Volume 37 Number 61
Produced: Wed Oct 30 4:42:52 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Artscroll Israeli version
[Stephen Phillips]
Babad (2)
[c.halevi, Fay Berger]
Devarim (3)
[Zev Sero, Joshua Hosseinof, Zev Sero]
Medical intervention prolonging suffering (2)
[David Waxman, Yitzchak Kasdan]
Naitz
[Shmuel Ross]
Parshat Noach comment
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Question on Rav Shach, z"l
[David Waxman]
Rabbi Lamm's Hesped
[avraham etzion]
Shema yisael Torah network
[I.H Fox]
Source of Cohanim
[Shimon Lebowitz]
VAYHI vs VAYHIYU: A Grammatical Approach
[Russell J Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:08 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: Artscroll Israeli version
[The resulting large size is (Mod.)] why I don't use the ArtScroll
Machzorim, except for the Yomim Noro'im. They are far too heavy; I just
use their regular Siddur.
I also use Rinas Yisroel during the week. Its publishers have cracked
the problem in that they have specific Chutz Lo'Oretz [Diaspora]
editions.
Stephen Phillips.
<stephenp@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:10:42 -0600
Subject: RE: Babad
Shalom:
Regarding the name Babad, Yehonatan Chipman wrote to mail-jewish
<<I don't know what the "bet" stands for, but the "abad" part means "av
bet din"-- i.e., they were dayanim and rabbanim going way back. <<
The dean at the Skokie (IL) yeshiva was Rabbi Dr. Babad. The Bet
part of his name stood for ben or bayeet, "son of" or "house of." It's a
familial title akin to, say, "House of Rothschild."
Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi
<c.halevi@...> (formerly chihal@ync.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <JuniperViv@...> (Fay Berger)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:01:26 EST
Subject: Re: Babad
Benei Av Bet Din
Fay Berger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:05:24 -0400
Subject: Devarim
Joshua Hosseinof <jh@...> wrote:
> remember that Sefer devarim was lost for a long time and only found
> during the time of Ezra
Eh? I know that some commentators believe that the whole Torah was lost
during the reigns of Menashe and Amon, and was rediscovered in the 18th
year of Yoshiahu's reign. But I've never heard it suggested that any
part of the Torah was found during Ezra's time.
Zev Sero
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <jh@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:47:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Devarim
I would have to retract this statement which I unfortunately wrote
without checking for sources. I had a distinct recollection of hearing
something along the lines of Sefer Devarim being lost at some point
during Na"ch but I must admit that I cannot find any source at the
moment to substantiate this. (I thought I had heard it during a YU
Bible class - but that would now be between 7 and 11 years ago so
certainly my memory could be playing tricks on me)
All that aside, it is undeniable however that there was widespread
ignorance as to what was written in the Torah, as evidenced by Nechemiah
8:10-12, and 8:17 which was the point I had been trying to make
regarding the high level of intermarriage of Jews during the time of
Ezra.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:52:46 -0400
Subject: RE: Devarim
That would be the theory that the scroll discovered in the 18th year of
Yoshiahu's reign was a Chumash Devarim, rather than a whole Sefer Torah,
and that the discovery caused such a stir because its contents had been
lost. I know that there are some accepted commentators who agree that
the sefer had been lost, but as far as I recall, those commentators also
say that it was the whole Torah that had been lost, not just Devarim.
My impression is that the idea that it was Devarim comes not from kosher
sources but from the Bible Critics, whose thrust is that the whole
`discovery' was a fraud, and that in fact Chilkiyahu and his faction of
Cohanim wrote Devarim themselves, and foisted it on a naive people as if
it were a rediscovered part of the original Torah.
Of course, there are many more Bible Critics who say much the same thing
about Ezra, that he made up the whole Torah, or at least huge sections
of it, including the ban on intermarriage. I've even read that Ruth was
written during Ezra's time by an anti-Ezra faction, to show how
intermarriage was part of the authentic Jewish tradition, having lead to
David Hamelech.
In any case, AFAIK the majority interpretation is that the Torah was
never lost, and that the fuss that ensued when the Sefer was found in
Yoshiahu's 18th year was because it was the Sefer Torah written by Moshe
Rabbenu, which had been lost for many years, and when they found it it
was rolled to the Tochacha in Devarim, which they took as a message from
Above that they'd better do teshuva quickly.
Zev Sero
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:24:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Medical intervention prolonging suffering
Another book that discusses the issue is ' Bioethical Dilemmas' by Rav
J. David Bleich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchak Kasdan <ikasdan@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:35:15 -0500
Subject: RE: Medical intervention prolonging suffering
See "End of Life Choices in Halacha" by
Daniel Eisenberg, MD on "Jewish Law", www.jlaw.com at
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/EndofLife.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Ross <shmuel@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:26:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Naitz
> Which is better - davening at Naitz HaChama without a minyan or davening
> not at Naitz with a minyan?
IANAR, and all I know about this was what my brother was told when he
began davening at Netz, plus what a few other members of the community
(including a couple of rabbis) were doing at the time, which is that if
one is davening Netz *b'kiviyus* -- that is, every day -- then it's
better to do so than to daven with a minyan. If on a one-time basis, I
don't know what the story is, although the above would seem to imply
that the minyan wins.
(In the case of my community, the handful of individuals davening
Netx b'kiviyus finally hit critical mass and started a minyan of their
own, which is clearly the best solution all around, if possible.)
Shmuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:29:16 +0200
Subject: Parshat Noach comment
About ten years ago, when I worked with Prof. Yeshayahu
Leibowitz on translating his book of Torah thoughts (based on
weekly radio talks) into English (now re-published as
"Accepting the Yoke of Heaven") he told me a fascinating
commentary on a section in Parashat Noach. I remember the
author was a 19th century German Jewish scholar, but I have
no idea who it was. The thought follows.
In dealing with the sin of Cham, there are three puzzling problems
relates to verses 9:18-22.
a) In verse 18, we are told that Cham was the father of K'naan, but
none of the other sons has any genealogy listed there.
b) In verse 21, it states: "Viyitgal betoch oloho" (his nakedness
was uncovered within his tent), but "oholo" is written with a "heh"
at the end, rather than a "vav," as one would expect, seeming to
imply "her tent."
c) Finally, when it states (v. 22) that "Vayar Cham avi K'naan et
ervat aviv," this is an abnormal usage, because "ervat" is
generally used in terms of male-female contact (e,g., "ervat avicha
lo tegaleh").
This commentator then proposed a solution that answers all three
questions, namely that Cham's sin was that he lay with his mother
(therefore "oholah," as it were), and that fits in perfectly with the
normal usage of "ervat." Furthermore, the product of that act was
K'naan, which is why he is mentioned here. That would also explain why
the curse is on K'naan (v. 25).
Anyone know who the commentator was?
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:27:46 +0200
Subject: Re: Question on Rav Shach, z"l
> >>Did Rav Shach ever actually state that it was permissible to attack Jews
>who are not Shomer Shabbos? Did he once say that frum Jews must fight
>against those who do not follow Torah- and if so, what was the context
>and what did he really mean by 'fight'? I ask b/c some of his followers
>seem to think he advocated beating non-Shomer Shabbos Jews and/or
>throwing things at them , and i have a hard time believing a man so
>steeped in Torah would say such things.
>
>I am not planning on confronting anyone, any info provided will strictly
>be for my own peace of mind. Thanks.<<
Rav Shach tz'l caused a big stir in the early 90's with his speech
during Degel HaTorah's convention. At the time the new government was
deadlocked and Degel Hatorah was in the rare position of determining the
balance. Thus, the secular press was uncharacteristically captivated by
the Rav's words. During the speech, the Rav did level criticism at the
secularism of certain groups in the country, such as kibbutzim that do
not recognize Yom Kippur. The Rav cried. He criticized other groups as
well.
The event stirred passionate discussions in the media, which of course
must have been the Rav's intention.
Perhaps the libelous accusation mentioned above is a distortion of said
criticisms?
note: The above information is based upon Rav E. Feldman's essay 'The Old
Man and the Secularists'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: avraham etzion <eziona@...>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:32:17 +0200
Subject: Re: Rabbi Lamm's Hesped
Rabbi Lamm's Hesped is in "Seventy Faces" Volume 1- essays by Rabbi
Lamm-Ktav 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: I.H Fox <ilan_25@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:44:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Shema yisael Torah network
It is a wonderful program it does demand much but the shiurim are
wonderful
I recommend it
>From: Tuvia Lent
>I would like to find out from the community if anybody is familiar with
>the Semicha program offered online by the Shema Yisrael Torah network.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:12:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Source of Cohanim
> The meforshim state that one of the sins of Nadav and Avihu was that
> they refused to marry and therefore had not children. Additionally, all
> the geneologies (including those in Ezra and Divrei Hayamim) point out
> that only Elazar and Isamar had children.
"Mikrah malei diber hakatuv".
Rather than depend on genealogies only listing children of Elazar and
Itamar, we can look at the explicit verse in Bamidbar 3:4 "Nadav and
Avihu died...and they had no sons".
Bechavod,
Shimon Lebowitz mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel PGP: http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp
[Similar comment sent in by: Yehuda Landy. Mod]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:29:54 -0500
Subject: RE: VAYHI vs VAYHIYU: A Grammatical Approach
Rabbi Elazar Teitz (v37n49) attempts to explains why 2 of the 10
generations listed in Gn05 use the singular form VAYHI vs the plural
VAYHIU.
>In light of the Talmudic statement that "vyhi" can indicate tza'ar
(pain or suffering), and as generally explained it is because the word
resembles "vy hi" (woe is it), perhaps it would explain the use of the
term exclusively for those two, who are the only ones of the ten
generations listed who died in their fathers' lifetimes.<
The Rav (J B Soloveitchick) publicly advocated a GRAMMATICAL vs a
WORD-PLAY approach. In the above example I would simply suggest that
because of their short lives, Chanoch and Lemech had SINGULAR
EXPERIENCES in their lives. By contrast, those who lived longer (like
Adam) had MULTIPLE LIFE EXPERIENCES
eg Adam lived with Eve but also lived with the demon Lilith; Adam lived
in both paradise and in this world). Because of these multiple life
experiences we are justified in stating that ADAMS LIVES WERE SO MANY
AND SO MANY YEARS.
By contrast the Bible explicitly states CHANOCH WALKED WITH GOD (ONE
LIFE!!) AND HE WASNT(ie DIED) BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM(To prevent him from
becoming corrupt).
Finally in passing the reason Hey-yud-hey means suffering is not due to
a word play but is rather the meaning of the verb (eg HoVaH--Radack Book
of roots). I think the idea is that EXISTS (Without further adjectives)
denotes BARE EXISTENCE and hence indicates suffering
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 61
