Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 035

Tuesday, May 9 2006

• RE: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Married with aids
• Re: Adoption
• Re: Adoption
• Re: Adoption
• Re: population of Israel
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• RE: Adoption
• Re: Adoption
• Re: Anshei Kneses Hagedola
• Lavud
• Re: population of Israel

On May 7, 2006, Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> How can you have compassion for someone upon his death when his very death
>> is supposed to elicit emotions of joy? AFAIC, the idea sounds incoherent.
>> Like the pasuk I quote just below states, a tzadik rejoices when he
>> witnesses nikama but the nikama here is inextricably tied to the
>> downfall/death of the rasha. Thus, the pasuk could synonymously read
>> "yismach tzadik ki chazah mapala", or perhaps "misa"

> But the Pasuq doesn't say that. Precisely because its message is that
> the Tzaddiq should rejoice seeing that Yeish din v'yeish dayan rather
> than only reading about it. Why is it incoherent that someone should be
> happy that courts punish people while at the same time feel bad (or at
> least not throw a party) that capital punishment was the only solution.

R' Jacob, I think we are going around in circles. I agree that people
would rather that things should never have to come to a matzav of capital
punishment but if one chooses to put himself in that matzav, then at
that point people *want* the person to die. The people who went through
the holocaust *wanted* Hitler and their Nazi tormentors to die. They had
not one once of compassion on him just as the Jews in mitzrayim had not
one once of rachmanus on the mitryim who drowned their babies, stole
their wives, tortured their husbands etc.etc. This is why they broke
out in the greatest form of shira ever invented upon their mapala. I
don't understand you. You would have one adopt the ideology of binfol
oyvecha and apply it even to the umos haolam who are rishaim and yet our
nation did *not* do that. And their expression of joy is ensconced in the
Torah as a lesson for us for all eternity. In fact, we repeat it every
day. Nowhere do we find that they mourned even a ki hu zeh! How do you
reconcile this disparity between your hashkafa and that of the dor deah?

>>> I'm not clear how the pasuq in Malakhi indicates that Yaaqov are only
>>> those who are frum, and I am also unclear how it indicates that Eisav
>>> means R'sha'im alone.

>> Through the contrast. Both were sons of Yitzchok and both had the din of
>> "Jews" but Eisav is referred to in the lashon of Chazal as a Yisrael mumar.
>> Thus, Hashem loves frum Jews but despises mumrim and apikorsim even if they
>> are Jews. There are a ton of sources in the pesukim and Chazal for this.

> The chapter in malakhi is referring to Eisav the nation, the one whose
> descendants lived in Edom. The sequence of the following Pesuqim does
> not flow otherwise. See Malakhi 1:3-4, that clearly illustrates that the
> Pasuq is referring to a nation.

Of course it is referring to the nation. But it is also referring
to the personalities. That's why the navi mentions that they were
brothers and yet Hashem loves one and despises the other. To show the
contrast. Otherwise, Hashem could have just said that he turns his back on
*all* the nations just as (for instance of numerous instances) Yeshaya
says, "kol hagoyim k'mar midli, ka'effess vatohu nechshivu li". (R'
Avigdor Miller is midayek that the goyim are not even a drop in the
bucket...they are k'mar *M*idli", outside the bucket!)

> Hata'im V'lo Hot'im is not a drasha. It is Pashut p'shat. Hata'im are
> sins, Hot'im are sinners.

"V'anshey Sidom ra'im v'chata'im laShem meod". Chata'im means sinners. It
also means sins. The context of the pasuk flows much better my way. So
does the ma'amar Chazal regarding the mapalasam shel rishaim as opposed
to mapalaso shel resha. However, if you don't see my point, let's just
agree to disagree.

>> Could you perhaps locate the mareh
>> makom in the original pesikta? ...

> Yalqut Shimoni Vayiqra 23 Siman 654, quoting Psiqta siman 29

Thank you. I'll look it up and report back bl'n.

...
> I highly doubt that the Meshekh Hokhma missed the Gemara in Megillah 16,
> neither did R' Shlomo Alkabetz (His peirush being on Esther and all...)

> You are not bound by their P'shat, but should others choose to agree
> with them, it is certainly not un-jewish.

By un-Jewish, I meant that it is the wrong attitude to adopt.

I skipped responding to certain parts of this post because as
I progressed, I felt that the chasm was too wide to bridge. Like I
mentioned before, I think we will have to settle on agreeing to disagree.

Respectfully,
Simcha Coffer 

[Micha:]
> I would think this is a textbook halakhah ve'ein morin kein. Since if
> anyone at all thought we were opening this question in general, one
> runs the risk of popularizing shichvas zera levatalah where no such
> heter exists.

[R Jacob Farkas:]
>OTOH, there is a possibility that b'maqom saqanah, one may otherwise
>conclude that there is no Heter. The ramifications can be disastrous.

Lehuir the Gemara in Yevomos, where the Chachomim argue with rabbi meyer
who claims that some endangered women might be able to use a Moch. They
say that she cannot use it even if she is in danger, Umin Shumayim
yerachamu, Vishomer pesaim hashem.

"the soil is rich here but given wholly to ashes...there was hardly
a tree or shrub anywhere...even the olives and the cactus, had almost
deserted the country...Jerusalem is mournful and dreary and lifeless"
Mark Twain. 1860

R. Joel Rich asked:
>I'm doing my tikkkun leil shavuot on this topic. I was thinking of where
>there would be nafka minas as to whether adoption is "keilu ylado"
>literally.
>Some examples would be :
...
>Any other obvious ones?

Adoption is mentioned in the Gemara (Megilla 13a; Sanhedrin 19b) and
the one who raises the child is one who the child is "like" his own
["ma'aleh alav ha'katuv k'ilu yaldo"]. The Meharsha (on Sanhedrin 19b)
is explicit that the text doesn't refer only to orphans.

The Rema (Choshen Mishpat 42:15) writes:"mi she'migadel yatom betoch beito
v'katav alav shtar 'b'ni' ..... lo mikri m'zuyaf, v'kasher" [if someone
raises an orphan in his home and refers to him in a document as "my son",
the document is valid]. The She'elat Yaavetz I 165 indicates that the
child is "like his own" is literal and doesn't refer only to an orphan.

That's why the Pri Megadim (Orach Chaim 225 #20) indicates that the
father of an adopted Bar Mitzva boy says "Baruch Sheptarani" when the boy
gets called up to the Torah on his Bar Mitzva. And that's why the Rema
(Teshuvot haRema 118) indicates that the adopted child can say Kaddish
when the "father" who adopts him dies.

Some poskim see adoption as equivalent to the halachic obligation of *pru
u'rvu* [procreation] (see: Chochmat Shlomo EVEN HA'EZER Hilchot Ishut
15:3]. On the other hand, the adopted child doesn't engender the halachic
prohibitions vis a vis his adopted parents in areas such as arayot,
hitting them [drawing blood], cursing them [with the Divine name];
nor do the laws of mourning apply [as they do with *real* children]
nor do laws of inheritance and *edut* [witness in a court against his
adopted parents].

There are Responsa on how his father's name is to be written in a Get
[divorce] and how to be called up to the Torah.

KT
Josh

"Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com> wrote:
> I'm doing my tikkkun leil shavuot on this topic. I was thinking of where
> there would be nafka minas as to whether adoption is "keilu ylado"
> literally.
...

What sevara is there to say that it's literal? Is there anyone, anywhere,
who takes it literally? Surely not! In fact, the biggest proof that
there is not even a sefek sefeka that it could be literal is on your
list - arayot. It was not uncommon for someone who was raising an
orphan in his home, when the time came, to make a shiduch with one of
his natural children. If there was even the slightest possibility that
"kol hamegadel..." could be meant literally, even if it was only a daat
yachid, then surely this would not be allowed.

Indeed, it seems to me that by even raising the question you may be
casting aspersions, ch"v, on the yichus of rabim ugedolim miyisrael.
(Certain factions may even accuse you of auditioning for the part of
Doeg Ha'adomi, veda"l.)

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:44:38PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I'm doing my tikkkun leil shavuot on this topic. I was thinking of where
: there would be nafka minas as to whether adoption is "keilu ylado"
: literally.

: Some examples would be :
...
:     Brit
...
:     Talmud torah
...

The rest of the list from Qiddushin 29a: teaching him a profession
and swimming.

These are more plausible to me than most of the things on your list.

Also, you should distinguish between adoption of a geir qatan from
adoption of a child who is born Jewish. With a geir qatan, the parents
are apitropei beis din, and therefore stand out in their chiyuvim toward
the child. The chiyuv to educate a Jewish child falls on everyone;
the adoptive parents could be seen as doing more than their share of a
communal chiyuv.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:02 -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Had it been de'oraita in his day, he would never have had the chutzpah
> to promote a scheme to avoid it, regardless of the economic necessity,
> because it would have effectively abolished a practise explicitly
> required by the Torah. The fact that it was derabbanan gave him the
> right to promote the prosbul...

Hmm, what about Yibum? we've effectively abolished it? Is that
"Chutzpah"? it's not a "required" practice as it's Yibum or Chalitzah,
so not 100% comparable, but close I think.

Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
> Hata'im V'lo Hot'im is not a drasha. It is Pashut p'shat. Hata'im are
> sins, Hot'im are sinners.

No, it isn't. It is a derasha, contrary to the literal meaning. Hata'im,
with a patah under the het, and a dagesh in the tet, are sinners (see
Tehillim 1:1). Hata'im meaning "sins" seems to appear only once in
Tanach, in Kohelet 10:4, where it's spelled with a hataf patah, and no
dagesh in the tet.

(I think I once made the same mistake on this very mailing list, and
was corrected, so I'm now passing on the knowledge I gained.)

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

> Avraham Avinu raised no argument whatsoever in defense of the reshaim of
> Sdom and Amorah. I don't understand this. I don't understand how you can
> so blatantly misrepresent something every one of us can, and does, read.
> Avraham Avinu defended the theoretical righteous people living in Sdom
> and Amorah. He *never* suggested that the reshaim should be spared.

He actually did ask for the Resha'im to be spared. See B'reishis 18:26
that Hashem said that he would forgive the *entire* city if righteous
were found. Avraham could have asked to spare the Tzaddiqim only, as the
R'shai'im deserved to be destroyed, rather he asked for the R'sha'im to
be spared alongside the Tzaddiqim.

...
>>Compassion for the wicked and rejoicing in their demise are quite
>>different. The former suggests ignoring justice, the latter is
>>precisely what Binfol Oyivkha warns against.

> I'm curious to know how you can make that claim in the face of a gemara
> that explicitly excludes binfol oyivcha from applying to non-Jews.
> Can you offer a single source that applies binfol oyivcha to rejoicing
> in the demise of reshaim? Seder Eliyahu Rabbah is quite clear that the
> "oyev" in binfol oyivcha is not a rasha at all.

Why do you insist on ignoring the Hazal mentioned here numerous times
that concludes differently from the Aggadita Gemara in Megila? (Not that
Aggadita is derogatory, but not necessarily binding, particularly if
in conflict with other Midrashim). As there is a possibility to learn
Binfol Oyivkha differently by applying it to all enemies, regardless
of their nationality, the P'shat in the pasuq is one that warns against
rejoicing in the demise of enemies.

...
>>Next Pasuq, V'yomar adam, akh p'ri latzaddiq akh yeish elokim
>>shof'tim ba'aretz. (loosely translated: And man will say, there is a
>>reward for the tzaddiq, there is a God who administers justice).
>>This verse is explaining why the Tzaddiq would rejoice, and the
>>explanation is because this is an execution of justice, and that is
>>worthy of rejoicing. Not that Tzaddiqim are gleeful bathing in the
>>blood of the wicked, for its own sake, rather they are gleeful that
>>there is justice in the world, justice that is visible, justice that
>>can inspire man.

> I can't help but wonder why you and R' Micha insist on turning this into a
> false dichotomy of either grieving for those who seek our harm or "bathing
> in the blood of the wicked". It is false. It is misrepresentative.
> It is an attempt to draw lines that don't really exist, and I can't
> help but feel that it is a form of emotional blackmail. "Agree with us
> that Judaism says we mourn at the downfall of the wicked, or you're a
> horrible person who bathes in the blood of the wicked." It's insulting,
> and I object to it.

It was neither RMB nor I that introduced Tehilim 58. It was actually
RSC who tried to illustrate his point from that verse. I merely pointed
out that the verse is not to be read in a vacuum, rather the following
verse should be taken into account.

Furthermore, no one asked anyone to mourn. Asking to refrain from
rejoicing and mourning are quite different. Should I or others be
insulted by a claim that amounts to "Agree that it is a great Mitzvah
to rejoice in the downfall of R'shaim, or you are some bleeding heart
liberal whose values are decidedly anti-Torah." ? I totally respect
that there are opinions that are consistent with your philosophy, but I
choose to embrace the other opinions, Torah-based, and do not find that
you or others to have built a solid case disproving that these opinions
are not Jewish or contradictory to torah values and/or sources.

>>>Consequently, we rejoice at the mapala of rishaim. In fact, the
>>>Medrash states that Dovid composed 120 mizmorim but was not chosem
>>>with haliluya until he foresaw the downfall of the evil as it
>>>states 'yitamu chataim min ha'aretz' etc." MR Vayikra 4:7 (Don't
>>>ask from Berurya - She was enjoining R' Meir to change rishaim into
>>>tzadikim and if this is at all possible, why not? But we are
>>>talking about the downfall of people who were wicked to the end and
>>>what our attitude should be regarding this downfall)

>>I will not ask from b'rur'ya per se, but from her p'shat in the
>>pasuq. Hata'im v'lo Hot'im is a very serious hiluq. It doesn't
>>absolve a rasha, but it does give perspective to others on how to
>>view niqmas hashem. Should we be happy that the rasha died, or
>>should we be happy that Ra is no longer amongst us? The latter is
>>indicated by Hata'im v'lo Hot'im.

> There is a difference between praying that a rasha should be destroyed
> and rejoicing when a rasha is destroyed. In the former case, as per
> Bruriya's hiluk, it's better to pray that a rasha should stop being
> a rasha. But a rasha who has been destroyed, died b'rish'ato, and we
> absolutely do rejoice at his destruction.

Why not destroy the Rasha, he deserves it! The fact that we should pray
that a rasha should cease his ways is indicative that we as a people
are not supposed to play God and judge mi yikhyeh umi yomus (I am not
talking about a scenario where we could judge people in BD shel Mattah),
we are supposed to strive that Ra should be eliminated, ideally through
T'shuva, so long as Ra leaves us. Should HQBH eliminate Ra in a manner
that includes Mapalah, we accept it and rejoice that Ra is gone, but
not that the Rasha "got his."

>>Rather than running the risk of repeating in great length what was
>>already discussed in the past few weeks, I will summarize by
>>pointing out that the Yalqut Shimoni quotes a P'siqta that states
>>that we don't say Hallel on 7th day Pessah because of Binfol
>>Oyivkha, see Meshekh Hakhmah [Shemos 12:16 sv. U'vayom Harishon
>>Miqra Kodesh vGo'], as well as Manos Haleivi [Esther 9:20 sv.
>>Vayikhtov Mordakhai].

> None of that means that *we* mourn for the destruction of the
> Egyptians. Nor even that we lessen our joy. I recommend that you
> read the article R' Micha posted:
> <http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/avot/10avot.htm>

> It deals with the question quite cogently, I think.

>>I don't know how you determined that it is a Mitzvah to rejoice b'mapalasam.

> Because every Torah source says so, I'd imagine.

D'haynu ???

>>While we can appreciate niqmas hashem in the context of its bringing
>>about kavod shamayim, the fact that it has to be done in a way that
>>it leads to mapalah, even while necessary, is not in itself a reason
>>to rejoice.

> Hashem's methods are His business, really. We rejoice at the downfall
> of reshaim. And most particularly do we rejoice at the downfall of
> reshaim who are trying to kill us or enslave us. I can't fathom how
> you can say otherwise.

Hashem's methods are indeed his business. We are therefore instructed
not to rejoice when he doles out justice, because who are we to judge
who is deserving of mapalah. We rejoice when there is Yeshua from enemies
as it shows God's kindness towards his people, that no matter how great
the enemy, lo yanum v'lo yishan shomer yisrael.

Jacob Farkas

[R Zev Sero:]
What sevara is there to say that it's literal? Is there anyone, anywhere,
who takes it literally? Surely not!

Please see Tzitz Eliezer 18:73 discussing whether adoption fulfills pru urvu

[Email #2, in reply to me: -mi]
> Also, you should distinguish between adoption of a geir qatan from
> adoption of a child who is born Jewish. With a geir qatan, the parents
> are apitropei beis din,

Source please

KT
Joel Rich

> I'm doing my tikkkun leil shavuot on this topic. I was thinking  of where
> there would be nafka minas as to whether adoption is "keilu  ylado"
> literally.
...
> Any other obvious  ones?

Son of a kohen
Sitting shiva
Marrying a close relative -- sister, aunt etc -- who is related by
adoption but not by blood
Inheritance

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

Lisa Liel suggested:
> ... the Torah chose certain facets to preserve. ... The
> Torah, while never fudging on the truth, only tells things
> that will further its goal. And the same is true for the
> rest of Tanach. ... When there's a lot of information,
> people with agendas can spin that information. When there's
> only the information that matters, it's different.

I basically agree with the above. "Not all that is known ought be
published." This is an important principle for people to be aware of.

But we should also keep in mind that although some information was
deliberately withheld from us, other information was *accidentally*
withheld from us.

My understanding is that the gemaras which we have are not the only ones
which Ravina and Rav Ashi compiled. I've heard there were others as well,
perhaps even on *all* of the masechtos of Shas Mishnayos, but were lost
over the centuries. If so -- if even one gemara was written and lost --
consider how different the Jewish world might be.

To illustrate: Halachos on a single topic are scattered throughout
Shas. To properly explain a certain halacha, a rishon might gather
sources from several different masechtos. Let's say, for example, that
he analyzed relevant gemaras in Shabbos, Bava Kamma, and Sotah. Oh, how
different the halacha would be if we had lost the gemara on Sotah! And how
different the halacha would be if we had *not* lost the gemara on Mikvaos!

To summarize: Yes, one possiblity is that we know very little of the
history of the Anshei Kneses Hagedola because Chazal felt that we would
not need that information. Another possiblity is that we know very little
of the history of the Anshei Kneses Hagedola because even though that
information was indeed written down, it was later lost.

Akiva Miller

In the Hararei Kedem to Sukkah 7a it is stated that RYBS suggested
that lavud only is effective (in creating a wall) horizontally, not
vertically. It is very convenient to say so in the sugyah there, but
very mechudash. Anyone ever heard such a thing before?

YGB

R' Zev Sero wrote about Hillel and prozbul:
> Had it been de'oraita in his day, he would never have
> had the chutzpah to promote a scheme to avoid it,
> regardless of the economic necessity, because it would
> have effectively abolished a practise explicitly
> required by the Torah. The fact that it was derabbanan
> gave him the right to promote the prosbul.

I do not think that this is an example of that principle, because the
halacha would still apply to those who did not set up a prozbul for
whatever reason.

Compare it to Mechiras Chometz. If prozbul "effectively abolished
a practise explicitly required by the Torah", then so does Mechiras
Chometz, no?

My understanding is that a better example of this principle would have
been if Chazal had included the shofar as a musical instrument which may
not be played on Yom Tov. Actually, they did include it, and that's why
practicing blowing it is assur, and blowing for women alone is (assur or
questionable, I don't remember). But they *had* to include an exception
to allow blowing for Mitzvas Tekias Shofar, because not doing so would
*totally* abolish that Mitzvah D'Oraisa.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]