Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 114

Thu, 17 May 2007

• 1. Re: Maariv Bezman (A & C Walters)
• 2. Re: Shemitta (Dov Bloom)
• 3. Re: Z"L in English (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: shelo osani (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Torah study vs/ other contributions to society (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY (Samuel Svarc)
• 7. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: shemitta (Samuel Svarc)
• 9. Alav Hashalom - Eved Hashem (R' Broyde) (Jonathan Baker)
• 10. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY (David Riceman)
• 11. Bein Din Ledin - a new blog about Hoshen Mishpat (Celejar)
• 12. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY (saul mashbaum)
• 13. Shemos 20:2-3 (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)

After some research as to what the minhag is, lemayse, it comes out azoy:

The Chofetz Chaim personally was noheg like the first deih (to daven only SE
with the tzibbur)
Most poskim seem to hold like this. The SO however, appears to be cholek.
However the Ketzoys HaShulchan 6:12 beshem the Tzemach Tzedek that this only
applies to someone who is not makpid on davening bezman. However, someone
who is usually yes makpid, even the SO would agree with the first deih

RMF (IM OC chelek beis 60) brings down BOTH deyhes, and says it is
impossible to be machria, and either minhag is good. He says, however, that
the whole makholkes is what is better, birchas KS bezman, or smichas geulah
letefila. Tefillah betzibbur is doiche both, however. That which the Gr"o
argues is against most rishonism as is only for those which consistantly
pasken like the Gr"o in other things. HOWEVER, if the time of the minyan is
a time when you occasionally daven Mincha, it appears that tefillah bezmano
is docheh tefilla bezibbur. Optionally. (For example, if the only maariv
minyan is before the shkia, and you sometimes daven mincha till the shkia,
(even if not this day, and k"v if also today) or you sometimes daven mincha
after the shkia (ie before RT shkia) and  there is no RT minyan  then you
can daven beyechidus later) If you really want to daven with the tzibbur,
you may, BUT only SE and say KS with brochos later.

Kol Tuv

A Y Walters
> R' Shmuel Kamenetsky told my BIL to do this, l'chatchila, when 
> davening in a Mincha-right-before-Shkiah-Ma'ariv-right-after minyan. A 
> different Posek, however, told me that the minhag is to daven 
> everything with the Tzibbur.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a free email address with REAL anti-spam protection.
http://www.bluebottle.com

>I heard from a family friend who worked on a kibbutz dati during one
>shemitta that they did all melacha with a shinui - rather than lowering
>the plow and then starting to drive, they started to drive and then
>lowered the plow.  What situation would that have been?  Hetter mechira?

Some heter mechira proponents prefer not to do melachot d'oraita (plowing and planting) on a d'oraita level even though Shmitta is de'rabbanan now. So everything would come out only a derabbanan on a derabbanan. Religious kibbutzim used for the last number of Shmittot a grama attachment from Machon Tzomet for lowering the plow/planter so these melachot would be a) derabbanan because of grama b) shmitta is only derabbanan now and c) heter mechira.

40-50 years ago there were other suggestions to lower the level of these 2 melachot one notch. 

I am not aware that this was ever done for "all melacha", only for plowing and planting.

The original heter of R Yitzhok Elchonon Spector, along with R Mohliver and R"I miKutna in 1889 (Tarmat)I believe didn't include this priviso/recommendation

See kiddushin 31b and the maharsha there referring to bereshit 18:18
(and Rashi there) implying it's the "source of blessing" approach.
K T
Joel Rich 

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070516/cbca940c/attachment-0001.htm 

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> BTW, the MB reads "shelo asani aku"m.

I find it fascinating that an abbreviation would be used in a bracha. 
Can anyone else think of a similar example? I have vague 
recollections of abbreviations in tefilos, but a *bracha* is another 
matter entirely.

Or maybe the MB meant that we should say "shelo asani oved kochavim 
umazalos"?

Akiva Miller

RMB says:
>> The gemara, Megillah 16b, was discussed back in v13n43. See RAM's post
at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n043.shtml#03> and
responses. I was running with a different one raised later. But the
gemara in question is about Mordechai giving up kavod haTorah for
hatzalas nefashos. Which he held was the right choice. Nor did they
tell him it was the wrong choice. Just the one that left him lesser
(in the relevant way). <<

Who learns Pshat that he was giving up *Kavod* HaTorah? The Gemara says
"Talmud Torah". Additionally, that is why I quoted the Chafetz Chaim who
says openly that the one who learns Torah *has accomplished* more than the
one who dealt in Hatzalas Nefashos.

>>: What of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his group, who are granted Toraso
: Umanuso exemptions from Mitzvos Ma'asiyos?

... and whose talmidim didn't succeed and we are told not to follow? <<

We are told not to follow his Derech for *the multitudes* (*Harbeh* Assu
etc.), but the Biur Halachah (156) says that there are individuals who can,
and should, follow this path, [and Halachah specifically grants exemption
from Tefillah for these people]. However, I overstated my case in saying
that this category of people is still not exempt from "Mitzvos Ma'asiyos" as
I stated earlier.



>> So I reiterate my question -- how does this notion of focussing on one
mitzvah not violate the mishnah of havi zahir, which seems to me to
advocate as broad of a focus on mitzvos as possible? <<

I think the Mishnah means not to be Mezalzel in any Mitzvah. Not to fulfill
the Middas HaZehirus -rather one must be particular to keep it with all the
Dikdukim etc. that one keeps the others. See Yalkut to Parshas Ekev, where
David HaMelech says that he is concerned with violation of the Mitvzos that
a person is Dash B'Akeivav  - which is the implication of "Mitzvos Kallos",
and this Mishnah is quoted as the source for that.

IOW, this Mishnah is LaAfukei a person who might ignore the obligation to
stop learning to shake the Lulav because he is learning and racking up a
million points a second instead of the thousand points for Lulav, Al Derech
Mashal. But the Mishnah is not advocating anything beyond that.

It is true that Gemillas Chessed is a co-requisite of the Adam HaShalem -
"Kol HaOmair Ain Li Ella Torah Afillu Torah Ain Lo", as the Mishnah Berurah
writes in Hilchos Yom Kippur, but that does not mean, necessarily, that one
should give up alot of time to train to be a Zaka worker when he can put
away Sefarim in the Beis Medrash at the end of the day to fulfill that
Chessed requirement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070516/66b7c27d/attachment.html 

>From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY
>
>:
>: That wasn't the source quoted for this discussion. The source was the
>: Gemara in Megillah which states that Talmud Torah is indeed greater
>: than Hatzalas Nefashos as a choice of prioritization. This is what
>: the Chafetz Chaim was talking about.
>
>The gemara, Megillah 16b, was discussed back in v13n43. See RAM's post
>at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n043.shtml#03> and
>responses. I was running with a different one raised later. But the
>gemara in question is about Mordechai giving up kavod haTorah for
>hatzalas nefashos. Which he held was the right choice. Nor did they
>tell him it was the wrong choice. Just the one that left him lesser
>(in the relevant way).

I urge all those following this thread to look at the older Avodah posts, if
only to see, IMHO, the lack of relevance.

The Gemara clearly, unequivocally, black and white says: "Gadol TT yoser
m'hatzolas n'foshas". It is impossible to that the Gemora means this in an
actual case, i.e. if someone sees, whilst learning, his neighbor drowning,
he shouldn't rescue him, as this is clearly refuted by:

1. Clear halacha that decides otherwise,
2. Tosfos would comment on it, and
3. In the shaklah v'taryah of the Gemora this doesn't make sense.

We are left with the incontrovertible conclusion that the Gemora was
referring to realm of worth, not action. If someone has the chance to do
either, i.e. should he train to be in position to save lives, a future PN,
which should he choose. And to this question the Gemora is clear: "Gadol TT
yoser m'hatzolas n'foshas".

Questions on *how* the Gemora came to this conclusion, based on analysis of
the pesukim, doesn't change the fact that the Gemora *does* come to this
conclusion.

Now, to offer a possible answer to some of the questions raised. The Gemora
starts with "miktzas" of the chachomim distancing themselves from Mordechai,
indicating that this was a minority opinion. The Gemora then goes on to say
that everybody agrees that Mordechai went down in the ranking. Meaning, the
majority of the chachomim, who didn't distance themselves from Mordechai,
ranked him lower due to his, unavoidable, involvement with hatzolas
n'foshas.

KT,
MSS  

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:59:46PM -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: The Gemara clearly, unequivocally, black and white says: "Gadol TT yoser
: m'hatzolas n'foshas". It is impossible to that the Gemora means this in an
: actual case, i.e. if someone sees, whilst learning, his neighbor drowning,
: he shouldn't rescue him, as this is clearly refuted by:
: 
: 1. Clear halacha that decides otherwise,
: 2. Tosfos would comment on it, and
: 3. In the shaklah v'taryah of the Gemora this doesn't make sense.

: We are left with the incontrovertible conclusion that the Gemora was
: referring to realm of worth, not action...

The pasuq being explained is "veratzui lerov echav". Thus, it's not
even worth as HQBH measures it, but worth in terms of how fellow members
of Anshei Keneses haGedolah do.

Which also answers the question asked by RDBeckerman on Wed, May 16,
2007 at 04:28:39PM -0700:
: Who learns Pshat that he was giving up *Kavod* HaTorah? The Gemara says
: "Talmud Torah". Additionally, that is why I quoted the Chafetz Chaim who
: says openly that the one who learns Torah *has accomplished* more than the
: one who dealt in Hatzalas Nefashos.

The pasuq being explained is one of being ratzui to other people. It
therefore never crossed my mind when learning the gemara that the gemara
was explaining anything other than those other people's chiyuv of showing
him kavod.

Back to RMSS:
:     ... i.e. should he train to be in position to save lives, a future PN,
: which should he choose. And to this question the Gemora is clear: "Gadol TT
: yoser m'hatzolas n'foshas".

: Questions on *how* the Gemora came to this conclusion, based on analysis of
: the pesukim, doesn't change the fact that the Gemora *does* come to this
: conclusion.

I disagree. Since lemaaseh Mordechai did the right thing (ie by looking
at the pesuqim in question) we see that the greater gedulah of TT doesn't
tell us what a person should do.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

>From: "Moshe Feldman" <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] shemitta
>
>RETurkel wrote:
><< 1. Eda Hacharedit - use exclusively nonJewish produce. They have signed
>an agreement to import a large amount of vegetables from palestinians in
>Gaza!
>>>
>
>Rav Matanya Ben-Shachar (rav of Neve Daniel) pointed out that as shemitta
>nowadays is drabbanan, such a view avoids a drabbanan but may violate a
>deoraisa of lo sa'amod al dam rei'echa (given the fact that the Gaza
>farmers pay "maaser" to terrorist groups).

I think R' SBA has already responded to this (Areivim Digest, Vol 23, Issue
443), so I'll let his words speak for both of us.

>He also noted that such a position
>undermines the mitzva of yishuv haaretz (deoraisa according to Ramban), as
>Jewish farmers flounder financially and may abandon farming (and there is
>less and less farming in Israel today).

I highly doubt this goes into Yishuv EY, not facilitating someone else.
Furthermore, Yishuv EY today is not a mitzvah according to the Rambam and
many others, so there is no problem in not facilitating someone else's
Yishuv. Thirdly, we shouldn't lose sight of the many people struggling to
put food on the table, where higher prices will undermine their Yishuv EY.

With all that, I don't see why Otzar BD couldn't fulfill all of this, and
therefore I'm skeptical of the claim that the Badatz doesn't use OB. If it's
true, it would behoove those who feel it's wrong to attempt getting their
POV, as I'm sure they have one as well.  

>... Specifically, everyone is mentioning Otzar Ha'aretz, which
>is part of Machon HaTorah v'HaAretz (http://www.toraland.org.il/), which
>is DL.  Does anyone know if there is an Otzar Bet Din that is charedi?

When I was there for sheviis, IIRC, the Shearis Yisroel had OB.

>Rav Shlomo Levy (rosh kollel of Yeshivat Har Etzion) noted that according
>to the Ramban (as understood by Rav Kook, which Rav Levy believes to be the
>simple understanding of the Ramban), there is a mitzvah de'oraisa (when
>shmitta is de'oraisa) to eat peiros shevi'is (the pasuk says "l'ochla"),
>though the CI believes that according to the Ramban the mitzvah is just
>not to destroy the fruit (l'ochla v'lo l'hefseid).
>
><< Interestingly many charedim in Bnei Brak have given up on the "kulah"
>of the Chazon Ish and gone over to the Edah Hacharedit. One reason is not
to have
>to"bother" with the rules of shemitta produce.>>
>
>According to what I wrote above, this should not be viewed as a "bother"
>but a zchus to fulfill a mitzvah.  We don't normally try to put ourselves
in a
>position to be patur from fulfilling mitzvos.

I'm surprised that you'd insist on charedim applying R' Kook's understanding
of the Ramban instead of the interpretation of their manhig, the CI.

KT,
MSS

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

>> Moslems use p.b.u.h -- peace be upon him (alav hashalom).
 
> Anyone know the earliest source for alav hashalom?

I knew we were going to come back to this.

R' Michael Broyde has an article in the third Hakirah about this.

Nineteen people and 4 categories are titled 'eved hashem' in Chazal's
literature, mostly listed in Sifre Pesikta 27, ARN B ch. 43, and 
Midrash tehillim Buber 18:4.  There are plenty of places where
"alavashalom" is spelled out in the Midrashim, but only applying
to this group of 23, which implies that it was an abbreviation
E"H for Eved Hashem, that was only expanded by a later editor
as Alavashalom because the previous distinction had been forgotten.

Other Distinguished Deceased People are referred to as Z"L in the
literature.

A study of Jewish tombstones from 300 BCE through 700 CE (2nd Temple
through early Geonim) shows NO epitaphs of E"H or Alavashalom, and
many ZL or ZTL.

Rashi/Tosfos are completely consistent, using EH for the 23 listed,
and ZL/ZTL for everyone else.  Jewish tombstones from early Christian
Europe use "yanuach beshalom" or "menuchato kavod", similar to Latin
"requiescat in pace" or "pax vobiscum", and zero E"H.  Meanwhile,
Judeo-Arabic writers, from the Geonim through Rambam and beyond, used
Aleih Alsalaam (abbreviated E"S), and Alavashalom as a direct translation.
Rambam apparently never uses Alavashalom in Hebrew writings, as
inappropriate for Hebrew; he probably was still aware of the Eved Hashem
designation.

The list:

Persons: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, Samuel, Samson, Solomon,
Job, Joshua, Caleb, Eliakim, Zrubabel, Daniel, Hannaiah, Mishael, Azariah,
Nebuchadnezzar, Isaac.

Groups: Early Prophets, Jewish People, Messiah, Angels.

No manuscript spells out Alavashalom in Hebrew until 1400 or so.  The
tombstones indicate that nobody used it for dead people until the
Muslim expansion, and then only in Muslim countries.  So it seems
pretty clear that Alavashalom was remapped onto E"H, which originally
stood for Eved Hashem, and originally only applied to 23 persons or
groups.

The article circulated in manuscript for some years before he
found a publisher, so there are earlier references to this idea
in the Avodah archives.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

Samuel Svarc wrote:
> Sure, if someone wants to train to enhance his Torah study, go right ahead
You're changing your opinion again.  Originally it was Talmud Torah 
which takes priority, then it was kvius of Talmud Torah, then it was 
preparation for Talmud Torah, now it's preparation with the intent of 
enhancing Talmud Torah.  Is there a precise formulation of this 
preference somewhere?  It seems, l'havdil, more like Proteus than like a 
halacha.
> (although I disagree with you on how effective and time efficient a route
> this is). In the context of the original discussion, the training for Zaka
> scenario was used as a stand-in for the exact opposite, where one has the
> knowledge necessary for Torah but wants to learn it's practical application
> as a means to save lives.
>   
Why is that not also Talmud Torah? Don't you agree, for example, that 
learning the umanus of shehita counts as Talmud Torah? Why is this 
different?

David Riceman

Hi,

I have begun "Bein Din Ledin", a blog dedicated to discussion of Hoshen
Mishpat.

http://bdl.freehostia.com

Yitzhak Grossman

--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator

>The source was the Gemara in Megillah which states that Talmud Torah is indeed greater than Hatzalas <Nefashos as a choice of prioritization
I have never understood why this gemara is so often cited as a proof for the absolute primacy of Talmud Torah over everthing else. The gemara says of Mordechai that "pirshu mimenu miktzat Sanhedrin" on this point, clearly indicating that most of the Sanhedrin essentially supported Mordechai. Adraba, this demonstrates that Mordechai's actions were normative, not the minority position of  the poshim. It has always seemed to me that this is a raaya listor that Talmud Torah is superior to hatzalat nefashot.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070517/f0ff9695/attachment.htm 

Chumash Toras Chaim (Mossad Harav Kook) puts "Lo yihyeh lecha" in the same
Passuk as "Anochi." This makes the whole Perek 22 Pesukim long (instead of
23), messes up all the Marehe Mekomos, etc. Anyone know why they do this? 

 

KT,

MYG 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070517/21c7f382/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 114
***************************************

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..."