Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 173

Fri, 09 May 2008

• 1. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Piyyutim - are they a hefsek? Request for Sources In Talmud (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: : Saying L'dor vadorWas Skipping Korbanos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Moving words by Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandl zt'l (SBA)
• 6. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Re: Heter mechira (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Michael Makovi)

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Okay, focusing on "there is no proof now that the gemorra sanctions
> post-Moshe additions, since my reading is no less valid", I'll ask:
> are there any commentators who suggest that Yehoshua added these
> pesukim independently of Moshe? If there are, then while R' Akiva's
> reading is valid, mine would be valid too. I unfortunately lack a
> Gemara at the moment.
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
> _______________________________________________
>

It's about 30 Year since I learned that sugya but...   iirc the Halacha
requires no aliyyos in the midst of those 8 pesukkim indicating that they
are of different status than the rest of the Torah. The Pashut peshat to me
is that Moshe simply did not write them at all [according to 1 teirutz
bedema is the other] otherwise why not break it up?


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080508/f4a402b8/attachment-0001.htm>

One bright young fellow told me that Piyyutim are definitely a hefsek in the
davening.

Do we have any direct, specific Talmudic passages on topic?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080509/ccac5254/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:55 AM, D&E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:

> Re: RRW's <<Ashkenazim tend to incorporate  botth versions
> at differing times  Sepaard tends to conflate e.g.:
>
>   1. saying BOTH BishlmechaAND b'rov oz vshalmo [which are
> alternates]
>   2. Saying BOTH teflillas kol peh AND amcha yisreol
> berachmim which are
>    alternates
>
> If ashkenaz had the 2 readings they would probably say 1 at
> shacharis
> another at mincha at arvis etc.>>
>
> There seems to be a mix-up in terminology.


David


Hatassi
I meant to post "the so-called 'nusach Sepahrad'"!  Sorry!


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080509/99f233d6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:44 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> My father once said to me (I have mentioned this before) that there was
> nothing wrong with Mizrachi that wouldn't be corrected by Torah learning,
> that whatever was wrong with Mizrachi -- laxity in mitzvos, or in tznius
> -- stemmed from amaratzus and a lack of Torah knowledge, and that when they
> began to seriously learn Torah, these faults would be corrected.  Many years
> later he reminded me of that conversation and said, "Do you see the talmidim
> of Mercaz Harav, how careful they are with halacha, how medakdek bemitzvos,
> how their wives are so tzniusdik?  It's just what I said, they are talmidei
> chachamim and their Torah observance is impeccable."  I'm not saying that he
> agreed with DL ideology, but he certainly considered them to be part of the
> Torah camp.
> *
> *
> *--Toby Katz
> =============
> *
>

My Momd would have agreed wtih your Dad.  She punded it in that shuls wer
not important etc, it was education [and her case Day Schools} that were
important.

When I meet Lefties [or righties] who argue for changes in Halachah etc., I
answer them I am not trying to change practice, just to educate people in
greater depth and to go beyond a superficial anshei anashim melumadah  and
delve into real understanding...

I have  a feeling that is perhaps part of the reason why RYBS wanted women
learning Talmud because nowadays education is paramount. And those who
understand the process of Talmud and poskim have a much better appreciation
for applying Halachah in everyday life.

Tangentially, I was  very impressed in my last years in Wash. Heights with a
young lady who was sitting in the lobby of our building who was  learning
Tur/BY [FWIW her brother is musmach and  a lamdan] .  I could see that she
had an appreciation for the depth of the Halchic process that you cannot get
from a Kitzur. But regardless of which text you use, it is the drive for
understanding -  "nishma" as my Friend Rabbi Ben Hecht would say - that is
what will fulfill lo yamushu...

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080509/be47cb13/attachment-0001.htm>

This week I received a shipment of 2 seforim by/about the late hero of the
Holocaust Hagaon Hatzadik Reb Michoel Ber Weissmandl ZT"L, Rosh Yeshivas
Nitra, the author of Min Hameitzar.

The publisher/compiler of both sforim is his young grandson Reb Chaim Elyeh
Weissmandl - a marbitz Torah in Monsey.

The first, "Ish Chamudos" is a comprehensive biography of RMBW's life and
times as well as many, many interesting and amazing anecdotes, divrei Torah
and mussar and more. There is something interesting and repeatable an almost
every single page. Very highly recommended.

The 2nd, "Lechem Chamudos" is a collection of RMBW's Torah, hashkafa and
mussar, droshos according to the Parshiyos, Tefila and Moadim. It includes
many of his Torah Codes (and the publisher dissociates him from the new
computer-generated Codes, ayin shom.

We have been discussing the frum community and Holocaust etc recently. 
Those who know we recall that despite his amazing achievements in delaying
the deportation of Czech Jews for a long time and all his other heroic
efforts on behalf of Klall Yisroel, the inaction of others to do more broke
his heart - and he died  in 1958 - when only in his 50s.

Here I bekitzur translate and post 2 pieces from Lechem Chamudos which has
some relevance. (I think I may have mentioned part of this at an earlier
occasion):

Rav Yonah Forst zt'l, another unique personality associated with the Nitra
Yeshiva in Mt Kisco, is quoted having heard from RMBW to explain why,
despite the fact that the Nazi horrors began in Germany and from where it
spread all over, more German Jews were able to get out of the country and
save their lives per capita than Jes in most other places. 
And even more amazing is that many of them saved much of their wealth -
unlike the other Yidden in the other countries where everything was looted
by the Nazis and their non-Jewish neighbours.

He suggested that this may have been because German Jews were far more
makpid to deal with non-Jews honestly and with yashrus - thus the money they
made was truly 'theirs' and no part of it belonged to goyim.

But it other parts of Easter Europe, where the poverty was rampant, many
allowed themselves to deal not so correctly with the goyim - with excuses of
taus Akum etc, thus when the bitter times arrived much of their fortune
'returned' to its "rightful" owners.. 

Reb Yoneh used this comment of RMB, to explain the Magen Avrohom that says
re Arba Minim that 'velokachtem lochem' - "Lochem" means it must be
completely yours and not via Taus or Gezel Akum. Even if we say that taus
Akum is muttar - it still isn't considered 'lochem' = yours because one day
may be taken from you and returned to its rightful owner..

Another heart-rending pshat in the sefer on 'Ve'ishei Yisroel usfilosom
be'ahavo sekabel berotzon'.

(There are various pshotim on what is meant by 've'ishei yisroel' - see
Tosfos Menochos 110.)

RMBW said that in post-Holocaust days he thought of a new pshat for "Ishei
Yisroel".

"What were the tens of thousands of our kedoshim thinking and praying
moments before being thrown into the ovens? 
They nebach knew very well that there is nothing left of any of their
gashmiyos possessions. Everything had been looted, their homes destroyed and
also knew that their families were suffereing a similar fate." 

Thus, says RMB, their thoughts would have been on matters ruchniyos. 
Eg, a rebbe who had previously learned with talmidim, may have had as his
last Tefilla: "RBSO, I worked hard to educate good talmidim bederech
hamesorah. However I wan't zocheh to continue doing this and see them grow
up to be good erlich Jews. I am now on my way to Olam Habo. Please, Hashem,
You look after them and ensure that they continue bederech Torah and Yiras
Shomayim.

In another corner of the ovens is a woman, who in the last moments before
she was deported - handed over her young child to a Goyish neighbor, hoping
that she will return and retrieve the child and bring him/her up as a
erlicher Yid. 
Now that she understands that she is on the death's doorstep and she will
never see that son again, her tefilla to Hashem was, "RBSO who will inform
my child that he is a Jew? You have promised 'ki lo yidach mimeno nidach'.
Please keep your promise and create the circumstances that he returns to his
Jewish source."  And so forth were the tefilos of our Kedoshim.

And this is his pshat - that we ask Hashem 'Ve'Ishei Ysroel" [the Neshomos
of the tzadikim that were burned in the fires of the ovens], 'usefilosom'
[and the tefilos of these korbonos, that they davvened to you as above],
'be'ahava sekable berotzon' [you should fulfill their final requests for
their talmidim and children...]

Classic reb Michoel Ber words. Zechuso yogen oleinu.

[The publishers tel no is 1-845425 5379] 

SBA   

RRW wrote:
> When I learned the sugya of Giyyur with R. Parness one summer [circa 1973]
> he concluded that a prospective ger who is mekabel "ol mitzovs" - despite
> admitting that he might give in to temptation - is acceptable. ?IOW he did
> not have to plege absolute compliance, just sincere acceptance.
>
> What more can one ask from any normal human? ?can perfection ever be
> considered a prerequesite?

RRW's definition is likely correct. However, against those who would suggest 
that some require a level of perfection unheard of among humans who are not 
the gedolei hador, let me state that that, which RRW rejects is a straw man. 
Indeed, nobody is perfect. Ein tzaddiq ba'aretz asher ya'aseh tov velo 
ye'hta. Only people who want to use that straw man to argue in favor of a 
very limited qabalaot 'ol mitzvot mention this as a serious alternative.

No, maximalist qabalat 'ol mitzvot most likely means that the ger accepts the 
entire Torah as binding and has the intention to keep it. No ger is being 
disqualified retroactively for not knowing the details of borrer beShabbat. 
However, if the ger never intended to take the day off, or if he never 
intended to turn it into a day for the spirit, opting instead to celebrate it 
at the beach, making kiddush on a pi?a colada and being qove'ah se'udah on 
baby calamari, I don't think that we can call his qiddush hayom on Friday 
night, even if it includes motzi and birkat hamazon, a sincere desire to 
accept to keep the mitzvot.


RRW: the above is no disagreement with you, I just piggy backed onto your 
statement. (Is one allowed to *piggy* back a halakhic position? ;-))

Good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote
>
> In support of Micha's quote from R. Chaim ozer......
>
> When I learned the sugya of Giyyur with R. Parness one summer [circa 
> 1973] he concluded that a prospective ger who is mekabel "ol mitzovs" 
> - despite admitting that he might give in to temptation - is 
> acceptable.  IOW he did not have to plege absolute compliance, just 
> sincere acceptance.
>
> What more can one ask from any normal human?  can perfection ever be 
> considered a prerequesite?
The only problem with this assertion is that the Achiezer specifically 
rejects the validity of the conversion when it is obvious that the ger 
is not going to keep Shabbos or kashrus. He does acknowledge that people 
are fallible and that sining after conversion does not invalidate the 
conversion as a general rule. However he asserts that Shabbos and 
kashrus are so essential to being a Jew - you can not have conversion 
without them. He states this both in Achiezer (3:26) and 22 years later 
in (3:28). Dr. Finkelstein discusses this in detail in his sefer on 
geirus, In his book Achiezer (3:26) is translated as:

"Where, however, it is evident that later he will certainly transgress 
Torah prohibions - the violatin of the Sabbath and the eating of    
non-kosher meat [i.e., nonobservance of the Jewish dietary laws] - and 
we clearly know his intent, that he converts only for             
appearance's sake, with no inner conviction, this constitutes a proven 
assessment that what he says - that he accepts the commandments upon 
himself is not [worth] anything. Consequently, this is a flaw in his 
acceptance of the commandmetns that prevents [the conversion from taking 
effect]."


Consequently you can't bring the Achiezer as proof that never keeping 
Shabbos or kashrus can not show that the gerus is not valid. If their is 
clear  evidence that the ger never intended to keep Shabbos and in fact 
never has kept Shabbos - there was never a conversion according to the 
Achiezer.


Daniel Eidensohn

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> I'm curious what some of your reactions are to the concept of heter 
> mechira. It should be pointed out that the Gemara is replete with 
> examples of avoiding a Halachic prohibition by transferring title of 
> ownership of a particular item (Maaser Sheni 4:5, Tosefta Pesachim 
> chapter 2, Beitzah 17a, and Nedarim 48a). In fact, the Gemara (Bechorot 
> 3b) even encourages selling an animal to a non-Jew before it gives birth 
> for the first time to avoid the restrictions regarding a Bechor. 
> Moreover, Mechirat Chametz has developed into a yearly routine in 
> observant communities, though it is not quite the same.

There are many distinctions between the heter mechira for shmitah and
the cases of chametz and behema hamevakeret.

1. Selling land in EY to a goy is assur.  Perhaps the issur isn't
very strong, but it is an issur, unlike selling chametz or pregnant
animals.  That means you're starting out with a negative; it's not
pareve.

2. It's not clear that you are allowed to do melacha on a goy's land
in EY.  Nor does everyone agree with the Shulchan Aruch that the
produce of a goy's land is exempt from shmita.  OTOH with chametz and
behema the solution is lechol hadeot.

3. What if the goy doesn't want to sell it back?  Are you prepared to
part with it permanently?  In the case of chametz and behema, if the
goy wants to keep it and give you the money, you would be delighted.
You can always use the money to buy fresh chametz or another cow if
you want to, or you can use it for something completely different.
You have no attachment to that particular loaf of bread or even that
particular cow.   But is a farmer really willing to sell his farm
permanently, bifrat to an Arab?

4. In the case of bechor there really is no better solution.  If the
bechor is born it will be a constant michshol for people until it
finally develops a mum, which could take years if it's lucky.  As for
chametz, there is no mitzvah at all in destroying it, and there's
certainly no increase in mitzvah when one destroys more rather than
less.  Burning a few crumbs on Erev Pesach is just as good a mitzvah
as pouring out a whole warehousefull of whiskey.  So while not selling
the chametz won't lead to an actual averah, it won't lead to an
increase in any mitzvah either, so there's no good reason to refrain.
But shmitah is a positive mitzvah, "veshavta ha'aretz", which if it
can be kept should be.

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

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

> RRW wrote:
> > When I learned the sugya of Giyyur with R. Parness one summer [circa
> 1973]
> > he concluded that a prospective ger who is mekabel "ol mitzovs" - despite
> > admitting that he might give in to temptation - is acceptable.  IOW he
> did
> > not have to plege absolute compliance, just sincere acceptance.
> >
> > What more can one ask from any normal human?  can perfection ever be
> > considered a prerequesite?
>
> RRW's definition is likely correct. However, against those who would
> suggest
> that some require a level of perfection unheard of among humans who are not
> the gedolei hador, let me state that that, which RRW rejects is a straw
> man.



>
>
> Good Shabbos,
> --
> Arie Folger
> http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
>



it is NOT a straw man - here is why thre is a hilluk::
While No ger is expected to be 100% faithful to Troah than any normal human
the Hilluk here is that the Ger in OUR CASE is artciulating his human
FRAILTY during hsi process of accepting the mitzvos. IOW he is going IN with
the foresight that he may fall down.  This is the Hiddush. Indeed there is
no hiddush if after accepting 100% w/o pre-conditions that he falls down he
is OK

See the Hilluk?
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080509/c278417a/attachment.htm>

> Achiezer (3:26) is translated as:
>
> "Where, however, it is evident that later he will certainly transgress Torah
> prohibions - the violatin of the Sabbath and the eating of    non-kosher
> meat [i.e., nonobservance of the Jewish dietary laws] - and we clearly know
> his intent, that he converts only for             appearance's sake, with no
> inner conviction, this constitutes a proven assessment that what he says -
> that he accepts the commandments upon himself is not [worth] anything.
> Consequently, this is a flaw in his acceptance of the commandmetns that
> prevents [the conversion from taking effect]."
>
> R' Daniel Eidensohn

However, it seems to me, that the Achiever isn't saying that
intrinsically, violating Shabbat and kashrut b'teiavon invalidates a
conversion. He would perhaps agree that in theory, a person who
accepts Shabbat and kashrut in theory and violates them in practice
only due to strong yetzer hara, is indeed a valid convert, in theory.
The Achiever is perhaps viewing Shabbat and kashrut, however, as
benchmarks; anyone whose teiavon (yetzer hara) is so strong and his
will so weak, that he violates Shabbat and kashrut is either so weak
that he can't be trusted to be a good Jew (nothing against him, but
after all...), or he must not be doing it truly b'teiavon, and really
he doesn't truly accept Shabbat and kashrut at all in theory ("and we
clearly know his intent, that he converts only for appearance's sake,
with no inner conviction").

In other words, violating Shabbat and kashrut doesn't necessarily have
to invalidate the gerut, but we say that it does, because these are so
important that no one violating them b'teiavon can possibly be a good
Jew (whether because his will is so weak, or because it can't truly be
merely b'teiavon), and thus they serve as benchmarks, by our own
choice and discretion, not intrinsically.

If so, then Rabbi Wolpoe's assertion still stands, that as long as one
accepts the mitzvot in theory, one is a valid ger, even if he violates
b'teiavon. The Achiever is simply an asterick on this assertion.

Mikha'el Makovi

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 173
***************************************

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..."