Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 076

Sunday, September 4 2005

• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• Burial customs/laws
• Re: Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Re: Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Re: Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Re: R Zechariah b Avkolus
• hekesh, g"sh and mufnah
• Re: An Age Old Issue
• tiberias and tzfat
• rambam talmud torah vs shmitta veyovel
• Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD?

From: "Gershon Dubin" <>
> This morning the gabbai made a misheberach leyoledes zachar. The nusach
> that he read from the siddur wished the parents to be megadlo leTorah
> lechupah ulmaasim tovim, ulhachniso bivriso shel A"A bizmano.
> .. should it not also be first in the list of berachos?
> This being an Artscroll siddur, I took the opportunity to query Rabbi
> Scroll on this...
> His response was that this is the order in all siddurim...

I have now finalised my research into this matter
[ie I looked at half a dozen siddurim in our shul plus afew at home].

The result I have come up with is very poshut [and a bit surprising].

Pre-war and even post-war for a decade or 2, NO siddur had the bit about
"ulhachniso bivriso shel A"A bizmano"!!

This line seems to be a recent addition.
(Which, by the fact that it has been accepted by all, proves that it
wasn't invented by the Rabanut harashit...).

Except for Artscroll, virtually all newly-typeset siddurim DO have this
piece in its correct chronological position, ie - right at the beginning.

Artscroll has it at the end and also in parenthesis, no doubt to emphasise
that it not part of the original Mi Shebeirach.

KNLAD. Comments welcome. 

SBA

PS. Achrei kosvi zos, a thought came to me that maybe in the siddurim
of the Sfardim, there is such a nussach?
[Again, we are only interested in pre-war editions.]

On Areivim, SBA wrote:
> Among the instructions left in the first will was a request the he be 
> buried with a certain pair of socks that he owned. The Reichman 
> children immediately brought the socks to the Chevra Kadisha, 
> requesting that their father be buried in them. Of course, the Chevra 
> Kadisha refused, reminding the family that it's against the  Halacha,

Really? What halacha is that? That the socks must be white linen, and
these weren't? If so, where is this written? I don't believe that it's
a din; the Shulchan Aruch (YD 352:2) just says "nahugu" to dress the dead
in white (and the Levush adds "pishtan"), but if this is just a minhag,
not a din, then it shouldn't override "mitzvah lekayem divre hamet".
(Ba'er Hetev says that the deceased's wishes should be followed "im
efshar, ve'im eino neged hadin". Note that he doesn't say "...neged
haminhag".)

And even if it says somewhere, and it's really a halacha that overrides
"mitzvah lekayem", why couldn't they just put the pair of socks in the
aron with him? There's certainly no halacha or minhag to prevent that!

If I saw such a will, I'd assume that he'd done a mitzvah with those
socks, and wanted them with him for Yom Hadin, and it would be a very
brave Chevra Kadisha indeed that would refuse the request. There are
too many stories of people's requests being ignored, and their coming
back to complain to the CK.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Rabbi Gold's response to RAL letter is highly polemical and irrelevant.
To appreciate this, one needs to read the original letter. RAL was
responding to a broad sweeping halachic statement by Rav AS which
indicated returning (or relinquishing) land under ANY circumstance
is prohibited. RAL asks would he agree that a talmid of the Rov could
follow the Rav's psak - that returning land under certain circumstances
is allowed. Whether you agree that the situation today should be compared
with the situation the Rav spoke of is not the issue. Unfortunately
Rabbi Gold gets carried away, and shows a lack of respect to RAL and
a failure to appreciate that there may be another legitimate opinion -
other than his own.

Ari

I believe that RSG takes RAL's words out of context.

RSG writes:
> There is no person alive who can state with any degree of certainty what
> Rav Soloveichik would say if he were alive today. There is absolutely
> no comparison at all between what he said and our present day situation.

But, in fact, RAL never said that he knew what RYBS would say. All RAL
writes is that it is clear that RYBS would NOT say: RYBS would never
make a categorical statement that it is halachically assur to transfer
territory in the present situation.

RAL writes:
> His Honor asserts that whoever fails to obey His ruling "will not be
> cleared" (lo yenake). This expression is exceedingly harsh.... I assume
> that His Honor's ruling was given to someone who regards himself as
> subordinate to His authority. Does He think that the ruling is valid,
> and to the same degree of severity, for members of other communities,
> whose leaders have not expressed themselves in the spirit of His Honor,
> and perhaps have even ruled in the opposite manner? For example,
> what advice would His Honor give to a disciple of my revered teacher,
> Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, ztz"l, who resolutely asserted that there
> is no prohibition to hand over portions of the Land of Israel to the
> nations of the world when there are considerations of saving lives,
> and even said that when we come to define these considerations, we must
> take into account the views of military and political leaders? And
> if **someone thinks** that, from a purely political perspective, the
> prospects of removing the settlements are greater than the dangers, and
> he anticipates that it will contribute to the saving of lives, and he
> wishes to participate in the initiative relying on the Rashba (Responsa,
> I, 413): "And even the most pious of the pious are not permitted to do
> their work by way of trust [in God], but only in the manner of the world"
> - does His Honor think that such a person may be granted an allowance?

> I am aware that His Honor presumably rejects this appraisal of reality,
> and I too am not convinced that it is correct. But is it so simple to
> say that anyone who adopts it and acts accordingly "will not be cleared"?

In other words, RAL is not saying with certainty that RYBS would say
that the disengagement should take place. But RAL is saying that anyone
with RYBS' hashkafa would not say in categorical terms "lo yenake."
After all, it is clear that there is a true machlokes of experts as
to whether the Gaza disengagement will save lives. Therefore, if the
halachic principle is that it is permissible to transfer territory in
order to achieve the saving of lives, then this machlokes of experts
indicates that one cannot state "lo yenake."

 Moreover, in the paragraph I quoted from RAL, I put asterisks around the
words "if **someone thinks** ." Reread that paragraph. RAL was not
saying that RYBS thinks that. RAL was saying that if an *individual*
believes that the Gaza disengagement will save lives, then such an
individual, relying upon RYBS' hashkafa, would be justified in following
the army's orders.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein was basically
irrelevant. The question that RAL asked was what R. Shapira would say
if his rav did not object to giving back land in return for political
objectives. As an example he cited RYBS.

R. Gold's whole piece revolves on the point that RYBS passed away
several years ago and so it is not clear what he would say in today's
circumstances. Howver, this misses the point. First there are other
living poskim who did not object to the government returning land.
Even ROY who did object made it clear that it was not an objection in
principle but rather due to the present circumstances.

Second even with regard to RYBS. The psak of R. Shapira was a basic psak
and not just under the present circumstances. Hence, it is quite clear
that in principle that RYBS would not object to giving back land. I
understand RAL's question as being a basic question and not just one
that depends on the specific of the politics at this point in time.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

This is what R. Aharon Lichtenstein wrote in the name of RYBS:
>For example, what advice would His Honor give to a disciple 
>of my revered teacher, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, ztz"l, who 
>resolutely asserted that there is no prohibition to hand over 
>portions of the Land of Israel to the nations of the world when 
>there are considerations of saving lives, and even said that 
>when we come to define these considerations, we must take 
>into account the views of military and political leaders?"

No one, to my knowledge is disputing the accuracy of this. The only
question is whether it applies to today's situation. RAL continued:
>And if someone thinks that, from a purely political perspective, 
>the prospects of removing the settlements are greater than the 
>dangers, and he anticipates that it will contribute to the saving 
>of lives, and he wishes to participate in the initiative relying on 
>the Rashba (Responsa, I, 413): "And even the most pious of 
>the pious are not permitted to do their work by way of trust [in 
>God], but only in the manner of the world" – does His Honor 
>think that such a person may be granted an allowance?

>I am aware that His Honor presumably rejects this appraisal 
>of reality, and I too am not convinced that it is correct. But is 
>it so simple to say that anyone who adopts it and acts 
>accordingly "will not be cleared"?

R. Sholom Gold is simply saying that he disagrees with the evaluation
of the current situation that would yield a lenient ruling according
to RYBS. I don't know that RAL would disagree. I fail to see how this
is connected to his later plea not to distort RYBS' legacy.

Not to mention the way he treats RAL, as if he was some small-shul rav
who learned under RYBS for 2 years and barely passed the shiur tests.
This is RYBS' top student and son-in-law we are talking about! Who in
the world is more representative of RYBS' legacy than RAL?

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

Various posters have asked a variation of:
> If R Zechariah b Avkolus is really the gadol hador it is strange he is not
> mentioned in a single Mishna including Avot

My gut feeling is that this actually helps those that want to prove
that he was considered a contributing factor to the churban.

They left/took him out of Mishnayot so that people wouldn't "curse" at
the mention of his name.

- Danny

> Rashbatz states that something learned from a hekesh is an essential
> part of Torah (Guf Torah) as if it was written in the Torah itself, and
> therefore hekesh is preferable (adif) to a gezerah shavah. That is why
> this midah is not mentioned by R. Yishmael in his 13 midos shehaTorah
> nidreshes bahen -- because it is a Guf Torah.>>

Gershon Dubin replied:
> I don't buy it; many sources say that anything learned from 13 midos
> is guf haTorah.

An answer to this is found in a Rashi on Sanhedrin 73a (d'h hekishah)
where Rashi states that every hekesh and gezerah shavah mufnah is as
something written in the Torah itself (kimfurash bamikra).

A gezerah shavah mufnah is one in which one or both of the similar words
are "free" ("superfluous", "redundant") in their respective contexts,
and thus serve only for the gezerah shavah.
But the gezerah shavah she'aynah mufnah --where both terms are already
"taken"-- is valid at best only if not successfully challenged.

According to this distinction, R. Yishmoel's inclusion of gezerah shavah
as the second of his 13 midos is based on the gezerah shavah she'aynah
mufnah.

----

> Hekesh does not figure explicitly in R. Yishmael's 13 midos.

RMB commented: 
> Isn't that soseir -- it simply being a kind of g"sh?

Yes, in the case of a gezerah shavah mufnah. There, in general the
gezerah shavah is adif..
But against a gezerah shavah she'aynah mufnah, a hekesh is adif. And
that is the gezerah shavah that Rabbi Yishmael intended in his 13 midos. 

more in Sefer Kerisos im Ittur Sofrim (part 1-2:13) to explain the
Rashbatz , and in Sefer Ginat Veradim (klal 13)

kol tuv
Yitschak Maser
Montpellier, France

Cantor Wolberg wrote <<< I have always felt that our individual behavior
has very little influence on all that has happened in our history. Surely,
there were righteous people in the time of the beis hamikdash. Surely,
there were righteous people in the time of the Shoah. Surely, there
are righteous people in EY. So why is it that their righteousness is
discounted in the punishments meted out. >>>

On what basis do you say that <<< their righteousness is discounted >>>?

I recognize that there are many people who agree with that, but I have
never understood them. The world still exists, doesn't it?

<<< If you believe that all the devastation in EY is a result of
collective guilt, then what meaning does an individual's righteousness
have? >>>

I believe that collective guilt is weighed against collective merit. Not
only the merits of an individual righteous person. Not only the merits
of several righteous people. But even the merits accomplished by the
people who are less than totally righteous as well.

I cannot believe that HaShem would look only at the wicked, and neither
can you, I'm sure. The problem is that we are so pampered by our Father
that minor punishments seem like major ones, and major punishments seem
like the end of the world.

I am **NOT** saying that the Churban and Shoah were minor slaps on the
wrist. They weren't even *major* slaps. They were major *catastrophes*,
and I will resign from this group if anyone tries to twist this post
into claiming that I am an insensitive jerk who is trying to minimize
the impact of those events.

But the truth is that they were not the end of the world either.

It wasn't me, but I think it was a Gemara somewhere which described the
Churban in terms of HaShem's rachmanus, that He took His anger out on
wood and stone, and spared His people.

"Spared His people"??????????? The death toll was disastrous! Yet that
*is* how Chazal put it. And so should we.

So I disagree with Cantor Wolberg. Their righteousness is NOT discounted
in the punishments meted out. Their righteousness could well be the
reason why the punishments were not even worse.

He also wrote <<< The fact remains that as long as mankind exists, so
will crime. As long as computers exist, there will be malicious hackers
trying to destroy them. As long as there are banks, there will be bank
robbers. As long as there is the yetzer hara, there will be evil. So to
say that when ALL the Jews are meritorious, ALL Jews will be redeemed
seems naive. >>>

This seems to presume that the Redemption will occur only when there is
NO crime and NO evil. Why presume that it has to go to absolute zero? I'm
not G-d's accountant, so I can't say for sure, but I'd like to think
that He knows we're not perfect, and that we will indeed always fall a
little short, but at the same time, He does have some sort of *realistic*
expectation of a certain level which we *can* rise to. And when we reach
that level the Redemption will come.

Akiva Miller

The Ri Migash on shabbat 118b (gilyon hashas) writes that one can walk
from tiberias to tzfat on shabbat and so go from a low place to a high
and lengthen shabbat.

Since we now know that tzfat is not walking distance from Tiberias
any day of the week does anyone have an explanation of the Ri Migash
or do we assume that he is simply mistaken (other rishonim have other
explanations of the gemara). Achronim do quote the shita as a daas
yachid and do not just simply reject it as wrong.

-- 
Eli Turkel

with regards to the stira in the rambam between hillchos talmud torah
and hilchos shmitta ve'yovel- the radvaz in hilchos shmitta ve'yovel says
that even the halacha over there isn't meant to imply that one is allowed
to not work.interestingly this commnet of the radvaz is brought (without
comment) by rabbi chaim kanievski in his derech emuna (al attar).kol tuv

joseph faith

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:02:06PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote: 
:: Actually, there /is/ a mesorah that good and evil as-we-know-it did not 
:: exist at a point in the Creation, although (naturally) before Hashem’s 
:: statement that "all that He did was very good."... 

Tue, 30 Aug 2005 R.Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote: 
:I understood the Bereishis Rabba you quote (2:5) to place it much earlier, 
:in Bereishis 1:4 -- when Hashem calls the or "tov". 

I agree. I was only using the "all that He did was very good" verse as a
reference point because of the context of the original discussion. When
I wrote good and evil as-we-know-it did... exist.../before /Hashem's
statement that "all that He did was very good," I meant that it existed
at the declaration of Light being "good."

:And actually, that the first thing created was good (or), and the
:declaration was the determination of "or" as the preferred state rather
:than tohu vavohu.

I'm surprised you're saying this. Don't we both agree that Light was not
the first thing created; that even according to Rashi, not to mention
Ramban, etc., the state of "tohu va-vohu was created first?

:But I can't understand your thesis. Are you saying: 

:1- Like the Maharal, the Divine Truth is incomprehensible, and therefore 
:our mappings of halakhah to olam hazeh are necessarily incomplete. This 
:explains how two models can be equally accurate yet contradict. 

:2- The Ramchal concludes that since logic is a nivrah, Hashem need not 
:conform to logic. (In contrast to the Moreh, where the Rambam considers 
:it a feature of emes, and therefore of His Essence.) The Ramchal would 
:allow for two perfect/complete representations of Divine Truth contradict. 

Number 2. (And can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?)

Let me again emphasize that this is not my thesis, but Rav Schwab's. I
like your thumb-nail contrast to the Rambam's shitta. Dynamics of Dispute
is a Rambam-based thesis, and I recognize the tension between it and the
Rav Schwab-authored presentation in the "Perspective." This tension is
subtly hinted to in my footnotes. In the text, in bold print, I attempted
a "peshara" by re-introducing the Rambam view as the nature of things at
least after tohu-vavohu, i.e., in our world. In our world, our task is to
define halachah according to our perceptions of time, space and causality,
where opposites cannot exist at the same time in the same place.

As an interesting aside, I originally approached Rav Schwab, ztzvk"l,
after being warned that I was risking danger by not having haskomos on my
book, given its potentially controversial nature. Indeed, Rav Schwab told
me that my subject was "touching on a raw nerve," and that although he
liked my presentation, he could not grant a haskama because he no longer
had the "koiach" to fight. However, he would grant me permission to use
his name in the Perspective, which he insisted I write at the beginning
of the book. When I asked him if he thought I would be attacked, he
closed his eyes and paused, and then said, "I hope not."

Well, the book was published and I received no flak (--I joked, either
no one found anything wrong in it, or no one read it--) until I received
a call from a very educated Lubavitcher lady who did read the book and
took umbrage... at Rav Schwab's thesis!

Zvi Lampel 

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


[ 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         ]