Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 129

Sun, 03 Jun 2007

• 1. Baal Nefesh (SBA)
• 2. Yishuv EY (Dov Kay)
• 3. Re: shelo osani ... (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: yishuv EY (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 5. R' Unna on Kol Isha (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 6. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Re: yishuv EY (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 8. Ashkenazic pronunciation of "HaShem" (Dov Kay)
• 9. Studying Daf Yomi and complex Gmarot (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 10. Re: Wording of Kaddish (Arie Folger)
• 11. Test your knowledge. (SBA)
• 12. Re: Rashi and geography (T613K@aol.com)
• 13. Re: kashrus of milk (T613K@aol.com)
• 14. Re: Hebrew and Aramaic (T613K@aol.com)

From: "Rich, Joel" <>
..noticed that while the gemara uses it sparingly (4 times or so) Rashi
defines it as chassid which is used with much greater frequency. This
got me to thinking as to why the gemara would use 2 terms for the same
concept (if indeed this is the case).
>>

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, but it may be of interest
that Rashi in Beitzah 15: writes:
"Baalei Nefesh hem, ve'einom yegei'in lishmo'a Torah".
Which is a totally different description of BN...

SBA

There has been much quoting of sources which appear to indicate that those 
who live in EY are punished more for their sins than those who do not.  The 
implication drawn by some is that one who is sinful, ie everyone, should not 
make aliyah.   The counter-argument raised by others has been that if yishuv 
EY is a mitzva, what justification is there to refrain from it?

As a point of comparison, I was thinking of Gerus.  Jews have more mitzvos 
than non-Jews, with the consequence that the stakes are higher and we are 
more liable to punishment.  However, while it is true that we initially try 
to deter non-Jews from converting, we welcome genuine gerim and view their 
decision in a positive light.

Surely the ger is similar to the oleh la'aretz in that he brings increased 
din upon himself, but can certainly be said to have benefited in an absolute 
sense.  Entry into the palace of the King should certainly not be undertaken 
without the requisite awe but, for all that, who would not want choose a 
palace over a slum?

Kol tuv
Dov Kay
Manchester, UK

_________________________________________________________________
Could you be the guest MSN Movies presenter? Click Here to Audition 
http://www.lightscameraaudition.co.uk

On 5/31/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> Well, there are two dialects of Hebrew which do use both "HaMaqom"
> and "lekha" -- Abazit and modern liturgical Ashkenazis. We may open the
> berakhah "Modim anakhnu Lakh", but a short while later we say "nodeh Lekha
> unsapeir tehilasekha .. beyadekha", rather than "nodeh Lakh unsapeir
> tehilasakh", and then the berakhah switches back to "pequdos Lakh".
> But in general, "-kha" wins the Ashkenazi popularity contest. (As opposed
> to Sepharad's "qadsheinu bemitzvotakh, vetein chelqeinu betoratakh,
> sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamach nafsheinu biyshuasakh".)
>

Interestingly, (like many other areas) Nusach Sefard seems to be a
compromise between Ashkenazi and Sefardi suffixes l'inyan zeh:

Ashkenaz (in Mussaf kedusha) has "naaritz'cha v'nakdish'cha".  Nusach
Sefard has (in shacharis) "Nakdishach v'naaritzach", conforming with the
sefardim.  They do say "ham'shalsh'lim lecha kedusha".  I can't remember
whether Sefardim say lecha or lach there.


KT,
Michael

On 5/31/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> 
> > He later fasted to forget Torah Chutz La'aretz...
> 
> Did he?  Or did he fast in penance for his sin of leaving Bavel, and
> forgot Torat Chu"l as a result of his fasting?

The Gemara is BM 85a on the bottom: "R' Zeira ki salik l'ar'a d'yisrael 
yasiv meiah taanisa d'lishtakach gemara bavla'ah minei ki heichi d'lo 
litardei."

Rashi explains, "When he went up to EY to learn from R'Yochanan and the
Amoraim in EY who were not bnei machlokes v'nochin zeh lazeh kishman (?)  
kid'amranin b'sanhedrin (24a) umeyashvim es hate'amim blo kushyos
upirukin."

There are a few things you can see from this Gemara:  (Some of them 
relevant to this discussion, and some not.)

1) It was actually so he could forget, and not just as penance.

2) It was not to forget Toras Chu"l, but rather Gemara Bavlaah.  The 
word Gemara all over refers to analytical process/derech halimud more than 
information.  He did not, chas v'shalom, want to forget all the Torah he 
had learned.  He wanted to unlearn a particularly aggressive learning 
style.

3) Even then, the only reason he wanted to change his method was "ki
heichi d'lo litardei" - so it wouldn't interfere with his future learning
in EY.  Even the aggressive Babylonian learning style (about which the
Gemara says somewhere that there are three exceedingly territorial
creatures - dogs, zonos, and talmidei chachamim sheb'bavel) he would have
kept, if not for practical considerations.  (Otherwise, shouldn't he have
done these 100 fasts long ago?)  Every derech halimud has its unique
advantages.  (My rebbe, Rav Mendel Blachman, claims that this
aggressiveness, which caused them to fight out sevaras to the end, is why
we pasken Bavli, not Yerushalmi.)

KT,
Michael

"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> writes:
 
As in the problem with defining mamzeirus lefi R' Aqiva, I wonder what
class of ervah is included. It's noot that "according to many nida
is also considered ervah but rather the level of issur defines a
graduated scale. No?
------------------------------
I did not clearly understand your question. As brought in the Otzar
Haposkim I referenced, niddah is considered ervah by the poskim (Pri
Megodim, Chasam Sofer etc.) in the context of the issur of kol isha.
CGS

RMB:

>> No, I disagree over that is the sort order of the list. In what way is
he further behind. The pasuq tells you it's ratzui, not zechus. <<

Apparently that is not how the Taz, nor the Chofetz Chaim, learned the
Gemara.



>> But the Taz, like the rest of us, do not tell you to start learning
rather than save lives. The halakhah is about interrupting learning if
someone else could do it.

That's a separate Din that has nothing to do with the Taz nor the Gemara in
Megillah. That's based on the Gemara regarding a Mitzvah that can be done by
others.

But our case is a person learning Torah in Yeshiva and then  Kollel. He is
accomplishing more by learning than any other activity under the sun, as per
the Taz and Chafetz Chaim. To take out the time when he could have been
learning (that's what we're talking about) to be a Zaka worker or a
psychologist when he can learn flies in the face of  this. Why did he stop
learning and diminish his accomplishments?

>> When the subject is not that of
interruption, hakol modim one chooses hatzalas nefashos.<<

Ha Mina Lach?

>> How can you take a statement about yechidei segulah and turn it into a
lifestyle? <<

Because that lifestyle is good for some. We have a fellow who is learning
full time, well, and being supported. Where does it say that Gadol status is
required for this? If it were, then no one should do it since no one knows
whether he will be a Gadol or not.

>>The mishnah "hevei zahir" doesn't say "when the two conflict". <<

You're right, it has even less to do with our situation than I suggested. It
is merely a statement to treat all mitzvos with respect and not be Mezalzel
in the Dikdukei Halachah of any of them when the situation  presents itself
that they be done. Don't think Lulav is not Chashuv and not look at its tip
too carefully. Don't think Matzah is not Chashuv and not be Makpid to eat a
Kazayis. That's all.

>> As for your parenthetic "(if you would know that to be true)", the
seifa of the mishnah spells out that it's not true. You can't know the
sechar of a mitzvah. Any argument based on the idea that Torah being
consistently the greater sechar choice is simply soseir the mishnah. <<

The Tosfos Yom Tov to that Mishnah quotes the Derech Chaim as follows:

"That which it says... Talmud Torah K'negged Kullam has nothing to do with
"Ein Atta Yodeia Mattan Secharan Shel Mitzvos", for that is only said by
*Mitzvos*, but between Talmud Torah and Mitzvos there it was not said, for
it is obvious *that the reward for Talmud Torah is greater*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070531/5b3fb069/attachment.htm 

RSBoublil wrote:
 
<<BTW, Rav Zeira that was quoted has an interesting tale connected to 
him and Israel.   His rabbi, Rav Yehuda, was concerned with going to 
Israel. Despite this R' Zeira made Aliyah from Bavel.>>

To which RZSero responded:

<And who says that he was right?  The Rambam rules halacha lemaaseh 
that it's forbidden to leave Bavel for EY, and I'm not aware of 
anyone who rules differently.>

     In other words, R' Zeira was in violation of a Rambam?  

     It should be noted that the quote from the Rambam (Hilchos 
M'lachim 5:11) is not fully accurate.  He does not mention EY 
specifically.  He quotes Shmuel's din in K'subos 111a, "K'sheim 
she'asur latzeis meiEY l'Bavel, kach asyur latzeis miBavel lishar 
aratzos."  It is not clear that EY is included in Shmuel's words.  
Indeed, the Meiri says the reason for the issur is because Bavel is 
like EY, which certainly would seem to imply that "she'ar aratzos" 
means the rest of the world other than EY.  The situation is 
complicated, however, by the Rambam's adding "shene'emar 'Bavelah 
yuva'u v'shama yihyu,'" which is the pasuk given in the g'mara as Rav 
Yehuda's source for *his* din, that "asur la'alos miBavel l'EY."  The 
Kesef Mishne concludes that the Rambam includes EY in Shmuel's din, 
but that position is not unanimous among later acharonim.

     It should also be noted, as far as halacha l'ma'aseh is 
concerned, that there is no mention of this din in Shulchan Aruch.   

RSB continued:

<<He later fasted to forget Torah Chutz La'aretz...>>

and RZS riposted:

<Did he?  Or did he fast in penance for his sin of leaving Bavel, and
forgot Torat Chu"l as a result of his fasting?>

     See Bava Metzia 88a: "R' Zeira ki salik l'ara d'Yisrael yasiv 
meiah ta'anisa d'lishtakach g'mara Bavla'a ki heichi d'la n'tardei."  
No element of penance, and the forgetting was the purpose, not the 
result, of the fasting.

     Indeed, there was no reason for penance, since R' Zeira held 
that there was no issur; that the posuk which was Rav Yehuda's source 
for the issur referred to the klei hamikdash, and not to b'nei 
Yisrael. (K'subos 111a)

EMT

 

<<How did those Ashkenazim who don't normally use Israeli pronunciation come 
to
pronounce the last syllable of "HaShem" as a segol and not a tzeire?? >>

I have seen it argued that this is a remnant of an earlier Ashkenazic 
pronunciation, which was similar to the Sephardi one.  Also cited was the 
word "p'shat", which we ought to pronounce "p'shot".

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
Play your part in making history - Email Britain! 
http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/

I was wondering if members could share their experience and thoughts on the 
following issue.

The Daf Yomi program members are studying Yevamot right now.

This masechet is filled with complex issues; issues which raise serious 
moral and halachic implications.  Issues that should truly be dealt with 
intensively and not during the 30+ minutes assigned to Daf Yomi.

Most Daf Yomi teachers have barely enough time to explain the daf literally. 
They certainly don't have the time to cover all the issues raised on each 
Daf. In this masechet specifically, issues of Beino LeVeina of the most 
serious kind are raised, and many of those present, may never have learned 
the masechet (or slept through the shi'ur in yeshiva...).

My question addresses 2 aspects:

a) When the question raised is b/c of a horrible action taken prior to the 
event under discussion and the g'mara only discusses a certain specific 
result, do you mention/discuss/raise the moral problem with the original 
act?

b) If not, does this lead people to think that Torah supports these actions? 
How can they learn that force is wrong if all that is discussed is (for 
example) the yibum issues with relation to the issue of the forceable 
action?

c)Do you think that the Daf Yomi schedule should be reset to include an 
extra day (or more) of discussion on the actions connected to these 
masechtot, instead of glossing over the problematic issues?

Or do you think that there is no problem at all, that the original actions 
are permitted, perhaps even supported?

Shoshana L. Boublil

RMB wrote:
> Did the theory exist yet? No, it was created by the fact that the
> author of the SMR and RCV both thought enough about which the Gra said
> to try to remember what he did. RCV went further and decided was worth
> disputing in writing. That kind of significance given to a detail does
> imply the Gra probably considered it important.
>
> As I said, not muchrach by a long shot, but does lend real credibility
> to the MB's lomdus.

On the contrary. Neither the Ma'aseh Rav, nor RCV indicate that the Gra had 
two versions. For either of them, there only exists one correct reading. The 
one point they silently agree on, in fact, is that the Gra didn't repeat 
anything. Hence, any justification for repeating the word ZKhR according to 
two different pronounciations, which is justified by a unified theory cannot 
be the Gra's work.

The MB is of course allowed to disagree with the Gra and do that by building 
upon his supposed words.

> I have problems with not pasqening either way and doing both, but
> that's on the principle of how I think pesaq ought to work, unrelated
> to the originator. The question of who first made the chiluq is
> theoretical, and doesn't weaken the motivation by all that much.

No, but (a) don't credit or blame the Gra with introducing this gramatically 
questionable theory, and (b) recognize that the theory is but an ex post fato 
justification and might not have any basis in fact.

Furthermore, (c) understand that there are good reasons to disagree with the 
Ma'aseh Rav and with the MB.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

In SA YD, vol 3, immediately following siman 242, there are 2 pages with no
 SA text - but headed :"Pilpul behanhogas Horo'os Issur veHetter 
meHorav Hamechaber YZYY"A [Yud Zayin Yud Yud Alef].

I couldn't recall ever seeing this acronym previously.
And neither did almost everyone I asked.

Almost. Our local font of wisdom, Rav Shimon Opman gave 
the answer on the spot!

Nu...?

SBA

 
 

RZS wrote:
 
>>1. We already know that Rashi's knowledge of geography wasn't  much.<<


>>>>>
But /do/ we "know" that?  I think that Rashi probably didn't have maps  but 
figured things out from reading Tanach -- and actually got things amazingly  
right most of the time.






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



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/5244ecce/attachment.html 

 
 
RMB wrote on 5/24/2007 (sorry I am just catching up on back issues after  
trip to Israel):
 
>>In Chazal's day, fewer animals were fed artificial mixes, and no  one
farmed in such bulk, so it was very rare. But in their day, DA [Displaced  
Abomasum] would
simply have killed the cow. What makes them baalos mum  is the surgery
now performed to save them. <<
 


 
>>>>>
This is an embarrassingly elementary question, but maybe someone could  take 
the time to answer it anyway:  Why would surgery make an animal treif  -- if 
the surgery cured what was wrong with the animal and the animal is now  
perfectly healthy?




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



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/84857e4c/attachment.htm 

 
 
On 5/24/2007 RJB wrote: 

>>I was thinking the other day about Echod Mi Yodea.  Now,  not all the 
verses rhyme.  However, some do, and do so by switching  Aramaic.
The numerals are Hebrew, not Aramaic, and the first 6 are  Hebrew.
Then you get  7 "yemei Shabata" Aramaic
9 "yarchei leida" Aramaic yarchei not chodshei,  which would
scan just as well.
10  "dibraya"
11  "coch'vaya"
12  "shivtaya"
13  "midaya".

Is it known who wrote it?  Why the shift from Hebrew to  Aramaic?<<



>>>>
My guess:  Whoever wrote it lived in a time and place where people  mainly 
spoke Aramaic but were comfortable with Hebrew too, and switched  naturally back 
and forth between languages without giving it much  thought -- much as we do 
here on Avodah.  
 
"Yarchei" BTW is Hebrew as well as Aramaic -- probably borrowed from  
Aramaic, but by the time Echad Mi Yodea was written -- it was considered a  Hebrew 
word by Hebrew speakers, I'm sure.





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



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070603/c3ca377a/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 129
***************************************

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..."