Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 74

Sat, 07 Apr 2007

• 1. Re: Love of Israel (Chana Luntz)
• 2. 10 pieces of Chometz (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 3. Re: Electricity on Shabbos (saul mashbaum)
• 4. Re: More on Mitzvos and Iyun (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Kashering with libun kal - some theory (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: halachik status of siddur (piyyut) (Dov Bloom)
• 7. 'flicking' [or spilling] wine from the kos (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Concerning ourselves with the world at large (Harry Maryles)
• 9. Re: 10 pieces of Chometz (Michael Poppers)
• 10. Re: 'flicking' [or spilling] wine from the kos (Zev Sero)
• 11. not working on chol hamoed (Eli Turkel)

> 
> R'nCL wrote:
> > How does the Satmer Rebbe deal with with the issues raised 
> > above (ie the gemora regarding teshuva of an idolator and the Mishna

> > regarding  Achav's portion in the world to come)?
> 
> Teiku? ;-) (Eliahu will figure out how to answer this 
> difficulty about the man he honoured)
> 
> Seriously, that gemara need not be absolute, as per the story 
> pof Rabbi Elazar ben Durdia (TB AZ 17a). Evn though he was no longer
eligible 
> for teshuvah, his sincere teshuvah was accepted and he was upgraded to
be 
> called "Rabbi", to boot.

I don't think that gemora helps you.  First of all, his sin was sexual
immorality not avodah zara, and the gemoras I quoted were specifically
about avodah zarah (and chillel shabbas) to the exclusion of all other
averos - and despite that gemora saying that R' Elazar ben Durdia REBD
was so attached to his immorality that it was like minus, it is not
precisely the same thing ("k"minus is not minus).  But even if you
ignore this and say that immorality that was like minus is minus, and
that we can learn in reverse, ie avodah zara from sexual immorality that
was like minus, that gemora still does not help you, and in fact works
against the view of the Satmar Rebbe.  Because the gemora states that
*if* one does sincere teshuva for avodah zara (which it also states is
almost impossible) the result is that one dies immediately (and that
this is true of minus and only minus).  And in fact that is the reason
the gemora brings the story of REBD - to ask, but is it not true that
for other sins one dies immediately if one does sincere teshuva, take
REBD - with the answer, that since he was so attached to his sexual
immorality it was like minus, and hence, when he did do sincere teshuva,
he died immediately.

So as you can see, that gemora seems to make things worse for the Satmar
Rebbe, because if Achav had in fact done sincere teshuva, then according
to this gemora, he would have died immediately, and hence there would
have been no live king for Eliyahu to run in front of.

Anyhow, I was so intrigued by all this that I did a bit of research on
Shabbas Hagadol (although of course getting to the computer to write up
what with pesach to prepare was clearly impossible).  Because the Satmar
Rebbe was too much of a talmid chacham for there not to be something
there - so there had to be something I was missing.  And, I think, (with
the help of the Encyclopedia Talmudit) I now have some understanding of
what it is.  The thing is, you see, there is also an issur in the torah
not to curse a nasi "b'amcha" (Shemos 22:27) and the gemora learns (see
Yevamos 22b) b'oseh ma'aseh amcha (ie when he acts appropriately, ie is
not a rasha - note that there in Yevamos it is discussing why a mamzer
has a problem cursing his father, given that his father was a rasha in
fathering him, and there it answers that he can't curse him where the
father did teshuva, and even though they say that such a person is not
capable of complete teshuva, given the continuing existence of the
mamzer, still once he did teshuva, he can be considered oseh ma'ase
amcha).

So it would seem (and I am now quoting from the Encyclopedia Talmudit)
that while some achronim learn that one is required to give kavod to a
rasha, since we learn the chiuv itself from that which it is said
regarding melachim rashaim (and indeed if one is mezalzel in the kavod
of a melech, even of a melech rasha, it is as if one is mezalel in the
kavod of Hashem himself (with the Encyclopeidia Talmudit giving the
source for this as the Marasha in Zevachim 102 and "harbe rishonim"),
there are those achronim who say that for a melech rasha there is no
chiyuv of kavod because of the pasuk in Shemos and what the gemora
learns from amcha (although it is not clear to me from the footnotes to
the Encyclopedia Talmudit who these achronim are).  And, the
Encyclopedia Talmidit goes on to say, there are some who try and
reconcile the two and say that the chiyuv of giving kavod to a melech
rasha is only midas chassidas.

Now that is all the information that the Encyclopedia Talmudit gives,
but I would assume, from this, that the problem of the Satmar Rebbe and
these achronim is that if the issur of cursing a nasi does not apply to
a rasha, why would the mitzvah of giving kavod (and note that the
Encyclopedia Talmudit in its footnotes seems to suggest that there is
support for this view from a tosphos in Sanhedrin 19a (in connection
with Yanai Hamelech and the whole story there), although the derivation
from the tosphos was not clear to me on reading it.

Now I confess I still have problems with this:

A) why cannot we say that there are two separate mitzvos, and one is not
over the issur of cursing a nasi if he is a rasha, but is over on the
mitzvah of not giving kavod, while if he is a tzadik, then if one curses
him, one is over on two mitzvos?

B) How do these achronim deal with the concept that if one truly does
teshuva for avoda zara, then one dies immediately? (And why does the
gemora in Avodah Zara not bring Achav as a counter proof if he was
indeed such)?  This is in addition to my earlier problems specifically
regarding Achav.

C) It is interesting that when the reference is to permitting cursing
when one is talking about a wicked king (rather than the wicked father
in Yevamos), that drasha is not brought by one of the chachamim, but by
Herod (ie the wicked king in disguise trying to persuade Bava to curse
him) in Baba Basra 4a, and while Bava does not specifically refute that
drasha of Herod's, he also refuses to curse him, suggesting that that
drasha is not absolute.

It is also interesting that, before I looked at the Encyclopedia
Talmudit, I checked out the Sde Chemed, and while I did not find
anything on this particular matter - I found a fascinating discussion
(chelek gimmel p194) on whether kavod hamelech is docheh an issur torah
and whether one can go on a boat on shabbas for kovod hamelech purposes
(remember my hunt regarding treatment of issurei derabanan once on has
eliminated any d'orisa problem due to a positive mitzvah, here we are
again in that territory, and again not a whiff of the idea that a
d'rabbanan should be treated more strictly than a d'orisa).  And the
crux of the discussion there in the Sde Chemed centers around Yosef
Haztadik being released from prison on Rosh Hashana, and being allowed
to shave because of kavod of pharoah pushing aside the issur, see there
- yes somebody raises that it was all before matan torah, but that does
not seem to sway the other achronim that comment there.  Of course, the
king in that case is pharoah, which rather ties in with the first source
brought in the gemora in Zevachim as to the source of kavod melech being
from pharoah (but in the gemora in zevachim, it is not the pharoah of
Yosef, who at least might possibly not be called a rasha, but the
pharoah of Moshe Rabbanu).  Because Rabbi Yanai in the gemora in
Zevachim 102a learns the chiyuv of showing kavod to a melech from what
Moshe Rabbanu said to Pharoah.  And while Rabbi Yochanan learns it from
Achav and Eliyahu, not from Pharoah, he clearly doesn't think that
showing kavod to Pharoah is wrong, as that is the substance of the
machlokus between him and Reish Lakish directly above.

And in fact that machlokus itself seems to me to cause problems for the
Satmar Rebbe.  Because there is a machlokus there where one of Rabbi
Yochanan and Reish Lakish says that "v'nitzvata l'kraso al sfas hyeor"
means that Moshe is required to treat Pharoah with respect because he
was a king, and the other says that Moshe is required to act with
disrespect towards him because he is a rasha, and after there being some
confusion over who said what, the gemora clarifies that Rabbi Yochanan
is the one who says Moshe is being told to act with respect and Reish
Lakish is the one who says that he should act with disrespect - and
since we always pasken Rabbi Yochanan over Reish Lakish, I would have
thought that this gemora too is problematic.  Presumably the Satmar
Rebbe et al would argue that this is talking about a non Jewish king,
and so the problem of the contradiction with the other pasuk does not
arise (and presumably they argue that that is why Rabbi Yochanan felt
the need to bring a different source, ie Achav, from Rabbi Yanai).  On
the other hand, Moshe Rabbanu was not exactly asking for good things to
happen to Pharoah, and yet there seems to be a distinction implicit in
all this between giving general kavod and something very close to
cursing, ie bringing down makos.

So, while I am a bit further forward, in some ways it seems I have even
more problems with the Satmar Rebbe's view than I had before - so I do
hope that RMB (or somebody else on this list who has access to his
sefarim) would be able to at least help clear some of this up.

 > -- 
> Arie Folger

Moed Tov

Chana

[As requested by the mederators, I am fowarding this to Avodah]

 "SBA" <areivim@sba2.com> wrote:
 
> Are there any here who do NOT have a family minhag to out 
> 10 pieces of chometz before Bedikas Chometz?
> 
> SBA

 Elliott Shevin <eshevin@hotmail.com> responded:

But I've never put out any chometz before the bedika, for two reasons: 

1) I'm not worried about a brocha levatala. As you make the bracha before
the 
    search, it's apparent that the brocha is on the search (my rav
concurs on this), 
    not on the actual destruction of the chametz. If it were the latter,
you'd be 
    making the bracha then rather than when you do.

2) It's possibly self-defeating. What if you fail to find one of the
pieces you put out?
-------------------------------
1) Maybe I am missing something, but how is this sevoro any more than
that which is written in the Kolbo etc., as brought in the poskim in
Siman 432, and nonetheless many poskim say to do it, as brought in Chok
Yaakov that "ain levatel minhigon shel yisroel", and search for (other)
reasons why not to be mevatel the minhog - and in the words of the SA
Horan "minhog yisroel Torah hu"?
[Of course, there are those that never had such a minhog, my point being
that these reasons not to do it are not new, and are brought in all the
poskim - pro and con].
2) Correct. Therefore the poskim write to make sue not to lose any
pieces...
Gut Moed
Chaim Gershon Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com
 

Marty Bluke wrote about the CI's position on electricity and mlechet boneh:
>>
In fact, that sevara has been rejected l'halacha at least by tevilas keilim. One acharon suggested
that a toaster would be patur from tevilas keilim because it is mechubar l'karka (plugged in) and everyone else disagreed.

>>
The CI's position on electricity is AFAIK indeed a daat yachid AFAIK, but the idea that electric appliances are patur from tvila because they are mechubarim l'karka is a respected opinion with halachic weight.
See Shaarim M'tzuyanim B'halach Vol I 37;7, who cites the Chazon Ish's shitta on electricity as a support for the position of those who are lenient regarding tvila for electrical appliances (Shvut Yaakov, Beit Avi) beause they cannot be used unless connected to part of a building. 
A comprehensive discussion of tvila of electrical appliances appears in Tvilat Keilim by Rav Tzvi Cohen, page 205, note 46.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070406/50167b0c/attachment.html 

RAM wrote:
> If they
> simply look at the case, and how Shulchan Aruch sees it, then you are
> correct. But if they continue beyond that, to learn the rishonim
> which the Shulchan Aruch comes from, and then the gemaras which those
> rishonim quoted, wouldn't that be great?

You are right. That is what I thought of when stating that the case method 
should not be the sole method of study, but rather complimentary, for 
otherwise, "[the students] won't have acquired first hand knowledge of 
primary text (Talmud)." In addition, your idea depends on the students 
already having developed solid reading skills, "to learn the rishonim which 
the Shulchan Aruch comes from, and then the gemaras which those rishonim 
quoted."

Pessa'h kasher vesamea'h
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Rabbosai,

In the hope of clearing up some confusion, and at the risk of creating more 
confusion, I shall try to grapple with the difference of heteirah bala' and 
issura bala'. I dealt with these matters one and four years ago, but am 
writing from memory, I pray that lo ekashel bidevar halakhah.

We have all read on list how beli'ot heter can be purged with hag'alah, and 
hence also with libun kal. However, while this is based on a gemara (IIRC, a 
Mishnah, as explained by the gemara), why is that so? There is no indication 
in kelei Midyan that one should distinguish between beli'ot heter and beli'ot 
issur, nor is there any such indication from any of the other pessuqim 
dealing with beli'ot, in kelei qodashim.

Having perused the sources, I came to the conclusion, confirmed in a 
conversation with Rav J.D. Bleich, that mideOraita, we always need kol asher 
yavo baesh ta'aviru vaesh, etc. That, 'Hazal could and would NOT change.

However, as the gemara teaches, kelei Midyan were all benei yoman. Once 24h 
passed (or, according to a minority opinion, a night), mideOraita the vessels 
were permissible, and only by dint of rabbinic law were they subsequently 
prohibited. Heim amru veheim amru, and when they required kashering vessels 
that weren't benei yoman, they permitted kashering beli'ot hetter with 
hag'alah.

According to this logic, libun kal could only be performed after  24h. The 
most sensible heter IMHO for allowing libun kal without waiting 24 hours 
might be what R' "Celejar" (vie heist ihr?) suggested, that our ovens 
are 'hatzuvot (trivets) and otherwise only suffer from zei'ah, which can be 
dealt with through hag'alah.

RYM asked:
> While I suppose it's possible to argue that he's referring to libun
> hamur, what is the source or rationale for the idea that when doing
> libun kal, some hametz may reenter the utensil?

I see it differently. Libun kal doesn't sufficiently burn beli'ot to be 
sufficient on a deOraita level. Thus, only rabbinically considerable beli'ot 
can be removed that way. If one performed libun kal too early, the libun 
won't have any effect, for medeOraita it is worthless, and the time of heter 
for the deRabbanan didn't kick in yet.

Mo'adim lesim'hah,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

The thread was about: What is the halachic status of statements in Piyyutim? 
Well, on a topical piyut-halacha issue, here is a Pesach Piyyut mentioned by many rishonim.:

There is a well known piyut found in (some versions of) the Ashkenazi Piyutim for Shabbat Hagadol beginning "e-l e-lohai haruchot", written by R Yosef Tov Elem (Bonfils) who was a Gadol Hador in the generation before Rashi. RYTE was very much respected by later generations in France and Ashkenaz, Rashi mentions a tshuva of his, many Rishonim quote him, etc.

The Piyut goes over the halachot of Pesach , the first half being dinei Hag'ala and Bedikat Hametz and matza baking, while the second half is dinim of the seder.

Tosafot Pesachim daf 118 quotes a verse from this piyyut and ask a number of questions (teima...) as if it were any other psak or svara of a rishon that tosafos brings down, ayen sham.  

One of the Baale Hatosafot has a whole halachik perush on this piyyut which is brought down in its entirety in the Or Zarua Hilchot Pesach.

The daat.ac.il site has an article by a Dr Shalom Klein uncovering the direct halachik sources for the piyyut, with extensive footnotes. 

Moadim LeSimcha

On 4/5/07, SBA <areivim@sba2.com> wrote:
> Anyone here have the minhag of  'flicking' [or spilling] wine from the kos
> when saying 'vo'omar loch bedomayich chayi"
> (as is done by 'dam vo'esh' and the makkos)?

(replying on Avodah at moderators' request)

I think the first question should be: who has the minhag of saying the
pasuk "va'e`evor `alayich" at all, as opposed to only "revava
ketzemahh hasade". I don't remember ever hearing it in England, but
many haggadot in Israel seem to have it. R. Shlomo Gaguine says in
Keter Shem Tov volume 3 that it's an Ashkenazi and Baghdadi minhag. So
who here says it and who doesn't?

BTW, I only just noticed that the order of the verses in the haggada
is reversed: "revava ketzemahh hasade" is Ezekiel 16:7, and "va'e`evor
`alayich" is 16:6. Do any commentaries address this?

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote: 
    7- RASoloveitchik was quite outspoken about Biafra. I do not know his sevara, but
lemaaseh he felt there was a need to do so.
  ------------------------------------------
   
  This is about the umpteenth time we have discussed the issue of how to interact with the world at large. It all boils down to what our attitude should be toward non-Jews. And the attitude amongst some rabbinic leaders is that they are evil Jew haters at the core and to be treated accordingly. There is are some Poskim who actually contend that it is even Mutar to cheat on one's taxes if he can avoid being caught and there is no resultant Chilul HaShem. In fact I heard a cassette recording of one Rav (unidentified in the excerpt I heard) haranguing his audience that one must hate(!) the Goyim. but should avoid it publicly as that would be a Chilul HaShem and could cause us harm!
   
  To say that such talk turns my stomach is putting it mildly.
   
  RAS was very clear about the the proper attitude we should have with the world at large. He wrote about it in his book "Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind". I excerpted some of it an article I wrote for the Jewish Press almost a year ago:
   
  http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/17945/In_The_Image_Of_God.html

Here is a pertinent excerpt:
   
  Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, zt"l, wrote in his book Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind, the concept of kavod habriyos, the dignity of Man, is a halachic imperative that constitutes the basis of human rights, and the basis of all civilized jurisprudence.
   
  As the Rambam says in Hilchos Sanhedrin (24:8-10), these rights apply even to pagans. "Tzedek tzedek tirdof." Why should the Torah repeat the word tzedek? Rabbenu Bachaye interprets it to mean that the same standard of righteousness should be applied toward all non-Jews. 
   
  As an example of this attitude, Rabbi Soloveichik related the following story from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Bava Metzia): 
   
  Shimon Ben Shetach worked in the flax business. His students advised him to give up that business and buy a donkey which would provide a better income. Shimon Ben Shetach agreed. So his students went to a pagan Arab and bought a donkey for him. After the purchase they discovered a large diamond tied to it. They brought the animal and the jewel to their rebbe who thereupon asked them, "Did the Arab know that there was a diamond tied to the donkey?" They answered, "No." Shimon Ben Shetach told his students to immediately go back and return the diamond. But the students knew the laws regarding returning lost objects to idolaters. They knew that they were not required by halacha to do so. Why, they asked their rebbe, did he ask them to return it? He answered, Do you think that I am a barbarian? I am more interested in hearing the exclamation, "Blessed be the God of the Jews" from pagans than I am in earning a living.
   


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
 
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40?  Find a flick in no time
 with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070406/849d0792/attachment.htm 

In a post I saw via GMane.ORG (presumably, it will be in a digest one or 
two issues after V23#73), RCGS replied to RES:

>> ...I've never put out any chometz before the bedika, for two reasons: 
1) I'm not worried about a brocha levatala. As you make the bracha before
the search, it's apparent that the brocha is on the search (my rav
concurs on this), not on the actual destruction of the chametz. If it were 
the 
latter, you'd be making the bracha then rather than when you do.
2) It's possibly self-defeating. What if you fail to find one of the
pieces you put out? <<
> -------------------------------
> 1) Maybe I am missing something, but how is this sevoro any more than
> that which is written in the Kolbo etc., as brought in the poskim in
> Siman 432, and nonetheless many poskim say to do it, as brought in Chok
> Yaakov that "ain levatel minhigon shel yisroel", and search for (other)
> reasons why not to be mevatel the minhog - and in the words of the SA
> Horan "minhog yisroel Torah hu"?
> [Of course, there are those that never had such a minhog, my point being
> that these reasons not to do it are not new, and are brought in all the
> poskim - pro and con].
> 2) Correct. Therefore the poskim write to make sue not to lose any
> pieces...
> 

See http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5758/pesach.html for a 
summary 
of this issue.

All the best (including wishes for
a guten Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom uM'vorach,
gut Moeid/Moadim l'Simchah, and
a guten YT/Chag Sameach) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070406/2e090bd9/attachment-0001.html 

Simon Montagu wrote:

> BTW, I only just noticed that the order of the verses in the haggada
> is reversed: "revava ketzemahh hasade" is Ezekiel 16:7, and "va'e`evor
> `alayich" is 16:6. Do any commentaries address this?

Yes; the Baal Hatanya addressed this directly, by putting the pesukim in
the correct order in his siddur!  Evidently he held that the reversal
was simply an error that had crept in to the haggadot over the years.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

A cousin of mine works in an Israeli hospital dealing with insurance
companies. She was told that if she doesnt come in on chol hamoed she
would be greatly penalized. They asked a posek who said she should show up for
work but not do anything (unless it was pikuach nefesh).
I was greatly disturbed by this psak. It seems the posek is more worried
about possible work on chol hamoed then choshen mishpat issues of
getting paid but refusing to work.

-- 
Eli Turkel


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 74
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."