Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 142

Fri, 22 Jul 2011

• 1. ONE HAND vs. TWO HANDS (Richard Wolberg)
• 2. Re: Kofin Oso (Zev Sero)
• 3. mashiach/hesech hadaas (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 4. Re: dina demalchuta (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: dina demalchuta (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: mashiach/hesech hadaas (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Kabalat Shabbat (Gals...@aol.com)
• 8. dina demalchuta (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: mashiach/hesech hadaas (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: Kabalat Shabbat (Liron Kopinsky)
• 11. Kofin Oso (Chana Luntz)
• 12. dina demalchuta (Richard Wolberg)
• 13. Re: dina demalchuta (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: dina demalchuta (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Re: mashiach/hesech hadaas (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: ONE HAND vs. TWO HANDS (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: beautifying the mitzvas.....priorities in spending?? (Micha Berger)

I recently asked the following question and found it strange that not even one person
responded. 
In Pinchas 27:18 it states: ''...v'samachta es yadcha..." (lean your hand [singular]). 
Five p'sukim later 27:23 it states: ''Vayismoch es yadav alav...'' (He leaned his hands [plural]). 
And the pasuk immediately preceding (vs.22) states ''Vayaas Moshe kaasher tziva HaSem oso...'' 
How could it say that he did as he was commanded? He was commanded to lean ONE hand and 
he leaned TWO hands. Such a big deal is made out of his striking the rock instead of speaking to it, 
so how come he wasn't penalized for following the exact instructions (laying ONE instead of TWO
hands) and how could the Torah state that he did as HaShem commanded him?

So I did some research on my own and found that the Ramban addressed
the very question, though I didn't find it a satisfying answer. He says: ''Take thee Joshua
the son of Nun, means that 'when your time [to die] comes, you shall take Joshua,'' [but
it is not a command to do so now]. And Scripture completed [this episode] by saying that 
Moshe did so wholeheartedly...''  This refers to the fact that although Moshe was only 
commanded (in pasuk 18) to lay ''his single hand upon him,'' he laid his 'HANDS' upon 
him, which shows that he appointed his successor whole-heartedly, although he knew that
he was now to die.''

The reason given doesn't explain or address the fact that Moshe was commanded to lean ONE hand
and instead he leaned TWO. The Torah is m'dakdek about everything else, so why should this be
different. My feeling is that since nothing was made of it, the Ramban justified it by praising Moshe for
using BOTH hands.

I ran this question by my class and actually got a very interesting answer from an 86 year old woman.
She said that when Moshe was commanded to lean his hand, it didn't say which hand (right or left).
Consequently, he laid both hands so that one of them had to be the correct one.

On 21/07/2011 1:50 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> Note also that from a straight reading of the maskana gemora, there is
> ultimately no requirement of beis din to be the one forcing, just a Jew
> rather than a non Jew (although in the hava mina there is, since there is
> clearly only a mitzvah to listen to the Chachamim if they are genuinely
> Chachamim)

How so?  How is "tolah atzmah beviryonim" any better than "biydei akum"?
The undesirable result is the same, "mafka'as atzmah miydei ba`alah".

BTW, thank you for citing this gemara, I've been trying to recall where
I'd seen it, because it's a major part of the source for the position I've
been advocating here, that a woman is not entitled to a get just because
she wants one.  Here the gemara says it explicitly; that the reason a get
me`useh is pasul is so that a woman who wants out of her marriage should
not be able to simply hire goons and force her husband to divorce her.

Now if BD were able to force any husband to give a get just because his
wife wanted one, then why would it occur to any woman to go to the akum?
She could go to beis din and get the same result!  Obviously a BD lacks
the power to order a get in ordinary circumstances; this power exists
only in the sort of case that Chazal listed, where the marriage is
objectively determined to be one that no reasonable woman could put up
with.  A woman in such a situation has no need for akum, because she can
go to BD, and if necessary the BD will hire the akum; but in an ordinary
case a woman has no recourse to the BD, so if a get me`useh were to work
she would go to the akum and obtain one, and by making it pasul we
prevent this.

And of course post-cherem-dRGMH Ashkenazi men are in the same situation,
since in ordindary circumstances a man can neither divorce his wife
without her consent nor marry someone else.  So if he wants a get he must
persuade her to consent.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

http://geulahperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/07/explanation.html 
excerpt--- When we evaluate events and say that they are Moshiach's advent 
- we are limiting the events and preventing Moshiach from coming! When I 
look at the calendar dates and I point out all of that which is going on - 
I am limiting - entering into a world of da'as. Da'as is synonymous with 
evil and separation - it is the loss of the greater holistic world of 
Keser where everything - even opposites - lives in harmony. The Moshiach 
blogs actually serve to prevent Moshiach from coming. My discussions of 
Moshiach prevent him from coming. 

---any feeling  about  this  issue?     i think i saw  recently from maybe 
the chiddushei harim,   that if one thinks that only  because of his lack 
of hesech hadaas is moshiach not coming,  that  alone is the hesech 
hadaas....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110721/a3fc927c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:09:33AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: something written by Rav Yissochor Frand of Ner Yisrael, who gave an
: example of speeding laws. He said that when one drives, there is a range
: of speeds, slightly over the speed limit, where one is technically in
: violation of the law, but such violations are routinely ignored by the
: police. He said that DDD only recognizes the law as enforced by the
: police, not as officially written in the books.

As RAM writes, this does mean that DDD applies to all law, but that
"law" is defigned by what's enforced.

That's different than Lisa's case to which he was responding:
:> I was once a camp counselor, and I had some issues with some of
:> the inane rules that had been dictated between the time I was a
:> camper and the time I returned as a counselor.  I told my campers
:> that I had no problem with them violating those particular rules,
:> but that if they got caught, they were on their own.  This seems
:> to me a parallel situation. 

There the nimshal is the Jew who is choosing whether or not DDD compells
his enforcement of laws that the civil legal system enforce.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

RAF:

<<Another one is the idea of halakhic neemanut.>>

I wonder if you could explain this more precisely.  It seems to me that 
the term is used for a more flexible concept than you imply here.  See 
Igros Moshe YD (1) #54 (pp. 93-94), especially his comments about the 
story in Kesubos about bas R Hisda.

<<The former position would rest on ascribing hefqer beit din hefqer 
power to the melekh.>>

Could this be the machlokes between the two psukim cited in Gittin 36b? 
Ezra got his authority from the king but Yehoshua didn't.

David Riceman

On 7/21/2011 2:32 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> <http://geulahperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/07/explanation.html>

>> excerpt--- When we evaluate events and say that they are Moshiach's
>> advent - we are limiting the events and preventing Moshiach from coming!
>> When I look at the calendar dates and I point out all of that which is
>> going on - I am limiting - entering into a world of da'as. Da'as is
>> synonymous with evil and separation - it is the loss of the greater
>> holistic world of Keser where everything - even opposites - lives in
>> harmony. *The Moshiach blogs actually serve to prevent Moshiach from
>> coming.* My discussions of Moshiach prevent him from coming.

> any feeling about this issue? i think i saw recently from maybe the
> chiddushei harim, that if one thinks that only because of his lack of
> hesech hadaas is moshiach not coming, that alone is the hesech hadaas....

I posted a reply there, but all replies are moderated.

I think the dichotomy of keter and daat is analogous in some ways to
the Schroedinger's Cat interpretation of quantum physics, where things
exist in a cloud of probabilities (and possibilities) until observed,
whereupon the waveform collapses and one outcome results.

My problem with Ari's argument is that I don't think any one of us
constitutes an observer in the sense he's talking about. Maybe Klal
Yisrael as a whole, but if any individual could prevent Mashiach by
wondering if X and Y are indications that we are approaching his time...
well, that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Lisa

Kadish Derabanan that comes after "Bamme Madlikin" in Kabalat Shabbat.
Should the Sha"tz stay on the Bima until the mourning finish the Kadish, or 
he should walk to the Amud?
I would think that as this Kadish belongs to Kabalat Shabbat, he should 
stay at the same placae where he davened Kabalat Shabbat, ie, on the Bima, and 
only when they finish he should walk to the Amud to start "Barchu" of Arvit. 
I would like to hear thoughts of people in the group.
 
Shabbat Shalom,
 
galsaba
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110721/ce716321/attachment-0001.htm>

> 1- The power of civil law to define minhag hasokherim,
> 2- the power of taxation
> 3- the responsibility to maintain a safe and orderly society.

I would expand #1 to define civil law as minhag hamokom not just sohkerim.
Thus, according to poskim if one rents an apartment for things not
written in the contract it follows civil law since it is assumed that
is what the two sides meant and not what is in CM. Similarly for many
other financial transactions.

<<Not quite. What's taken for granted is that the proper taxes (whatever
they might be) belong to the king. I've never seen *anywhere* mention of
an obligation to seek him out and hand his property over, but if his men
come asking for it and one deliberately hides it one's getting into the
question of where the line lies between oshek and gezel. Remember that
gezel nochri is assur d'oraisa.>>

Since the law in the US is that everyone who has sufficient income
is required to file an income tax form then that is also required by
halacha. Similarly a store is required to give the state its taxes on
items purchased. This is not seeking out the government to hand over
property. One is not to hide taxes owed and wait for the tax collector
to show up at the door.

Similarly under #3 above one is required to obey (reasonable) traffic laws
even though there is not a policeman there requesting it. There was a
story with RAL eons ago who insisted that his driver go within the speed
limit while in the Sinai desert

-- 
Eli Turkel

Well, in an indirect way maybe. The Rambam writes that dealing too much with 
the Mosiach doesn't bring anyone to yirat shamayim. If that is the case than 
the lessening of yirat shamayim would push things back. I don't know if this 
has anything to do with keter.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lisa Liel" <l...@starways.net>
> My problem with Ari's argument is that I don't think any one of us
> constitutes an observer in the sense he's talking about. Maybe Klal
> Yisrael as a whole, but if any individual could prevent Mashiach by
> wondering if X and Y are indications that we are approaching his time...
> well, that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
> 

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:53 AM, <Gals...@aol.com> wrote:

>  Kadish Derabanan that comes after "Bamme Madlikin" in Kabalat Shabbat.
> Should the Sha"tz stay on the Bima until the mourning finish the Kadish, or
> he should walk to the Amud?
> I would think that as this Kadish belongs to Kabalat Shabbat, he should
> stay at the same placae where he davened Kabalat Shabbat, ie, on the Bima,
> and only when they finish he should walk to the Amud to start "Barchu" of
> Arvit. I would like to hear thoughts of people in the group.
>
> Shabbat Shalom,
>
> galsaba
>

Since Kabbalat Shabbat is not an actual Tefillah, and the chazan is
*allowed* to walk around should he so desire (see Carelbach minyanim), it
would seem to me that it would be considered tircha d'tzibburah to not walk
up and start Barchu as quickly as possible.
Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110722/d9445f5e/attachment-0001.htm>

Yesterday I brought some of the key gemoras that discuss the concept of
rotze ani, but to balance that out, you also need to see the gemora on Get
Meusa, which seems to give a very different picture:

 This is Gitten 88b:

????'. ?? ?????, ?????? - ???, ??????? ?????? - ????; ??????? ??????, ??????
???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? (????). 
   
??'. ??? ?"? ??? ?????: ?? ?????? ??????, ???? - ???, ??? ???? - ???? ?????;
??????? ??????, ???? - ???? ?????, ??? ???? - ???' ??? ??? ??? ??. ?? ?????
?? ????? ?????' ??? ????? ?????, ???????? ??? ??????! ?? ??? ??? ?????
?????, ????? ?? ?????! ??? ?? ??????: ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????' ???,
??? ??? ????: ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????',
?????? ???? ??? ????. ?? ???, ??? ???? ???' ??? ??? ??? ??, ????? ??? ????
??????, ?????? ??? ?????! ???, ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???. ????? ???? ????
????? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????.

"Mishna:  A get produced by force, with a Jew, the get is kosher, with a non
Jew, the get is posel, and with a non Jew if they hit him and say to him do
that which the Jew says to you it is kosher.

Gemora:  Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel:  A get forced by a Jew,
k?din is kosher, shelo k?din ? is posel.  And with a Non Jew, k?din is posel
u?posel [she cannot marry a kohen],  and k?lo k?din even the scent of a get
there isn?t.  What is the difference?  If non Jews are able to do this, then
the get should be valid, and if not, [why is she not permitted to marry a
kohen].  Rav Mersharshia said, according to the Torah a forced get by non
Jews is kosher, and for what reason did they say it was posel, so that each
one should not go and put herself into the hands of the non Jews to uproot
herself from her husband.  But if so, shelo k?din [why did Shmuel rule] that
even the scent of a get there isn?t, if it is shelo k?din, then it should be
just like with a Yisrael, and it should also posel her [from marrying a
kohen].  Rather, that which Rav Mesharshia says is not true.  But what is
the reason, that if it is done k?din, then it may be confused with a Jew who
did it k?din.  But shelo k?din will not be confused with a Jew k?din."

As you can see, this gemora puts a very different spin on the whole idea of
forcing a get and when it is valid.  It flat out rejects Rav Mesharshia, who
seemed to be the maskana of the gemora we saw previously, and introduces a
concept of k'din and lo k'din.  It also does not relate to the pasuk that we
brought previously and the braisa that interprets that.  

The question therefore is, how do you reconcile the various gemoras
regarding rotze ani with this gemora.   That is clearly what the rishonim
grapple with.

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

Would violation of traffic laws, such as going through a stop sign, be considered an aveira according to ddd?
Would failure to report extra income, thus avoiding paying taxes, also be an aveira?

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:00:13AM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: Would violation of traffic laws, such as going through a stop sign,
: be considered an aveira according to ddd?

There is a question how far DDD goes beyond the realm of finances.

As halakhah lemaaseh, R Belsky holds that speeding more than 10 MPH
above the speed limit, or whatever speed is generally enforced, is
prohibited under DDD. Going 70 in a 65 MPH zone generally is not, and
therefore halachically mutar. Running a stop sign is usually enforced,
if a policeman is there to enforce it, so it would be an aveira.

: Would failure to report extra income, thus avoiding paying taxes,
: also be an aveira?

The Igeros Moshe prohibits.

I would personally think that owning the forms that misreport one's
income, even if one never sends them in, is a violation of even va'aven.
EvE includes owning the tools to be dishonest in business. Owning them
-- not even using them. As Rashi quotes chazal in his commentary on the
pasuq, to actually use two sets of weights, measures or books would be
theft, and wouldn't have required this distinct prohibition.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

Would violation of traffic laws, such as going through a stop sign, be considered an aveira according to ddd?
Would failure to report extra income, thus avoiding paying taxes, also be an aveira?
_______________________________________________
AIUI violation of usually enforced traffic laws would be an aveira of not
heeding DDD (the nature of DDD is subject to debate) but the violation of
taxes might be both that as well as (according to R'HS at least) stealing
since the chiyuv is based on consensual "partnership" agreement.
KT
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.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: ---any feeling  about  this  issue?     i think i saw  recently from maybe 
: the chiddushei harim,   that if one thinks that only  because of his lack 
: of hesech hadaas is moshiach not coming,  that  alone is the hesech 
: hadaas....

I find the blogger's take way more qabbalistic than necessary.

BTW, Sanhedrin 97a-98a has a long list of "ein ben David ba ..." Not all
of them are positive. E.g. the most cited, "ela bedor shekulo zakai or
kulo chayav", or "ad sheikhlu kol sofetim veshoterim meiYisrael." OTOH,
others are positive "ad sheyikhlu gasei ruach meiYisrael."

However, here, that's not the actual quote. "3 ba'in beheisach hadaas.
Eilu hein: mashiach, metzi'ah, ve'aqrav." And this (and a quote of R'
Zeira) are brought as suppose of a shitah that is introduced with "Davar
Acheir: ad sheitya'ashu min hage'ulah." It's about yi'ush.

Now, that could be like "kulo chayav", or because the lack of hope his
humbling (like "ad sheyiklu gasei ruach", or it could be saying that
Ben David won't come until we stop trying to bring him and just serve
Hashem to serve Hashem. Obviously the Luv Rebbe wouldn't agree with the
lattermost peshat. Or it could mean something else, if you can find one.

But there is no indication it's connected to the prohibition against
"lachashov es haqeitz".


As for Keser vs Da'as... I would suggest that Da'as differs from Zikaron
in the Da'as is aquired knowledge about how to think. Knowing who signed
the Declaration of Independence requires zikaron; knowing how to mine out
the peshat of a sugya, or do long division, requires Da'as. Thus Da'as
is the synthesis of Chokhmah and Binah, but is also the Keser from which
comes the future Chokhmah and Binah.

(And also why the Keser of one olam is the Malkhus of the one immediately
prior -- the knowledge is one level more abstract, more meta than
the material you're applying it to. Also related is RAYKook's Kantian
perspective on Malkhus, but now I'm going too far afield.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:39:44PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: So I did some research on my own and found that the Ramban addressed the
: very question, though I didn't find it a satisfying answer. He says: "Take
: thee Joshua the son of Nun, means that 'when your time [to die] comes, you
: shall take Joshua," [but it is not a command to do so now]. And Scripture
: completed [this episode] by saying that Moshe did so wholeheartedly..."
: This refers to the fact that although Moshe was only commanded (in pasuk
: 18) to lay "his single hand upon him," he laid his 'HANDS' upon him,
: which shows that he appointed his successor whole-heartedly, although
: he knew that he was now to die."

: The reason given doesn't explain or address the fact that Moshe was
: commanded to lean ONE hand and instead he leaned TWO...

Doesn't it? You're assuming Hashem's "one hand" is specifically one,
as opposed to saying Hashem said place one hand and left it up to Moshe
to do what he wants with the second.

So, his right hand was deOraisa, and his left was a rabbinic or personal
embelishment in order to express his wholeheartedness -- that he didn't
leave his other hand free to potentially do something else.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 07:42:14PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> But (and this is how I understood the original question) should we be
:> working on reprioritizing our relative love of various mitzvos? *Ought*
:> hiddur mitzvah be more important to me than the mitzvah itself of
:> tzedaqah?

: This would imply-even in your narrowed definition-that there would
: never be any spending on hiddur mitzvah. But I'll go you one better-why
: spend money on being a baal nefesh rather than giving it to tzedaks.

According to R' Shimon Shkop, and it's plausibly what Hillel tells the
prospective geir, we're hear in order to be good to others. I'm preparing
to do a series of blog posts on RSS's haqdamah as an exposition on the
meaning and purpose of life. So a question I am working on is where mitzvos
bein adam laMaqom fits in this.

One piece:

Self-help and management gurus, eg Stephen Covey's "7 Habits" talk about
balancing production and maintaining one's capacity to produce. You can't
kill the goose that lays the golden eggs; you'll end up with fewer eggs
overall. If you only give to tzedaqah and never spend money on hiddur
mitzvah or being a baal nefesh, one will not develop or maximize one's
capacity to continue bestowing Hashem's Good.

RSS has no problems with luxury and comforts -- as long as one rests
for the purpose of being able to further give without burning out.

This is taking from the beginning of the haqdamah.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

PS: I would also like to maximize distribution of a set of essays on
what I believe is nothing less than the point of life -- according to
one paneh laTorah. So, if you're interested, or you know of another Jew
(of any level of commitment or observance) who might be, feel free to
have them contact me about getting on an email list.

Hopefully I'll be ready to begin in a few weeks, maybe Elul. (Which also
gives you an idea as to how long I have to finish developing my answer
to this question...)

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 142
***************************************

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..."