Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 080

Saturday, September 17 2005

• Re: Girls
• Re: bloody matzoh
• Human Flesh
• first rashi al torah
• Torat EY (Going How Far)
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Sefer Hazahir
• Re: Sefer Hazahir
• RE: Torah and Evolution
• RE: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Can a Jewish man have as many wives as they want?
• origins of the Zohar
• Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur
• Re: Sefer Hazahir

Reposting to Avodah, upon the request from Areivim moderators. I really
feel bad about it, for the following reasons. 1) The thread is
continuing on Areivim, which in effect leaves this post out of the loop.
2)The moderators seem to be enforcing the rule of "Torah topics should
be discussed on Avodah" arbitrarily. There are other discussions going
on there that are *not* sensitive topics such as  jew/non jew relations.
MSS 

|From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
RAM wrote:
|One source for info about this could be the question of what bracha, if

|any, is said upon the birth of a daughter. See, for example, MB 223:2, 
|who comments on the Mechaber's psak there to say HaTov vHametiv on the 
|birth of a son, "The poskim conclude that even if one has several sons,
|and desires a daughter be born to him so that he'd be mekayem Pirya 
|vRivya, even so, the bracha is not made on the birth of a daughter."

|Actually, that's how he describes "the conclusion of the poskim". After
|the above he offers his own opinion that "It's pashut that the first 
|time one sees his daughter, he makes a Shehechiyanu, because it is no 
|worse than seeing a friend after 30 days, for whom one says 
|Shehechiyanu on the simcha of seeing him."

|There are at least two things that bother me about the above:
|(1) The saying of HaTov VHametiv only for sons is a very important 
|source for RSN's question, though I decline to speculate on the reasons
|for why it is only for sons.

|(2) I am bothered by the MB's presumption that the desire for a 
|daughter, in order to be mekayem Priya vRivya, would not begin until he
|has <<< several >>> sons. Why not after the first?

I think one can answer question number 2 in the following manner. As you
pointed out in number 1, we don't say "HaTov vHametiv" when we have a
girl. However, one might think, that in the case of a person who has had
several sons but no daughters, and he therefore hasn't fulfilled Pirya
vRivya, so when he finally has a daughter he /can/ say HaTov vHametiv,
because this birth caused him to fulfill Pirya vRivya. So the MB informs
us that HaTov vHametiv is not made upon the birth of a daughter, even
in such a scenario.

So, one can very well desire to have a daughter after his first son or
even before his first son. But this desire wouldn't cause us to think
that he can say HaTov vHametiv upon the birth of a daughter. It's only
the /intense/ desire of one who is hoping for daughter, and is having
boys in her stead, and when he finally has a daughter and fulfills Pirya
vRivya, that might cause us to think that he would say HaTov vHametiv.

IMHO, if you read the MB with this explanation in mind, you'll see that
it's evident in his words.

I would assume that by a childless couple, that after many years finally
has a precious daughter, they would have the same shaylah and answer.

KT,
MSS  

On Areivim, myb@yeshivanet.com wrote:
> In Areivim Digest V15 #301 dated 9/13/2005  RZS writes:
>> A matzah  containing human blood is perfectly kosher - though
>> ironically it would be  considered chametz, since it contains
>> a mixture of mei perot and water. 

> Quite true, provided that the blood was taken from a living being, in 
> that case the issur is only maris ho'ayin, however blood from a dead 
> person would be ossur be'hano'oh min hatorah, see Shach YD 79 sk3.

Not so pashut.  You mean YD 349:1, but see Nekudot Hakesef, Pitchei
Teshuva, and Biur HaGRA, ad loc.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In Areivim V15 # 302  T613K@aol.com wrote:
>In Areivim Digest V15 #301 dated 9/13/2005  RZS writes:

>>A matzah  containing human blood is perfectly kosher - though
>>ironically it would be  considered chametz, since it contains a mixture
>>of mei perot and water.  [--R' Zev Sero]

Quite true, provided that the blood was taken from a living being, in
that case the issur is only maris ho'ayin, however blood from a dead
person would be ossur be'hano'oh min hatorah, see further.

>Is it considered ever min
>hachai to take it from a living  human?  Or do you have to shecht the person
>first?  Are you allowed to  shecht people?  Before I started reading Areivim I
>would have assumed the  answer was "no," but I've learned so much here that I
>never  knew...!)

The Rema in YD 79.1 paskens that human flesh is assur min hatorah,
as opposed to shitas tosfos and other rishonim that it is assur only
midrabanan.

The Shach adds that the Rema's din is in regards to flesh from a living
human, but a dead person is ossur be'hano'oh min hatorah le'kule alma.

 - Avigdor Feldstein

>Bad answer to my questions, it basically means even jews don't have
>bechira chofshit in the end, as according to you, we didn't have a
>choice to accept the torah or not and even more so goyim didn't have
>bechira to accept it or not either.
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


The rambam in sefer hamada explicitly discusses that issue(free will vs.
hashem knowing the future). I think it is way beyond the scope of the
discussion. And i think its been discussed in avodah. It is not an issue
specific to the first rashi al hatorah.
                                             MikeW

From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> Is ther anyone outside of the talmidei R. Kook who went as far as RAS
> in damning anyone who particpted in the evacuation.

Rav Moshe Tzuriel has paskened publicly that anyone who participated
actively in the Expulsion of Jews from their homes cannot be called to
the Torah and that girls should seek shidduchim among other men.

--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Israel

I had always understood that the rabam's relationship to his brother was
a Yissachar-Zevulun relationship. So the brother, David, took care of
the finances of both of them while Rambam learned and the schar was split.
This is quite different from a talmid Chacham sitting in kollel and accepted 
charity

kol tuv
-- 
Eli Turkel

From: "Gershon Dubin" <>
> Anyone know anything about this sefer, mentioned by Tosefos in Kol
> Habasar? 

Our expert Rav Shimon Opman says it is mentioned in the Shem Hagedolim
and sefer HoEshkol.

He thought it may have been called 'Vehazohir' and is an early sefer on
Hilchos EY

SBA

"SBA" <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> Our expert Rav Shimon Opman says it is mentioned in the Shem Hagedolim
> and sefer HoEshkol.

I looked in Sh"Hg first, but didn't see it there.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>What is most noteworthy is Rav Dessler's remark in Paragraph V; anyone
>viewing the world within the context of evolution over millions of
>years as opposed to seeing the yad Hashem in the beria is a tipesh and
>a porek ol.  What is interesting is the fact that Rav Dessler does not
>seem to allow for any grey area in this matter. If you see evolution you
>don't see Hashem. Thus, I believe that evolution and vast periods of
>time are both understood by Rav Dessler to be contrary to the Torah's
>account of maaseh Bereishis.

Reading this letter of REED is painful on several grounds. First,
the science that he attempts to refute is old - and the refutation
(on presumedly scientific grounds) are highly problematic.

However, the understanding that RSC gave to the letter - that REED rejects
both evolution and vast periods of time - seems unwarranted by the text.
(What REED actually believed I do not claim to know, but I am talking
about the current text) To put in terminology that is part of more current
discussions - REED rejects the view that evolution is a purely natural
phenomenon, occuring over millions of years - because "woe to that
wisdom [i.e. the study of nature] if it does not lead one to be aware of
the handiwork of Hashem" - but does not reject either millions of years
(or even perhaps "intelligent design" - seeing the handiwork of hashem
through evolution) per se. Millions of years is not addressed separately,
nor in relation to understanding the biblical text - but only as it may
be associated with a view of nature that leads one to reject yad hashem,
and views everything as controlled by randomness or physical law.

Meir Shinnar

On September 15, 2005 Eli Turkel wrote:
> I had always understood that the rabam's relationship to his brother was
> a Yissachar-Zevulun relationship. So the brother, David, took care of
> the finances of both of them while Rambam learned and the schar was split.
> This is quite different from a talmid Chacham sitting in kollel and accepted
> charity

I haven't been following this thread (I've been out of the loop for three
months) so forgive me if this is a rehash, but what is the difference
between Yisachar-Zevulun (YZ) and "accepted charity"? Does calling it
YZ somehow remove the stigma of accepting money for learning? In both
cases, YZ and Kollel, Hashem will surely reward one who is "maspik
l'acheirim halomdim" (SA YD 246-1). Consequently, it doesn't seem that
there is any real difference whether there is an official arrangement
between two parties, or if one supports an institution whose express
purpose is to be maspik l'acheirim halomdim. And if you want to claim
that in the case of YZ they would have to split the reward, I can' see
why that wouldn't apply to a kollel too. In any case, the Orach Chaim
says (regarding Yisachar Zevulun) in Parshas Ki Seesa that none of the
lomeid's schar is actually forfeited so as I see it, there is really no
difference between Yisachar Zevulun and a Kollel.

[EMail #2. -mi]

On September 14, 2005 David Riceman wrote:
> My point was that the Rambam was already a mature scholar well before
> his brother's death, and therefore the heter of support for students
> would not apply to him.

On the contrary, the Rama (SA YD 146-21) states that a Rav has more of
a heter to be misparnes min hatzedaka than his talmidim do. Besides,
the Rambam's arrangement had nothing to do with taking money from
tzedaka. It was a Yisacher Zevulun or Kollel-like arrangement. Thus,
no heter was necessary. (I wasn't following your discussion with RZL and
I may have taken your above comment out of context. If so, I apologize)

Simcha Coffer 

[Rn Rena] Freedenberg free@actcom.co.il sent the following link on 
Areivim <http://www.polygamy.com/Jewish/The-Orthodox-Jewish.htm>

Can someone verify the following quote from that site:
> The Vilna Gaon...said (Ma'aseh Rav Hashalem page 276) "If I would be
> successful, in accomplishing two things I would be idle from Torah
> and T'fillah and go from city to city [to get them accepted]. One is to
> eliminate the prohibition of Rabbeinu Gershom against taking two wives for
> with this the G'ulah (final redemption) will become closer, and the second
> that they should have bircas Cohanim (the priestly blessing) every day."

Later on, the website states:
> Most people assume that this custom applies to an Ashkenazi even if
> he moves to a place where the ban never was accepted, such as Eretz
> Yisroel. This is not universally accepted among poskim. In fact the
> Rashba (Sh'eilos U'Tshuvos HaRashba volume 3, siman 446) the Maharil
> (Sh'eilos Ut'shuvos HaMaharil HeHadashos ,Machon Yerushalayim, siman 202)
> and Rav Yosef Karo (the Beis Yosef) (Sh'eilos Ut'shuvos HaBeis Yosef,
> C'suvos, Sh'eilah 14) as well as Rav Yaakov Emden (op cit) hold that as
> soon as an Ashkenazi has permanently moved to a place where the ban was
> not accepted, he is entirely free of the ban and may marry as many women
> as will have him. In that same t'shuvah, the Beis Yosef writes that in
> Salonika, Constantinople and Adrianople there were large communities
> of Ashkenazim and no one ever questioned the fact that an Ashkenazi
> could and would marry more than one wife. He also cites the case of an
> Ashkenazi talmid chacham in Jerusalem who had a wife and children and
> who married a second wife, and renowned Ashkenazi talmidei chachomim
> attended, coming from as far away as Ts'fas and Egypt.

I don't see how this is relevant today. Isn't there a takkanah of the 
Rabbanut HaRashit to forbid polygamy even among Sefaradim in Israel? 

Kol tuv,
Moshe

We've discussed the origins of the Zohar, You can go to <www.yutorah.org>
and listen to R' Brill's introductory Kabbalah shiur where he discusses
the origins. It's fascinating stuff.

KT
Joel

(This has been sitting in my Drafts folder for over two months. Apparently
I forgot to hit "send". I am not attempting to revive an old topic...just
hitting "send", that's all.)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 David Riceman wrote: 
> In H. Mamrim (1:2) the Rambam writes that the prohibition of lo sassur
> applies to rulings of the "beis din hagadol shebiyrushalem". In the
> hakdamah of the Mishneh Torah, however, he says that we're obliged to
> follow all of the decrees enacted by the sages of the Holy Babylonian
> Talmud, through Ravina and Rav Ashi, and he cites the pasuk "lo sassur"
> as the source of the obligation. How did Ravina and Rav Ashi's beis
> din aquire the status of "beis din hagadol shebiyrushalem"?

Three Approaches

1) Kesef Mishna (KM) states (Mamrim 2:1... no I'm not dyslexic, the
inverted mareh makom is just coincidental) that klal yisroel during the
generations of the two chasimos, we were mikabel not to contravene the
previous generation's pesak.

2) R' Elchonon rejects this approach because he doesn't see how a
kabala like this would obtain the halachic facility of obligating future
generations and thus develops his own mehalech. He states (Kobetz Shiurim
2 Kuntres Divrei Sofrim Siman Beis) that if all of the chachamim of the
generation come together and decide on something, it has the din of the
beis din hagadol (ayin sham)

3) Chazon Ish (CI) states (Kobetz Igros Chelek Beis Iggeres 24 and ofen
ort in the Rambam) that the Tanaim and Amoraim of the chasimas HaMishna
and Talmud respectively, recognized the vast superiority of the previous
generations and therefore "ha'emes cheeyaiv osam" the truth (of the
superiority of the previous generations in knowledge and understanding
of Torah) obligated them not to contravene their pesak.

Back some time ago, I had a discussion with RDE regarding this issue. He
claimed that the CI and the KM were saying different things and in
deference to him I have split the above mehalchim in three. However,
if you read the CI, it seems clear that he is giving a nessinas taam
for the KM approach and thus, there are really only 2 approaches.

Simcha Coffer 

[RSBA asked that I try to get this through even with the Hebrew.
Worst comes to worst, he does provide a URL. -mi]

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
> From: "Gershon Dubin" <>
>> Anyone know anything about this sefer, mentioned by Tosefos in Kol
>> Habasar?

> Our expert Rav Shimon Opman says it is mentioned in the Shem Hagedolim and 
> sefer HoEshkol.

> He thought it may have been called 'Vehazohir' and is an early sefer
> on Hilchos EY

Achrei kosvi zos I found this:
??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? "??????" ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? 
??? ???? (??????? ???"?) ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????.
"?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? 
?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? 
???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????: ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? 
???? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? (????? ? 
?"?) ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? 
????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? 
??????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? 
??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ????" (?' ?????? 
???? ?????? ?"? ?).
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/mahanaim/batey-hadin.htm 

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


[ 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         ]