Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 077

Thursday, September 8 2005

• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• sukkah raincover
• Returning lost objects - a chidush?
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• Re: Torah shebaal peh
• Re: TIDE Redux
• Mitzvah L'Kayem Divrei Hames
• Re: Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• Re: Rav Shalom Gold's Response to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
• An Age Old Issue
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• Reb Yehuda ben Billom!!
• Re: Reb Yehuda ben Billom!!
• Re: Reb Yehuda ben Billom!!
• Re: Reb Yehuda ben Billom!!
• Re: An Age Old Issue
• Re: An Age Old Issue
• Ra'asah Shifcha al hayam
• Re: Ra'asah Shifcha al hayam
• Particularism and Universalism
• Dina D'Malchusa Dina
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD?
• RE: Dina D'Malchusa Dina
• Re: Reb Yehuda ben Billom!!

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
>> I would be interested in seeing a source for this claim that the
>> Rambam's brother's support was dependent upon capital that the Rambam
>> supplied.

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 R. David Riceman <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> See Igroth HaRambam, ed. Sheilat, p. 229 (the letter to R. Yefeth).

This poignant letter in which the Rambam bemoans his brother's death is as
far as I know the sole source for the fact that Rambam's brother supported
him financially, "while I sat in security, learning Torah." It also
reveals that his brother's profits helped others as well, as the Rambam
states, "And in his hand was a vast amount of money for me, for him, and
for others (u-b'yado mammon rav li, v'lo, u-l'acheirim)." Apparently,
the Rambam's source of information regarding his brother's shipwreck
in the Indian Ocean spoke of the return trip, or the shipwreck occurred
on the way to India, and Rambam was referring to the anticipated profit
destined for him and others.

Sheilat (p. 228) misunderstands the Rambam's Hebrew, for he takes it as
if the Rambam wrote "mammon rav shelli, shello, v'shel acheirim (a vast
amount of money of mine, of his, and of others)," and points to this as
corresponding to Rambam's shitta that accepting financial support for
learning Torah from the public is a chillul Hashem, "using the Torah as a
spade to dig with," and that to avoid this problem the Rambam supplied his
brother with capital. However, he immediately realizes the incongruity
of the suggestion, since this was, after all, family, which calls for
a Zevulon-Yissachar type relationship where family helps family without
demands of capital. It was not a case of a scholar demeaning the Torah
by asking for support from the tsibbur. He concludes that perhaps it
was merely middas chassidus on the Rambam's part to accept support from
his brother only through investing his own capital in the business. So
even with his misunderstanding of the Hebrew, his bottom line is that
sans middas chassidus, the Rambam saw no objection to family support
for full-time adult Torah study.

(Not that Sheilat is an halachic authority. Incidentally, however,
elsewhere [p. 312], he proposes that "what the Rambam considers an issur
and chillul Hashem is where the request for financial support comes
personally from the Torah-scholar himself," as opposed to an institution
which then pays a stipend to its students.)

Zvi Lampel

In the Areivim thread of this same title (in which we are discussing
the practical aspects of raincovers for sukkas, R' Akiva Atwood raised
a halachic point:

<<< The local Rav holds strongly AGAINST any cover which possuls the
sukkah during sukkot. (Partial covers are OK -- but he requires enough
to be uncovered that the sukkah remains kosher in the uncovered area.) >>>

I'm trying to understand this. It sounds like if the whole sukka is
covered, that is not okay, but as long as there is a 7*7 tefach area
which is totally UNcovered, then it is okay to cover the rest of it.

I don't understand the distinction between "okay" and "not okay" in
these cases. Does this rav say that if the sukkah is totally covered
by something which possuls the sukkah while the cover is on, then the
sukkah remains possul even after that cover has been removed?

Why would this be? Taaseh v'lo min he'asui? I understand the Rama 626:3 to
say that wouldn't apply here. And besides, how would having an uncovered
portion help you get around the problem for the main portion?

Akiva Miller

The mishna Bava Metzia 12b states that one should not return a shtar
chov which is secured up by land. The gemora explains that the mishna
is dealing with the case of a shtar for a loan in which the borrower
acknowledges that he has not repaid the money he borrowed. The gemora
asserts that the reason the document is not returned - despite the
definite loss to the lender - is that the 3rd party purchasers of the
land might be harmed. The gemora further explains that this a very
unlikely possibility and only would occur if there the document was
written improperly. The improper document would create the mistaken
assumption that the land secures the debt - when in fact at the time
the land was purchased by the 3rd parties the land was totally free. The
gemora also acknowledges that it is very unlikely that the document was
written under these circumstances - but the mere fact that it had been
lost indicates it might not be valid.

The obvious problem is why an uncontested obligation should be pushed 
aside by a remote possibility of loss to the purchasers of the land?

One of the standard explanations is that the confession of the borrower 
can only obligate him but does not justify causing the loss to the 
purchasers of the land.

However, I want to suggest an alternative which has far reaching 
consequences for bein adam lechavero issues.

Perhaps the gemora is indicating the parameters of the din of returning 
lost objects. In other words the gemora is saying that there is no 
mitzva of returning lost objects when there is the slightest suspicion 
that a third party would be harmed.

One possible proof is that the Rambam states that if you find a 
dangerous pet there is no mitzva to return it to its owner.

There are views that medicine, psychotherapy and other advice is 
included in the mitzva of returning lost objects. It would follow - if 
the chidush is correct - that it is improper to give physical or 
psychological advice - if there is a possibility of harming a third party.

Daniel Eidensohn

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
> 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.

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.

I had a few off-list replies to check Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz.

And, takeh, vol 1 page 396 has a piece on this where it more or less
confirms what I wrote. In fact according to his research the whole Mi
Shebeirach we say has no real source. Ayen Shom.

SBA

From: Rich, Joel <JRich@Segalco.com>
> on a tape shiur I once heard it was quoted in the name of R' Sternbuch
> that when moshiach comes we will revert to oral transmission of tsbp.
> The current written texts will be of historical interest. I'm not sure
> what that meant or if it was an accurate report. Any ideas/sources?

Years ago I posited teh following Hypothesis

As Per Rambam mamrim 1:1  Ikkar TSBP is the Beis Din Hagadol
A newlky constituted bona fide Sanhedrin will NOT be bound by texts
as such
{There are certain axioms of TSBP such as HLMM or Mipi Hasmuah etc.
that could be construed as binding but ein kan mekomo...}

So Texts would be INFORMATIONAL but not binding.

What would be binding would be Beis Din hagadol

that is my understanding based upon what I had learned, I am gald that
it appears that I was mechavein to others

Ksiva Vachasima Tova
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> Rabbi Mayer Schiller has written a very important essay on TIDE. For the
> most part, we are in agreement, except for two points. The essay can be
> found in PDF at: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/TIDE.pdf>

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> 2- I never before considered the implications of emracing both Austritt
> and RSRH's humanism. There's a border here that needs more exploring.

> This is also a potential difference between TIDE and TuM. TuM's more
> academicly oriented "mada" leads one to ivory towers, not grass roots
> humanism.

Agreed. TuM {at lleat YU's model} never built Kehillos AFAIK, while
TIDE has been linked to a very strong Kehillah model..

Ksiva Vachasima Tova
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

[Mangled email deleted -mi]

In contrast to the responses I've seen on Avodah to Rav Gold's words,
I wrote him a Yasher Ko'ach.

When I received a copy of Rav Lichtenstein's question, I gave it to my
husband and asked him to respond.

I don't know if I'll manage to convey what he taught me, but I'll try.
Any lack is in me, not in Rav Tsuriel Boublil.

The basic difference between Rav Shapiro's words and Rav Lichtenstein's
question is that they are from 2 different sources. Rav Shapiro is
Torat Eretz Yisrael and Rav L's is Torat Chutz La'aretz. This may seem
simplistic, but it's a very deep and important difference. When 2 people
are talking about the seemingly same topic, but yet they do not agree
concerning the basic axioms on which the discussion is based, they are
in essence talking at cross-purposes.

The differences between Torat Eretz Yisrael and Torah Chutz La'aretz is a
topic not touched on much on Avodah, as the majority of members are from
abroad, and few have studied in Israeli DL yeshivot beyond a few years
as teenagers. It is covered extensively in the writings of Rav Kook,
another topic rarely touched on here.

Rav Shapiro's words come from a different source. Rav Gold's response
touches on that source and therefore IS a good response. Rav L's question
is a wonderful question to be studied in a Yeshiva, learning halacha and
G'mara -- but it ignores the aspect of Machshava that is so much a part
of Torat Eretz Yisrael.

Ruling on matters of Eretz Yisrael while ignoring the Neshama of the
land leads to misunderstandings.

For anyone interested in more information I would recommend beginning with
Rav Kook's letter (written between the 2 WWs) to Rabanei Eretz Yisrael.
In it he explains the differences in requirements from Poskim in Eretz
Yisrael vs. the Diaspora, and what a Poseik in Eretz Yisrael has to
know, vs. the far more limited knowledge necessary to a Poseik in Chutz
La'aretz.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 11:35:11AM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: In contrast to the responses I've seen on Avodah to Rav Gold's words,
: I wrote him a Yasher Ko'ach.
...
: The basic difference between Rav Shapiro's words and Rav Lichtenstein's
: question is that they are from 2 different sources...

How is that relevent? RSG doesn't simply defend RAS's position. Rather, he
engages RAL in a machloqes over what would RYBS say! It is he who makes
this into a dispute over a single source.

-mi

Akiva Miller asks:
> On what basis do you say that <<< their righteousness is discounted >>>?

This really is a subjective perception and I don't believe you can prove
yours any more than I can prove mine.

> The world still exists, doesn't it?

Yes, but it's on life support. 

"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."

That really is a syllogism and does nothing to amplify or augment the
argument.

In one place Akiva Miller says: "I cannot believe that HaShem would
look only at the wicked, and in the last paragraph he says: "I'm not
G-d's accountant,"

You can't have it both ways. However, in his defense, he did say
"so I can't say for sure, but I'd like to think that He knows we're
not perfect."

He commented: "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 let me understand the comment "And so should
we." In other words, we don't have minds of our own. Just because Chazal
made a statement that is probably questionable at best, therefore, we
must accept it as if it were halacha? There were tzadikim that burnt
some of Rambam's s'forim. Would that justify the thinking "And so should
we"? This again, is the mindset of which I speak. People murdered and
slaughtered left and right throughout history, and His anger was taken
out on wood and stone? Give me a break!

His statement: "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." is very sad. Sad in the sense that
one could be so insensitive to the tragedies throughout the years to
belittle the horrors of history. In addition, for one to say "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," really is unfair and somewhat manipulative. I'm sure
the realization of what was just said could have a negative impact on
people, so to preempt it by saying he would resign from the group is
really childish. Let me clearly state that I don't think he is a jerk
at all. I strongly disagree with his above statement and am bothered
by it, but I should have the right to disagree without intimidation.
There is some profound theological issues here, and in order to carry
on an intelligent and open dialogue, one does not need to threaten the
group for differing and opposing opinions.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:56:30 +1000 "SBA" <sba@sba2.com> writes:
> I had a few off-list replies to check Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz.

> And, takeh, vol 1 page 396 has a piece on this where it more or less
> confirms what I wrote. In fact according to his research the whole Mi
> Shebeirach we say has no real source. Ayen Shom.

I can't ayen sham as I don't have it.  Can you scan and send?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

A friend tells me that the Even Ezra on Tehillim sometimes quotes a Reb
Yehuda ben Billom!! Ayin 84:4.

Anyone know anything about this?

[Whilst there, see the last words in that piece how he bemoans his
own fate.]

SBA

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 00:21:37 +1000 "SBA" <sba@sba2.com> writes:
<<[Whilst there, see the last words in that piece how he bemoans his
own fate.]>>

I don't know who Reb Yehuda ben Bilom is, no mention in Shem Hagedolim.
However, you're learning wrong peshat in the I"E; he's explaining how
Dovid Hamelech is bemoaning HIS fate.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 9/6/05, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> A friend tells me that the Even Ezra on Tehillim sometimes quotes a Reb
> Yehuda ben Billom!! Ayin 84:4.
> Anyone know anything about this?

Google did:

http://www.hibba.org/songs/slicot/bezorhi.htm
http://www.biu.ac.il/Press/Hebrew/hebMikra.html (about 2/3 of the way down)
http://torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5758/vayeishev.html (bottom section)

In a message dated 9/7/2005 6:38:32am EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> I don't know who Reb Yehuda ben Bilom is, no mention in Shem Hagedolim.

See Sefer Hadoros, he wrote the Sefer Taamei Hamikra, dikduk on the
Taamim in Torah and EMES (Iyuv Mishlei Tehilim).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Cantor Wolberg 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. >>>

My response, already published in Avodah 15:76, was <<< 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. >>>

I'd like to retract/amend that response.

HaShem does seem to have very high expectations of us. So high that they
may SEEM to be unrealistic.

For example, we can look at the precedent set in chapter 7 of Sefer
Yehoshua, in which the entire nation was punished beause of the actions
of a single individual, Achan, who took forbidden booty in the battle.

Again, I'm not G-d's accountant, so I'm not saying for sure, but it
COULD be that HaShem's expectation -- and a realistic one in His eyes --
is not to send the Redemption until our level of crime does indeed reach
absolute zero.

Akiva Miller

RAM <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> <<< 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....

I believe that every mitzvah and every cheit leaves its roshem.

It may be poignant to think about scales chayav vs zakkai, but I
think it's an oversimplification acceptable "only" for its emotional
impact. Rather than reducing the problem to a single number (for which
weight can be a model), I see it more like a picture, where the middah
keneged middah fits like a photo to its negative.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

There is a statement by Chazal that "ra'asah shifcha al hayam mah shelo
ra'ah Yecheskel ben Buzi".

Which shefachos does this refer to-were not all of Kelal Yisrael free
from beis avadim?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:00:57PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Which shefachos does this refer to-were not all of Kelal Yisrael free
: from beis avadim?

Mitzriyos who were willing to accept servitude to be affiliated with the
winning team?

-mi

(Posting this was motivated by the discussion of Jew -- non-Jew relations
currently in Areivim.)

Aleinu is an interesting contrast. The first paragraph is staunchly
particularist "ALEINU lishabei'ach .. shelo sam chelqeinu..." The
latter is just as staunchly universalist: "Lesaqein olam... VEKHOL benei
vasar... kol yoshvei seiveil... kol berekh... kol lashon..."

And how are they connected "Al kein" -- "Therefore!"

Our role particular to us as Jews is to serve as mamlekhes kohanim to
the rest. We have a particular job -- to spread a universal message.

Moving from the national to the personal level. I see being Jewish
as playing for higher stakes. A good Jew is one who fulfilled more
responsibilities, and therefore can accomplish (and be rewarded)
more. But with the greater opportunity for success comes an equally
greater opportunity for failure and destruction.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

(In Areivim)-- micah2@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
> The Ran in Nedarim 28a says there is no dina demalchusa dina in Eretz 
> Yisrael. Therefore, cheating on taxes there is ok.

Thats' because in EY is supposed to be a Malchus Yisrael with the Dinei
Shel Torah. DDMD can only apply outside of EY.

HM

RSBA wrote:
> Pre-war and even post-war for a decade or 2, NO siddur had the bit about
...
> Artscroll has it at the end and also in parenthesis, no doubt to emphasise
> that it not part of the original Mi Shebeirach.

Does a "Mi sheBeirakh" require a standardized matbei'ah?

-mi

R Zvi Lampel wrote:
> :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?

You're right. I meant "the first thing formed"...

...
> :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?)

He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I
was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/07/hashem-and-logic.shtml>, where I
discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and
Pischei Chokhmah 30.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

(In Areivim)-- micah2@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
> The Ran in Nedarim 28a says there is no dina demalchusa dina in Eretz 
> Yisrael. Therefore, cheating on taxes there is ok.

[RHM:]
> Thats' because in EY is supposed to be a Malchus Yisrael with the Dinei
> Shel Torah. DDMD can only apply outside of EY.

The Ran is one opinion, I can't say psak, but the majority of sources I saw
held reasons that imply DMD does apply in E"Y.  According to many the
primary source for the power of kings is shmuel hanavi's description of what
a king will do to bnei yisrael!

As a side point even if DMD doesn't apply, then isn't taking public funding
the same as receiving stolen merchandise (since the government has no power
to collect taxes)?

KT
Joel Rich

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
> A friend tells me that the Even Ezra on Tehillim sometimes quotes a Reb
> Yehuda ben Billom!! Ayin 84:4.
> Anyone know anything about this?

See the introduction to Mehokkei Yehudah on Breishis, p. 37 (=19a).
He was a student of the Rif, known for his piyuttim and grammatical
skills, and the author of the earliest extant [sic - - this is no longer
true since we now have parts of Sa'adiah's commentary - - DR] commentary
on Humash. Occasionally Ibn Ezra refers to him as "R. Yehudah hamedakdek
haSefaradi".

The name is not Bilam but Bal'am which is an Arabic family name (note 13).

David Riceman 

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


[ 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         ]