

Thoughts?

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

Avroham Yakov <avyakov@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any precise definition of what mixed swimming is?
> When does mixed swimming mean?

What is meant by mixed swimming is men going to a pool or beach where
women are scantily clad. It has nothing to do with being in the pool at
the same time.

HM

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:03:18PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: What is meant by mixed swimming is men going to a pool or beach where
: women are scantily clad. It has nothing to do with being in the pool at
: the same time.

And visa-versa. Mixed swimming is a problem of violations of tzeni'us
kedas Mosheh, not some magic din. And tzeni'us is a problem for either
gender.

:-)7x7+1!
-mi

[This email was cross-posted from Areivim. The original discussion was
about R' Steinzaltz and his gemara. -mi]

On 6/12/05, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:
> For example, he quotes from Steinsaltz that the din that one
> is allowed to transgress Shabbos in order to save lives was first
> applied to warfare by the Chashmoniam. (IOW, until the Chashmoniam they
> would not have fought on Shabbos, even to save lives.) He then shows
> that this is not true, and that this is caused by Steinsaltz's krum (if
> not kefiradig) shittah as to how dinim are learned out in general. It
> seems that Steinsaltz either disregarded or blatantly misinterpreted
> Rambam in order to hold as he does.

Could you please explain further? The Rambam in his hakdamah to the
Mishnah stated that many of the halachos learned via the 13 middos
she'hatorah nidreshes ba'hem were not halachos coming from Sinai but
were mis'chadesh in those times. See Shilat edition, Hakdamos HaRambam
La'Mishnah p. 40 (Hakdamah la'mishna Part 3). (This is discussed on
pp. 67 & 90 by Shilat.) Do you believe that such a view is kefirah?

Please reply on Avodah.

Chag sameach.
Moshe

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 07:04:36PM +0300, Moshe Feldman wrote:
: Could you please explain further? The Rambam in his hakdamah to the
: Mishnah stated that many of the halachos learned via the 13 middos
: she'hatorah nidreshes ba'hem were not halachos coming from Sinai but
: were mis'chadesh in those times...

And Rashi quotes a medrash found in Rus Rabba that "Moavi velo Moavis" was
not darshened until Boaz.

(Presumably because the din wasn't lemaaseh before Rus.)

-mi

I wrote:
>> The type of Aggadita you are referring to have no ramifications in halachah
>> because they have no practical application....
>> However, in this case, the "aggadita" you are referring to has very
>> practical applications; according to RYSE and the gedolim who signed on the
>> ban, it is assur to read RNS's book.

On 7 Jun 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> Isn't that circular? You're saying there's a lema'aseh based on its being
> labeled kefirah and the label is meaningful because it's lema'ash.

No, not circular. I'm not saying "there's a lema'aseh based on its being
labeled kefirah". I'm saying that it's l'maaseh because it is. RYSE
banned the book and therefore the course of action mandated by him is
to not read the book.

As far as what motivated his pesak, perhaps he was moved to action due
to his estimation of the contents of RNS's book being kefira, perhaps it
was due to the contents being considered a zilzul of divrei chachamim,
perhaps because it diverges from our messora, perhaps a combination of
all three and perhaps non of the above. Who cares? The bottom line is
that he said not to read it.

Remember, our original dispute was regarding whether agadita is binding;
you maintain that it is not and I maintain that when there are practical
nafka meenas that are yotzei from the mili d'aggidita in question, than
they could be binding. Thus far you have not brought me any sources in
Chazal or Rishonim that support your position (except for the Rambam
which I will treat shortly) and thus, I maintain that despite the fact
that the age of the universe (and other matters) might be aggadic in
nature, RYSE still has a right to mandate an action (or inaction) due to
his aggadic position. In fact, absent any real sources to the contrary,
I consider your position wholly untenable. How can one say that because
a matter is aggadic, despite the fact that the baal memra (or the memra
itself) mandates an action, the aggada need not be followed? IMO, this
position seems entirely illogical.

>> As far as your CI re R' Hillel, I am not aware of
>> this source ..

> It was posted here repeatedly. You couldn't know what I was talking
> about, though, because I typod, I for S. The CS,
> Shu"t, YD 356. 

I have alluded to this CS no less than four times in this thread. I
began by expressing my unmitigated lack of reservation regarding wine
consumption from one maintaining your position and then repeated, at
least three times, that due to the fact that currently there is not
a common consensus amongst all of the gedoley yisrael regarding this
issue, one maintaining your shita would not be deemed an apikorus. This
is precisely what the CS says (regarding R' Hilel) and precisely where
I got it from. As far as I'm concerned, our current dispute regarding
the age of the universe and its ancillary components mirrors exactly the
machlokes of R' Hillel and the chachamim of his time. We are still in the
incipient stages of this disagreement; a final and unanimous decision
has still not been rendered by all the gedoley yisrael and therefore
although one may not necessarily be deemed an apikorus for maintaining
the shita in question, the shita itself may very well be apikorsus. Who
knows, maybe one day RYSE pesak will become universally accepted at which
point our children will have to find another topic to debate on Avodah.

> Here's RGS's translation from
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n119.shtml#09>:
>> And on this, too, the halacha is not like him. One who says 'There
>> is no mashiach' and holds like Rabbi Hillel is a kofer on the entire
>> Torah that includes 'acharei rabim le-hatos'. Since the sages of Israel
>> were more than he and disagreed with him, a person is not able to follow
>> him. Similarly (al derech mashal), in the place of R' Eliezer they would
>> chop wood [on Shabbos] to make logs in order to forge iron for the needs
>> of a circumcision. After the halacha was determined by many of the sages
>> of Israel against him, one who does so on Shabbos with witnesses and
>> warning is to be stoned and cannot say "I hold like R' Eliezer."

Thank you for the mareh makom. I generally enjoy RGS's posts. I am
however puzzled by your quotation. His post amounts to an unqualified
support for my opinion, not yours.

R' Hillel and the chachamim were not arguing about a halachah; they were
arguing about mili d'agadita. In fact, R' Hilel was not even denying
the concept of ymos hamashiach per se. He was just saying that mashiach
was not going to be a king. Rather, Hashem himself would effect the
geulah. Thus we see that even in mili d'agadita, and even in ones where
there is no practical application in halachah, the chachamim felt they had
the right to reject R' Hilel's shita and klal yisroel actually paskened
like one of the shittos to the extent that now it would even be kefira to
hold differently. This shows that 1) a shita can be dechuya even in mili
d'agadita and 2) that decheeya can ultimately lead to spiritual (loss
of olam haba) and even halachic (invalidated shechita etc) ramifications.

All this illustrates my point that even in mili d'agadita, RYSE has
the right to reject the other side and enact certain laws based on this
rejection. Only time will tell if klal yisrael will ultimately pasken
one way or the other as we did in the times following R' Hilel.

>> Until now, I have been addressing your issues from the standpoint of
>> aggadita which I feel (in some cases incl. our present topic) is
>> binding.

> And I've been questioning the grounds of your feeling. The Rambam
> explicitly says it is not

No such Rambam. In fact, the Rambam says exactly the opposite. Here is
a word for word rendition of the Rambam you are referring to (with my
running translation).

Sanhedrin perek Chelek mishna gimmel: The following 5 groups are discussed
vis-a-vis their chelek loalam haba; Dor haMabul, Anshei Sedom, Dor
haMidbar, Adas Korach and the Aseres haShivatim. There is a disagreement
between R' Akiva and R' Eliezer whether the aforementioned (latter 3)
groups manage to achieve o"h.(There is also a machlokes regarding the
former two groups concerning hakama badin). Regarding this Mishna,
the Rambam (pirush hamishnayos) states as follows:

Quote
Kvar hizkarnu licha kama piamim
[we have already mentioned to you several times]
shekol machlokes sheti'hi'yeh bein hachachmim
[that every disagreement which obtains between the sages]
vi'einah tiluyah bi'ma'aseh 
[and does (the difference of opinion) not hinge on (a distinction which
expresses itself in a variation regarding) a practical application] 
ela k'vius sevara bilvad [rather (the dispute involves only) the
establishing of an opinion based on reason alone (without having any
ramifications l'maaseh)] 
ein makom lifsok halachah kiechad meyhem 
[there is no place to establish the halachah like one them (of the
disputants)] 
End Quote

This Rambam has been endlessly misrepresented on Avodah however a
plain reading of this Rambam yields the obvious diyuk that if there
is a practical application that results from a machlokes in agadita,
the above-mentioned quote does not apply.

> (as is the implication from others who rule
> out azlinan basar ruba WRT aggadita in particular), and we have seen no
> sources who say otherwise.

Two things. First, I would like to repeat that "hamotzee meichaveiro alav
haraya". You need to bring *me* sources that when there is a practical
application that is a consequence of an aggadic dictum, the dictum still
need not be followed. Sechel hayashar dictates that just as I would listen
to a tanna, amora or whomever in matters of halachah, the same should apply
regarding "l'maaseh" that is a consequence of a shita in aggadita. 

Second, I can bring you many sources. Here are several to start.

1) R' Hilel and the chachamim are arguing about a) a mili d'aggadita
that b) has no halachic ramifications (it makes no difference if the
geulah will be effected by Hashem Himself or a king acting on his behalf)
and yet we reject Hilel's view and pasken like the chachamim.

2) There is a machlokes whether ymos haMashiach will posses a miraculous
characteristic or will be distinguished from olam hazeh merely by freedom
from the yoke of foreign rule and the Rambam paskens like the latter
(Shmuel). Again a mili d'aggadita with no practical application yet the
Rambam "paskens" like one tzad.

3) According to the Rambam (Moreh chelek beis) there is a Pirkei that
seems to indicate kadmus haolam yet the Rambam rejects this Medrash in
favour of berias yesh meyayin. Once again a mili d'aggadita (albeit a very
important one) that does not have halachic ramifications (pre final pesak)
and yet the Rambam rejects the Medrash in favour of creation ex nihilo.

Significantly, the Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachya are troubled by this
Medrash to the extent that they both feel the need to reinterpret it
to fit with berias yesh meyayin. I can't help thinking that this issue
is precisely the same as the one we are having. The Rambam was actually
entertaining an age of the universe problem and categorically rejected
kadmus haolam partially because of the fact that it drastically mitigated
Hashem's ability as a Creator. I feel precisely the same regarding RNS's
approach to maaseh bereishis.

4) There is a machlokes R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua if the 6th day
of creation was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei or Nissan, an ostensibly aggadic
dispute which turns out to have ramifications in halachah and thus the
Gemara paskens like R' Yehoshua (according to Rashi and Tosfos). Once
again, this proves that when an aggadic dispute leads to nafka minas
l'maaseh, the Rambam's rule of "ein makom lifsok halachah kievad meyhem"
does not apply.

There are many more examples of this phenomenon but the above four should
suffice to illustrate my point.

>> However, in addition, I feel that RYSE's injunction is a full blown
>> pesak and yet I don't feel that a necessary consequence of that pesak
>> would be the invalidation of someone like your self's wine or shechita just
>> as R' Hillel's wine or shechita was not invalidated by Chazal...

> But they DID invalidate the wine and shechita of someone after the pesaq.
> That's my point.

Yes but my point (repeated ad naseum by now) is that we are still in the
pre final pesak period regarding our issue so your point is irrelevant.

>> In the sefer haikkarim's words, this man is a "toeh
>> bi'eeyuno, choteh bi'shogeg, v'tzarich kapara".

> And you still can't drink his wine. Otherwise there would be no problem
> with the wine of a tinoq shenishba.

Not true. You are a full maamin who believes in all of the ikray haemuna
however when you approached the study of one of them in order to gain
clarity in its details, you were (IMO) toeh bieeyunchah. That does not
count as apikorsus chs'v.

On the other hand, a tinok shenishba (TS), although he was "nebach"
taught not to believe in one or more of the ikrim or is "nebach" unaware
of one or more of the ikrim and thus may not be culpable for his position,
but as R' Chaim was reported to have said, "nebach en apikorus iz fort
en apikorus".

Thus, there is no comparison between a TS and a Toeh bieeyuno.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]