Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 85

Tue, 31 May 2011

• 1. Re: ein shliach le-dvar averiah (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: ein shliach le-dvar averiah (Zev Sero)
• 3. Melech (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: trop issue (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 5. Re: border issues (Danny Schoemann)
• 6. Fast days for Gezeiros Tatnu (David Cohen)
• 7. atchalta de-geula (Eli Turkel)
• 8. arei sfar (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Not Covering Her Hair (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Not Covering Her Hair (Rafi Hecht)
• 11. Re: Not Covering Her Hair (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: standard opinion? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. Re: arei sfar (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Hankman)

 

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
On 28/05/2011 4:03 PM, Eli  Turkel wrote:

> 1. The gemara "exonerates" one who sets up others to  do a sin on the 
grounds that
> the other person shouldn't have listened.  What about this case where the 
boys
> were misled. Is the sender now  guilty in bet din?

He's guilty of lifnei iver, but not of the actual  crime.



-- 
Zev  Sero                      






>>>>
 
In addition to lifnei iver, he is guilty of something much worse:  by  
subjecting them to the rigors of Japanese prisons, he put those boys' lives at  
risk.  What is the penalty for someone who delivers a fellow Jew into  
captivity among the goyim?  And at the risk of their lives?
 
 

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




_____________________



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110530/b8ccc137/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/05/2011 8:42 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:

> In addition to lifnei iver, he is guilty of something much worse: by
> subjecting them to the rigors of Japanese prisons, he put those boys'
> lives at risk. What is the penalty for someone who delivers a fellow
> Jew into captivity among the goyim? And at the risk of their lives?

As the man said, "ein shliach lidvar aveira".  And in any case, it's
a very far grama; he wasn't the one who informed on them, after all.
I don't see how he could be chayav bedinei adam, for anything except
lifnei iver.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

<< I was thinking
that only a Messianic Zionist would accord the current gov't some of the
halakhos of melekh, since it's only they who make it the beginnings of
the return of beis David. If a RZ who isn't messianic about it doesn't
have anyone with even a small portion of the powers of a king, then there
are no grounds for a war. >>

RHS (in the shiur of my other post) took it for granted that Melech means a
Jewish
government in EY.  He thus felt that the first of the requirements for
building a
new bet hamikdash has been fulfilled.

He further speculated tha when Esther's son became king there was a Jewish
King
over the land of Israel which affected some halachot. When Esther dies
Daruis lost
all contact with Jews and could no longer be considered a Jewish king.

He pointed out, as mentioned on this list, that Queen Esther lived the rest
of her life
(happily?) married to Achashverosh and died as a Persian Queen.
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110531/62b0eacc/attachment-0001.htm>

     RSaul Z. Newman cited http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-trup-alternation-in-
     yisachar.html, explaining the different trop on Binyamin, Naftali
     and Yissachar as a function of its syllable construction, and
     commented, "i would  like	to think there is a more esoteric pshat ,
     than just	a syllable  count....anyone  seen one ?"

     Nothing esoteric; the phenomenon isn't restricted to this parsha. 
     E.g., in the listing of the mishpachos for the purpose of nachala, in
     Parashas Pinchas, we find that most names have a zakeif gadol (a few
     have r'vi'i), but kadma-katan is found on exactly those names which
     have the same syllable structure as the three sh'vatim: Areili,
     Yachl'eil,  Asrieil, Malkieil and Yachtz'eil. In the second and last
     of these examples, the sh'va na counts as a syllable.

     Lest one think that the reason in the Pinchas list is the presence of
     the theophoric suffix, N'mueil also has the suffix, but because it has
     a different syllable structure, it doesn't get a kadma-katan.

     BTW, shouldn't this be a Mesorah topic, rather than an Avodah one?

EMT

     
 
 

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4de45741572621f7121st01vuc

> From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
>
> In terms of disputes it is practically impossible that there was no
> machloket until the days of the "zugot". ?We know that there was
> a machloket whether David was fit to be king being a descendant
> of Ruth the Moabite. Thus, according to some opinions the entire
> descendants of Ruth were not eligible to get married, not a minor
> concern.

See Tos. "Yossi ben Yoezer" in Chagiga 16a.

Ad lib overview:

There was a single Machlokes between the Zugos, regarding Semicha on
YomTov. This was the first non-resolved Machlokes.

Hillel and Shamai argued about 3 other issues that went unresolved.

Their numerous students - having not done enough Shimush - started
arguing about lots of issues.

King David's argument doesn't count since he was a minority opinion
overruled by Shaul's Bet Din. (This refers to the MeKadesh
beMilveh-uPruta argument. His Amoni/Amonit Chidush is not discussed.)

So says Tosafot.

While the Sanhedrin existed / until the later years of the 2nd Bet
HaMikdash, every Machlokes was resolved and the resolution became
Torah MiSinai. (The Mishna in AZ 11:2 describes how an unresolved
argument would float up the ranks until - if needed - it reached the
Sanhedrin.)

Not sure how/why the issue regarding Semicha was not resolved that
way. It clearly got stuck at the level of the Sanhedrin, since the
"Zugot" were the Nassi and the Av Bet Din by definition.

Assumedly, the Amoni/Amonit Chidush was ratified by some Bet Din
during Ruth's lifetime; though one can understand that troublemakers
would dig it up when trying to dethrone King David.

- Danny

In the Tishah b'Av kinah "Mi yitein roshi mayim," which commemorates the
massacres of the Rhineland communites of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz during the
First Crusade in 1096 ("gezeiros Tatnu"), the section starting with the line
"vechi ein lehosif mo'eid shever vesaveira" states that it would be
inappropriate to establish a separate day of mourning for these tragedies,
and that is why they are being commemorated on Tishah b'Av instead.  I have
heard that RYBS cited this in support of his position that Yom haShoah
should be moved to Tishah b'Av.

However, special fast days *were* observed in the Rhineland communities on
the days of these massacres, and selichos were recited.  In the case of
Worms, they even fasted on Rosh Chodesh Sivan (though they didn't complete
the fast).  See the "shinuyei nuscha'ot" on page 159 of the Mechon
Yerushalayim edition of Sefer Maharil.  The observance of the fast days in
Worms is described in greater detail in the books of "Minhagei Vermaiza" of
R' Yuspa Shamash and R' Yehuda Leib Kirchheim (I looked at it yesterday, but
don't have the exact references handy now).  The week that we are in now,
between the anniversaries of the initial Worms massacre of 23 Iyar and the
killing of the survivors who had fled to the bishop's fortress on Rosh
Chodesh Sivan, was referred to as "bein hagezeiros."

How, then, are we to understand the kinah?  Could it be that R' Kalonimus
bar Yehudah wrote it in the immediate aftermath of the massacres, and the
fast days were only established later, once the communities were repopulated
and reestablished?  If so, the fact that these communities did *not* pasken
like R' Kalonimus bar Yehudah with regard to the establishment of separate
days of mourning would seem to diminish the weight that the statement in the
kinah has as a precedent in halacha.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110531/62240ec0/attachment-0001.htm>

<< Atchalta d'geula, in my opinion, is irrelevant halakhically.
The halakha doesn't change just because someone labels the period in
that way.>>

In a different context RHS disagrees. I just went to a shiur of his on
sunday in which
he discussed whether YH and Yom Yerushalayim would be prohibited by Baal
Tosif of adding a new holiday. He brought several proofs that anything that
celebrates an event connected
to the Bet Hamikdash is allowed, as seen in megillat taanit. Today we have
chanukah
which is obviously connected to the bet hamikdash. However, the question is
why is Purim allowed?
Several achronim answer that even though Purim occurred before the building
of the second bet hamikdash nevertheless the rabbis felt that the geula was
coming (atchalta de-geula) and this
was enough to allow Purim to be established. The Netivot goes a step further
and says
that originally Purim was forbidden for melacha. However, when they saw that
the Bet Hamikdash
was not built they still kept Purim but allowed Melacha.

Thus, . Schachter's conclusion is that anyone who believes that we are in an
era of atchalta de-geula can celebrate YH and YY without any problems with
ball tosif. He also pointed out that the concept of atchalta de-geula is an
old one and did not originate with HaRav Kook

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110531/a7527053/attachment-0001.htm>

<<The law about border towns is *about* safety.>>

Anyone have idea of what the defintion of arei sfar is today in the era of
Katyusha rockets reaching Haifa and Ashkelon

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110531/0db55804/attachment-0001.htm>

This morning a fellow came over to me after davening and said, "My 
wife does not cover her hair.  I really do not care. Maybe I am 
wrong, but this is the way it is."

He then went on to tell me that he has an old friend who now has 
apparently moved to the right. "He will not even talk to my wife." he 
said.  The fellow who told me this was obviously upset by this 
behaviour, and I assume that his wife is also.

I replied, "My understanding is that it is a serious offense to 
embarrass someone and/or to cause someone pain,  and I cannot 
understand your friend's behaviour."   It seems to me that this 
"friend" has let his new-found religiosity get in the way of proper 
Torah behaviour.  Am I correct?  YL

Usually you place more restrictions on someone who's more liable to sin
than not. Otherwise it's just a madness, as I see it.

Best Regards,
Rafi Hecht
rhe...@gmail.com
www.rafihecht.com
---
Never Trust a Computer You Can't Throw Out a Window - Steve Wozniak

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
...
> I replied, "My understanding is that it is a serious offense to embarrass
> someone and/or to cause someone pain,  and I cannot understand your friend's
> behaviour."   It seems to me that this "friend" has let his new-found
> religiosity get in the way of proper Torah behaviour.  Am I correct?  YL

In a message dated 5/31/2011 7:14:55am EDT, llev...@stevens.edu writes:
> This morning a fellow came over to me after davening and said, "My
> wife does not cover her hair. I really do not care. Maybe I am wrong,
> but this is the way it is."

> He then went on to tell me that he has an old  friend who now has 
> apparently moved to the right. "He will not even talk  to my wife."

The old friend may be under the misapprehension that it is forbidden to
look at a woman whose hair is uncovered. The fellow you know should
speak to his old friend about this and encourage him to ask a shaila
about whether it is mutar to speak to a married woman whose hair is
uncovered.

(Of course he should be careful who he asks; he might be told that it
is assur to look at a woman, period. This can get sticky. I had a
terrific teacher in sem who literally taught us with his eyes closed.
Whether he held it was the din or whether it was his personal chumra,
he never looked at the girls or women he taught.)

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

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:30:18AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> Furthermore, RMM claims there IS Psak when it comes to Hashkofo, and we
> need to follow the majority

While Rav Sternbuch told me the same thing, however Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky
told me that he disagreed with such a requirement. Rav Belsky also told
me that there is no requirement to accept a young universe despite the
fact that the apparent majority says otherwise.

But of greater importance is defining under what circumstances must you
follow the majority even in halacha. It seems from the Get Poshut and
many others that this is only when the parties are meeting face to face
and take a vote.

    Get Poshut (Principle 1): The Mahari Sasson asks that since according
    to the view of the Maharam and his followers concerning a rabbinic
    dispute concerning monetary issues we don't follow the majority --
    and that the one who currently has the money keeps it because of
    kim li -- how is it possible to say that since Tosfos says the
    minority of judges are viewed as if they don't exist? He answers,
    "That Tosfos hold this view only if the judges directly discuss
    the matter together. In such a case the majority is determined
    in the presence of all of judges and thus the minority is viewed
    as nonexistent. In contrast concerning views expressed in halacha
    books or those who posken from books -- if the different sides are
    not in contact with each other and don't argue the matter personally
    with their opponents then even if they saw the other poskim or the
    view stated in a sefer -- then we can say kim li like the minority
    view. That is because it is possible that if they argued face to face
    that the majority would concede to the view of the minority." This
    is the correct understanding and I have written something similar
    elsewhere in the name of the Rashba, Maharik, Ralbach in his psak
    concerning semicha, and all the Achronim that there is no majority
    except one that comes from within an actual group. This is alluded to
    in the Knesses Hagodola (13:22). However the Radvaz (116) disagrees
    and says that it is enough to count the number of poskim who agree
    with a view to constitute a majority.

On 31/05/2011 3:33 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<The law about border towns is *about* safety.>>
>
> Anyone have idea of what the defintion of arei sfar is today in the era of
> Katyusha rockets reaching Haifa and Ashkelon

The same as it ever was.  Territory is still the most important strategic
asset.  And the test is still the same as it ever was: "shelo tehei
ha'aretz nocha likavesh lifneihem".  Should the other side decide to
invade the country, will possessing the town in question make their job
easier?  Then we may not surrender it, and must fight to keep it.

Note that this means we go into a vadai war now, in order to preserve
our strategic position in a hypothetical war later.  We knowingly risk
our soldiers' lives now, to save future soldiers' lives in a war that
the other side assures us they have no intention of ever waging.  The
other side says give us this territory and we will have peace, and you
won't have to worry about a future invasion; and the Torah tells us
we *must* ignore this argument, and we *must* assume that sooner or
later there will be an invasion, and we must take up arms, even on
Shabbos, to prevent these "peace-loving" people from occupying an area
that will help them in that hypothetical future invasion.  This isn't
agadah, it's halacha pesukah without a single dissenter; and it applies
even in Nehardeah, kol shekein in EY.

In practical terms there is almost nowhere that is *not* an "arei sfar"
nowadays.  Perhaps, ironically, kever yosef is an exception; of no
strategic value and too hard to defend, and thus a military liability.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

R'nLL wrote:

Defending borders is
halakhically an issue of self-defense. Expanding borders is kibush
ha-aretz, but I don't know of any source that says defending border
towns is anything but an unqualified obligation.

>IOW the above all paskened like the Rambam, that mitzvas kibbush
>ha'aretz does not apply bizman hazeh.

But the subject here is border issues. I don't see how that relates to
kibush ha-aretz in any way.

CM comments:

I think we might be glossing over a central matter as a practical issue in
our day. What exactly is the definition of the "border" in today's
geography and demography. Is it the kedusha rishona or the k. shenia of the
olei Bavel, or that of the kivush of the Chashmonaim and if so, how well
(or poorly) defined are either of these borders in our time? Or is it some
current line we might care to define by modern realities of war (1948,
1967, 1973 etc), demography (of which period?) or National and/or
International law (Turk Emp., Balfour, Mandate, Israeli Law, UN resolutions
or current IL?). If it is the mere presence of Jews in some particular area
then you conflate the border issue to the self defense issue, and also then
further entangle the issue of self defense in Chutz La'Aretz becoming a
milchemes mitzva if for example the Jews of say BoroPark were under siege
as opposed to the Jews of a kibbutz near Gaza. I suspect that  many will
want to scoff at the idea that recent in
 fluences have a bearing on the issue of halachic borders that we do or do not have to defend, I am not sure that is the case.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110531/041c1576/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 85
**************************************

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..."