Volume 42 Number 38
                 Produced: Sun Apr  4  5:51:52 US/Eastern 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Chayei Adam and KSA
Children of Esther and Achashverosh
         [Joel Rich]
Ga-al Yisroel vs. Goel Yisroel (3)
         [Sam Gamoran, Ken Bloom, Zev Sero]
Midreshei Bitya
         [Moshe Goldberg]
New Book on Hasidism out on the Net
A quickie derasha for Shabbat Hagadol
         [Mark Steiner]
Sfirat Omer reminders? (2)
         [Janice Gelb, Russell Jay Hendel]
Yetziyat Mitzrayim question (5)
         [c.halevi, Caela Kaplowitz, Yehuda Landy, Zev Sero, Russell Jay


From: <JoshHoff@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:44:57 EST
Subject: Re: Chayei Adam and KSA

      Without going into the relative merits of these works, I will
      relate the following (almost certainly apocryphal) story:

      When Harav Avraham Dantzig was asked why he called his work "Chaye
      Adam", he replied: The Shulchan Aruch had a work written on it
      called the "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch".  I didn't want that to happen
      to my work, so I called it "Chaye Adam."  Surely no one will write
      a work called the "Kitzur Chaye Adam"

The story is certainly apocryphal, since R.Danzig passed away in 1820,
long before the KSA was written. The KSA is actually very respected
among poskim, although it has unfortunately received bad press in recent
decades. R.Ganzfried was a great lamdan, as anyone who has learned his
other sefarim- in particular his Lechem Ve Simlah on Hilchos Nidah and
Mikvaos,-knows. R.Ahron Soloveichik often pointed out that R.Ganzfried
says sevaros in that sefer that were later said by R.Chaim Brisker.


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:08:46 EST
Subject: Re: Children of Esther and Achashverosh

      Bavli Rosh Hashana 3b - talks about Darius son of Achashverosh,
      implying he was *not* Jewish.

      Tosafos (starts with word "Shnas") on the page calls this king
      "Darius the son of Esther," based on the Midrash (Vayikra Raba
      13:5) that says that he was born from the union of Esther and
      Achashverosh and questions why he was not considered
      Jewish. Anyway, the point (for your question) is that Darius was
      the son

      Rashi says Darius was a "ben Noach" and possibly follows another
      Midrashic opinion. Possibly Rashi thinks Darius was NOT Esther's

There is an opinion that satisfies both (I will B"N look at my notebooks
tonight and see if I can find the source) . The child of a Jewish mother
and nonJewish father may not be Jewish if the mother deems him so (EG in
this case where Esther knew that he would be king and would not be able
to function Jewishly) This is a minority (of one?) opinion but very
interesting reconciliation of the sources.

Joel Rich


From: Sam Gamoran <Sgamoran@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:45:29 +0200
Subject: RE: Ga-al Yisroel vs. Goel Yisroel

> From: <Smwise3@...>
> I am sure we all agree that our tefilos have a better chance of being
> accepted if we take care in how we daven.  Many years ago, a Rav
> pointed out to me after I had erred when I was davening for the amud:
> In the berachah Re-eh Na, I ended by mistakenly saying "Ga-al Yisroel"
> (redeemed us in the past) instead of the way it is written "Go-el
> Yisroel" (present, Who redeems Israel.

This mistake most likely comes from the last bracha before the Shmone
Esrei which is correctly pronounced "ga-al yisrael" as it is talking
about the original redemption from Egypt.

Sam Gamoran

From: Ken Bloom <kabloom@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:39:52 -0800
Subject: Ga-al Yisroel vs. Goel Yisroel

I'm sure it's easy enough to get confused about that particular
blessing, considering that the blessing immediately following the shema
ends "Ga'al Yisroel".

From: Zev Sero <zev@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:33:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Ga-al Yisroel vs. Goel Yisroel

100 people have probably already written to you about this, but let me
be the 101st [No, only the third - Mod.]. Ga'al Yisrael (past tense) is
the correct ending of the bracha after Shma (both morning and evening),
which thanks Hashem for the Exodus from Egypt.  Go'el Yisrael (present
tense) is the correct ending for the fourth bracha of the weekday
Shmone-Esreh, which prays for redemption from our current exile.

Zev Sero


From: Moshe Goldberg <mgold@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:45:32 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Midreshei Bitya

> From: Yael Levine Katz <ylkpk@...>
> I am pleased to announce the publication of Midreshei Bitya Bat Pharaoh:
> Iyyun Nilve le-Leil ha-Seder (A Seder Companion) (68 pp.).

Where is this available? Thanks, Chag Kasher v'samayach.

Moshe Goldberg, <mgold@...>  (055-339015)

To: <mail-jewish@...>

From: <Friendlyjew@...>
Subject: New Book on Hasidism out on the Net

Please check out http://www.613.org/hasidism/ for a book excerpt from a
Book on Hasidism by Rav Zev Reichman of Englewood New Jersey. Besides
being a son of a Rosh Yeshiva at YU, a one time shepard of sheep in
Shilo, Israel , a member of Kollel Elyon at YU , a shul Rabbi in New
Jersey , Rav Reichman is one of the few experts in Rav Wolfson chasidut
that does not have a beard!

See how the best of Brisk and Chasidut meet at
http://www.613.org/hasidism/ .

hag kosher ve shamach

here is a quote

There are five parts to the soul and they resemble the five stages of
glass production.  to read more about that see
http://www.613.org/hasidism/08.htm all the best


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:17:05 +0200
Subject: A quickie derasha for Shabbat Hagadol

I took a break from my Pesah overcleaning to write the following:

"Rabban Gamaliel says: whoever does not say the following three things
on Pesach has not fulfilled his obligation [lo yatza yedei hovato]:
Pesach, matzah, and maror."

Ramban (Milhamot Hashem, Berakhot, chapter one) says: one cannot
understand this as saying that he who did not say these three things has
not fulfilled the obligation to eat Pesach, matzah, and maror--hence,
the expression "lo yatza" must mean: he has not fulfilled his obligation

This is strange, since the Ramban seems to be saying that Rabban
Gamaliel was referring in his statement to the three mitzvot of eating,
rather than the more reasonable interpretation, that he was referring to
the mitzvah of saying the haggadah.

Light on this can be shed on the Ramban's controversy with Maimonides in
(the latter's) Sefer Hamitzvot.  Ramban argues that Rambam left out of
his count of 613 mitzvot, the mitzvah to make a berakha on (learning or
reading) the Torah.  Though the Rambam held that the obligation to
recite this berakhah is Biblical, he held also that this obligation is a
piece with learning Torah itself (and hence need not be counted as a
separate mitzvah).  Not so, the Ramban counters: after all, the mitzvah
of haggadah (retelling the Exodus story) is a piece with eating the
Passover sacrifice (korban Pesah)yet it is counted as a separate mitzvah
(by Maimonides himself).

If we assume, as is logical, that Ramban's argument applied also to the
mitzvot of matzah and maror, which are eaten together with the Pesah, we
have a resolution of the difficulty: he who does not mention the reasons
for Pesah, matzah, and maror is indeed lacking in his fulfillment of the
mitzvah of haggadah; but this lack also impairs his fulfillment of the
partaking of the pesah, together with the matzah and maror, since the
the manner of fulfilling this mitzvot is by retelling, in the haggadah,
the reasons for them.  Note that the haggadah itself specifies that the
mitzvah of retelling the story of the Exodus can take place only when
the pesah, matzah, and maror, are before us.

A happy and kosher Pesah, and thanks to all who participated in maot hittim.


From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Sfirat Omer reminders?

Batya Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote:
> Last year I received email reminders for Sfirat Haomer.  They were
> fantastically helpful.  I don't remember from where.  Does anyone know?

Both Project Genesis and Chabad offer this service:


I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone about the
Homer Simpson Omer site at http://jvibe.com/homer/

Chag Pesach kasher v'sameach,

From: <rjhendel@...> (Russell Jay Hendel)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 03:37:22 GMT
Subject: RE: Sfirat Omer reminders?

Batya Medad (v42n35) asks for web resources to remind one of
sefirah. Try David Grossmans JEWISH EVENTS group on yahoo.

Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/


From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:59:38 -0600
Subject: Yetziyat Mitzrayim question

Shalom, All:

Shmuel Himelstein asks: 
>We know that Pharaoh's edict of killing all the males went into effect
>before Moshe's birth. Assuming (and I see no reason to assume
>differently at this point) the edict remained in effect throughout
>until Moshe came to Pharaoh when Moshe was 80 years old, how were there
>any males at all alive who were under 80 years old?

That's not the way I learned it. I was taught that Pharaoh's astrologers
told him a Jewish savior would be born in a certain year, and once that
year was past there was no point in killing male babies who would grow
up to be valuable slaves.

Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi

From: Caela Kaplowitz <caelak@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:56:30 -0500
Subject: Yetziyat Mitzrayim question

My understanding of this is the following:

There were two different edicts. One edict given to the midwives to kill
the boys as they were being born (Shemot Chapter 1 verses 15-19). This
was not done because the midwives told Pharoah that either the Jewish
women gave birth like animals before they arrived to help or that the
Jewish women were expert in midwifery and they didn't need the help of
outside midwives. The second edict was to throw the boys into the
Nile. According to Rashi (on verse 22), Pharoah's necromancers saw in
the stars that a boy would be born who would free the Jewish
slaves. They foresaw that this boy would be punished by water so they
thought that throwing the boys into the river would do the trick. They
were mistaken since the punishment they saw was Moshe's punishment for
the waters of Meriva when he hit the rock instead of speaking to
it. When Yocheved put Moshe into the river the necromancers saw that the
boy had been put into the river (and presumably drowned) and so they
annulled the decree (which fell on all baby boys, not just Jewish
ones). Therefore, as far as I understand it, this edict was only in
force for 3 months. Moshe was born on the 7th of Adar and was put into
the river 3 months later on the 6th of Sivan. As a note for Shavuot I
read in a book of Jewish customs that one of the reasons we put greenery
in our shuls on Shavuot is to commemorate Moshe being put into the reeds
of the Nile river on the 6th of Sivan, Shavuot!

From: <nzion@...> (Yehuda Landy)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:35:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Yetziyat Mitzrayim question

 From the gemrah in Sotah (12b) it seems that after Moshe Rabbeinu was
born the decree was annuled.

	Wishing all a chag kasher v'sameach.

					Yehuda Landy

From: Zev Sero <zev@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:49:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Yetziyat Mitzrayim question

Rashi says that the edict was repealed as soon as Par'oh's astrologers
told him that the Jewish redeemer had been put into the river.

Zev Sero

From: <rjhendel@...> (Russell Jay Hendel)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:20:14 GMT
Subject: Yetziyat Mitzrayim question

Samuel Himelstein raises the fascinating question of a) when did
Pharoh's decree to kill all the males stop b) if it didnt stop how was
anyone left when Moses at 80 came to Pharoh.

Surprisingly the Chumash answers this in 3 places.

First: We are explicitly told that Shifrah and Puah "rebelled" against
Pharohs decree AND that they got away with it (The Bible says God gave
them honor). I cant imagine that the Egyptian people wanted to go around
murdering babies (murder is never a "pleasure crime"). So when Shifra
and Puah TOOK THE LEAD probably many other midwives--Egyptian and Jewish
- followed.

Second: We are explicitly told that Pharohs own daughter risked her life
and violated her Fathers decree. Why? The Bible is explicit--Pity!! Also
she wanted a baby.  The Bible makes it clear she knew what she was
doing. I see no reason to doubt that many Egyptian women "stole babies"
and raised them possibly using the mothers as nursemaids.

Third: At http://www.Rashiyomi.com/add-633.htm I contrast Ex01-12 and
Ex01-16c (EGYPTIANS afraid of JEWS vs PHAROH hated MALE JEWS). The
attack on the males was political and therefore the people did not have
their heart in it.

What is the underlying idea in the above: Perhaps the dictum that WHAT
CHILDREN. Throughout the ages (and yes even in Nazi Germany) there were
always those -- possibly in high places -- who protested and rebelled
and didnt carry out orders.

We tend to have a "black and white" picture of Egypt -- they were ALL a
bunch of animals who wanted to kill Jews. Not so! There was an
anti-semitic leaderhsip...but the people had ordinary human feelings and
interacted with their brethren.

An important lesson in Biblical psychology

Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/


End of Volume 42 Issue 38