Volume 22 Number 62
Produced: Sun Dec 31 9:36:51 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chanuka 1948
[Elliot D. Lasson]
Children Dying for Parent's Sins
[Ari Z. Zivotofsky]
Correcting Baal Kriah
[David Hollander]
Datan and Avirum -Rashi wrong? !!!
[Roger Kingsley]
Jastrow
[Michael J Broyde]
Kano'im Pog'in Bo
[Mordechai Perlman]
Physical and Spiritual
[Micha Berger]
Praying for the Sick
[Jack Stroh]
Tal Umatar
[Carl Sherer]
Tehilim 51:7
[Warren Burstein]
Yehuda's grandsons
[Elozor Preil]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <elasson@...> (Elliot D. Lasson)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:23:24 EDT
Subject: Chanuka 1948
To answer the trivia question of the lack of a Shabat Chanukah in 1948
somewhat of a triack question (as expected). That year, the first night
of Chanukah fell out on Motzai Shabbat, December 25, 1948. This meant
that Shabbat Chanukah did not take place until January 1, 1949
(Q.E.D. no Shabbat Chanukah in 1948.). However, technically, the sixth
night of Chanukah began at sunset on Dec. 31, 1948; so, there were a few
hours of Shabbat Chanukah in 1948.
Elliot D. Lasson, Ph.D.
Dept. of Psychology
Morgan State U.
Balto., MD
<ELASSON@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <azz@...> (Ari Z. Zivotofsky)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 09:35:29 -0500
Subject: Children Dying for Parent's Sins
Yeshaya Halevi asked about the seeming contradiction between the Sifri
which says that children may die for a father's sin and the verse that
states that children shall not die for sins of the fathers. There is
another verse that states that G-d punishes for 3 or 4 generations. So
it is really an apparent contradiction between two verses. The most
straightforward answer is that the verse does NOT state that children
will not die for parents sins. It says they shall not be put to death.
That verse is instructing the beit din not to exact punishment from
children. G-d, on the other hand, punishes for several generations and
may, if he deems it just, cause children to die as a punishment for a
parent. There are also additional resolutions to this apparent
conflict. The Young Israel of Cleveland last year published a Torah
Journal which was distributed to several thousand YU alumni. I had an
article in there which discussed this topic in detail.
Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <David_Hollander@...> (David Hollander)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 12:08:43 EST
Subject: Correcting Baal Kriah
Someone told me that he heard from someone else (and therefore
considered this quote potentially unreliable since it wasn't first hand)
that Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky held that :
although one should correct a baal kria for an accent mistake where it
changes the meaning (or tense etc. such as baAH BAah), however one
should not make the baal kria GO BACK for such a mistake. The reason
given is that we find at the end of a pasuk the accents on that word
would be different anyway.
I guess the word would become mil'el (aNI Ani ?). I haven't looked for
examples. It wasn't clear how far past the word would be GOING BACK.
Can anyone clarify this ? M-J did so well with the turkey...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger Kingsley <rogerk@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 01:08:09 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Re: Datan and Avirum -Rashi wrong? !!!
In v22 #58 there was a query
>> In Pasha Shemos, some Meforshim say, that everyone who
>> wanted Moshe killed, Hashem had killed. But we know that
>> Datan, and Avirum were still alive. Was Rashi, therefore
>> incorrect that everyone who wanted Moshe killed, was in fact
>> killed?
See Rashi on Shemot, 4, 19. I translate freely: "For all the men are
dead" - who were they: Dathan and Aviram were alive. but they had lost
their property, and a poor man is considered as dead.
(The original source for Rashi is in Talmud Babli Nedarim).
Roger Kingsley
<rogerk@...>
[Similar resposes from:
<gershon.dubin@...> (GERSHON DUBIN)
Peretz (Perry) Zamek (on Menachem Kuchar's account)
Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:36:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Jastrow
One of the writers avered that:
> I also use the Jastrow Aramaic dictionary, although the author was a
> Reform rabbi.
I do not think this is correct. Jastrow was a member of the most
traditional group of rabbis in America during the late 1800's and was
instrimental in starting JTS, which was in the 1880 supposed to be the
traditional / orthodox response to American reform. I am nearly certain
that his shul in Philadelphia was orthodox, and his children shomer
shabbat. I know nothing about his personal level of observance in terms
of the details and times were very very different then, and many people
thought things were mutar that we think are not (like electricty on yom
tov) but it would suprise me greatly if he was a mechalel shabbat
befarhesia, or denied the binding nature of halacha, as reform rabbis
did even then. We must all be very careful about how we categorize
people.
Michael Broyde
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Perlman <aw004@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 01:56:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Kano'im Pog'in Bo
On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Avi Weinstein wrote:
> In fact there is a Yerushalmi which says that the Sages wanted to put a
> ban on Pinchas [put him in "Nidui"] for his action against Zimri, but
> the Holy Spirit as revealed to Moshe prevented him from doing so. So, we
> have a Talmudic statement that demonstrates their unease at legitimating
> extra-judicial justice even in the case of Pinchas which is the
> prooftext for seeing that this is an oral tradition of Moses from Sinai.
However, when Pinchas did it nobody but he had remembered the
halacha. Afterwards, it became part of the public consciousness that
this is the proper behaviour.
> SO, in answer to Mordecai's question if KPB is possible. Technically,
> yes, but practically no.
My question was not if it it possible. Of course it's possible.
My question was whether nowadays that we live in exile, subject to laws
of the countries in which we live, may it still be done? Also, in Eretz
Yisroel, where ostensibly since Jews are in control, is one permitted, if
the details are present, to carry out the process?
Mordechai Perlman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:06:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Physical and Spiritual
In v22n60, Zvi Weiss writes about the story in Tr. Yoma about killing
the Yeitzer Hara:
> ==> Actually, this may actually be G-d's way of showing the Sages that
> their view of "desire" was flawed -- that it is a NECESARY part of
> nature and is NOT intrinsically "sinful" (and this is part of the idea
> that we see in Sh'ma when we are told to serve G-d with *both* the "Good
> Inclination" and the "Evil Inclination".
This last part is only implied in the text, where it says "... And you
should love Hashem your G-d, with ALL your heart...", and we conclude
that "all" means even with the yeitzer hara.
The phrase "yeitzer hara" is interesting to me. The root of yeitzer
gives us tzurah, form. A yotzeir is one who gives form to substance.
A yeitzer, OTOH, would be one who tried to impart his own image.
If we look at the second word, we note that it does not say "ra",
evil, but rather "harah" that is evil.
The naive reading would translate "yeitzer hara" as the drive to do
evil. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it is the drive that, if
we were to mold outselves into its image, would make us evil. The
difference is that it says nothing about the value of using the drive,
only about being used by it. As a tool, it has value.
The Sridei Aish argues that this is the meaning of Torah im Derekh Eretz
(Torah with the way of the world; a phrase from Avos, which is also a
key phrase in Hirsch's neo-Orthodoxy). He uses the language of form and
substance. In the ideal, Torah is the form (tzurah), and Derekh Eretz is
the substance (chomer). That is to say, that D"E without Torah is a
valueless lump, and Torah without D"E is an empty shell.
A similar marriage is found in R. AY Kook's "Orot". To R. Kook, the
forces we describe as secular and holy (chol and kadosh), are really
different manifestations of the same higher principle -- the kudshah
ila'ah (Ara. higher holiness) or kodesh hakodoshim (holy of
holies). K"I is attained when the chol is used as a tool to serve the
ends of the kadosh.
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3255 days!
<AishDas@...> (16-Oct-86 - 5-Oct-95)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jackst@...> (Jack Stroh)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 11:14:30 -0500
Subject: Praying for the Sick
A question from my father-in-law. In Shavuot 15: it says that Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Levi states that "asur lehitrapot bidvar Torah (one is not
allowed to heal using words of Torah)." How then can we pray or say
tehillim for a sick person?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 0:29:23 IST
Subject: Tal Umatar
Steve White asks:
> Related question: I once read that someone travelling from Israel to
> Hutz La'aretz between 7 Marheshvan and December 4-5 continues to say tal
> u'matar privately, and does not daven from the amud (for that reason)
> for weekday shaharit and minha if that is at all possible, even if he
> has a chiyuv (obligatory priority). (If not possible, in the repetition
> he omits tal u'matar outside of Israel.) But I couldn't find a source.
> Any helpers there?
In R. Yerachmiel David Fried's Yom Tov Sheni KeHilchasa, Chapter 10,
Paragraph 2, he says the following (my translation from the Hebrew
version):
An Israeli who arrives in another country before the 7th of Cheshvan who
intends to return to Israel within the year, or who does not intend to
return within the year but left his wife and children in Israel, some
say (Ridvaz 5:2055, Pri Chadash (up to one year)) that he should start
saying Tal Umatar on 7 Cheshvan and others (Dvar Shmuel responsa 323,
Mishna Brura in the name of the Birkei Yosef, among others) say that he
should wait for the 4th of December and the latter is the custom of the
Sphardim. And some of the poskim of our time (Rav Shlomo Zalman
Auerbach zt"l and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita) have instructed that
he should begin saying Tal Umatar on the 7th of Cheshvan in Shomea Tfila
[rather than in its regular place].
In paragraph 4 he says the following:
An Israeli who comes to another country after the 7th of Cheshvan but
before the 4th of December, and who intends to return to Israel after
the 4th of December, should continue to say Tal Umatar while he is
outside of Israel because he has already started doing so in Israel
(citing the Birkei Yosef, the Tzitz Eliezer (6:38)). He then cites
R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l who says that it makes no difference
whether he intends to return before or after the 4th (or 5th of
December) but that if he wishes to say Tal Umatar in Shomea Tfila
instead of in its usual place in order to fulfill the obligation
according to all, he may do so. The author then brings the view of Rav
Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita, that it is preferrable that he say Tal
Umatar in Shomea Tfila unless he intends to return within a "short
period such as a week" (Note 13 there).
However, if he does not intend to return to Eretz Yisrael, he should
stop saying Tal Umatar until December 4th (citing responsa of Betzel
HaChachma (1:62), and the Shaarei Yitzchak (Rule 13 Letter B) in the
name of the responsa Yayin Hatov OH:35).
As to the Shliach Tzibur, in Paragraph 6 Rav Fried writes that an
Israeli who is outside of Israel and who is acting in accordance with
the views that one should say Tal Umatar in its normal place between the
7th of Cheshvan and the 4th of December should not be the shliach tzibur
(citing the aforementioned Betzel HaChachma and Shaarei Yitzchak as well
as the Beer Moshe (Page 33, Letter R in the name of the Artzos
HaChayim), as well as the Iggros Moshe (OH 2:29)), but if he forgot and
became the shliach tzibur he should say Tal Umatar only in the silent
Shmoneh Esrei (citing Birkei Yosef and Mogen Avraham 566:8). If he is a
chiyuv (obligated to be the leader - such as one who is saying Kaddish
or keeping a yahrtzeit), he may be the chazzan and act as above (citing
the aforementioned Shaarei Yitzchak, Beer Moshe Page 26 Letter D and
Peiros HaNoshrim Page 35 Letter B). He also mentions that Rav Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach zt"l held, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita holds,
that he may be the shliach tzibur lechatchila (a priori) even if he does
not have a chiyuv (Note 20 and accompanying text).
Hope this is helpful.
-- Carl Sherer
Adina and Carl Sherer
You can reach us both at:
<adina@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 07:15:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Tehilim 51:7
> Re: The meaning of Tehilim 51:7, see Yoma 69b which says that when the
>Sages " killed" the "yetzer hara" (desire) for adultery, chickens
>stopped laying eggs. Thus one sees that there is some measure of sinful
>desire necessary for ordinary procreation.
Is this necessarily what the Gemara is saying about procreation?
Could it be that because the desire for pleasure so often leads people
into sin, it is referred to as the "yetzer hara", but it is not
inherently sinful.
|warren@ an Anglo-Saxon." -- Stuart Schoffman
/ nysernet.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMPreil@...> (Elozor Preil)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 00:52:45 -0500
Subject: Yehuda's grandsons
I was puzzled by something I noticed in this morning's laining (Vayigash).
Among the seventy souls who came with Yaakov to Egypt were two grandsons
of Yehuda, Chetzron and Chamul (sons of Peretz). See Bereishis ch. 38
where *after* the sale of Yosef, Yehuda leaves his brothers, marries,
has three sons (Er, Onan, and Shelah), Er and Onan marry and die, Shelah
grows up, Yehuda and Tamar have Peretz (and Zerach). When Yosef was
sold, he was 17; when his entire family came to Egypt he was 39 (30 when
he first came before Paroh, 7 years of plenty + 2 years of
famine). Thus, from the time Yehuda left his brothers after the sale of
Yosef until Yehuda came to Egypt with two grandsons was only 22 years.
Any explanations?
Elozor Preil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 22 Issue 62