The Boldness of a Halachist:An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein "The Arukh Hashulhan"

http://www.amazon.com/Boldness-Halakhist-Analysis-Epstein%C3%83s-Hashulhan%2522/dp/1934843032/ref=sr_1_1/002-7770913-9872022?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206910353&sr=8-1

Has anyone read this? I imagine it must be based on the various articles that he submitted to the Congress of Jewish Studies (One of them an analysis of the Aruch HaShulchans derashot - Kol Ben Levi - used to be available at lekket.com).

The author has also written a PH.D analysing several simmanim of Mishna Berurah - later released as a book "The method and meaning of the Mishna Berurah". Unfortunately I have not been able to obtain either of these books yet.

גדרי מלאכת בורר

צ"ב טעם בהיתר בורר כשיש ג' תנאים של (לאכול)מיד,ביד(ולא בכלי),ואוכל מתוך פסולת? ונראה שעיקר איסור בורר הוא כשמתקן הרבה אוכל ביחד כדי להניחן באוצרו אבל אם בשעת אכילתו הוא בוחר לאכול חלק זה ולהניח חלק אחר זה נקרא אכילה דמותר ולא נקרא מלאכת בורר. וצורת המלאכה דבורר לאוצרו הוא א- בכלי (שע"י זה יכול לעשות הרבה ביחד), ב-להניח לאחר זמן, וג-פסולת מתוך האוכל כדי שהאוכל יהיה נקי ומוכן להניח באוצרו וכשחסר ג' דברים אלו אין זה מעשה בורר אלא מעשה אכילה. וזה מפורש בשבת עד. "נעשה כבורר לאוצרו"

וזהו הבאור בדברי הביה"ל-שיט ד"ה מתוך בענין קליפת בצלים בשבת-"ואף הכא נמי תיקון אוכל בעלמא הוא ואין שם מלאכה עליו אפילו כשקולף וחולץ העצמות מעל הבשר ובלבד שיהיה לאלתר וכמו שם לענין קולף שומים ובצלים אף דגם שם הקליפה הוא פסולת אפ"ה קי"ל בסוף סימן שכ"א דהיכא דקולף כדי לאכול לאלתר דמותר וע"כ משום דלאלתר אין שום פסולת על הקליפה אלא תיקון אוכלא בעלמא הוא"

וראיתי מי שמביא ראיה מדברי המג"א שכתוב שמותר לנקר בשר בשבת כיון שהחלב והבשר מין א' הן אלא איסורא הוא דרבעי עליה... שבכ"מ מותר לברור כשהתכלית הוא רק להסיר דבר אסור ולא בגלל הכשר האוכל (בענין להשתמש בפילטר לתולעים בניו יורק) ונ"ל שאין כאן ראיה כלל ששם מדבר במין א' והמג"א אמר שהאיסור לא מספיק ליתן לו דין של שתי מינים ומותר, אבל כשיש ב' מינים רק הטעם שהוא עושה הבורר הוא משום איסור אפשר גם המג"א יסכים שאסור כיון שיש ב' מינים כאן כנ"ל

Shutfo Shel Amalek - Rav Goren and the Satmar Rov

NEJ s.v. Goren, Shlomo
"Shortly after his election he was involved in a violent controversy stemming from the unconventional manner in which he solved the problem of a brother and sister who had been declared mamzerim by the rabbinical courts, including the Bet Din of Appeals."

Rav Goren relied (in part) on the view of the Rambam that in a conversion for the sake of marriage if the convert resumes his previous non-halachic behaviour then the conversion is nullified. Since A non-jew cannot have the status of mamzer the problem was solved. One of the major complaints against was the claim that this view of the Rambam only applies if the convert resumes his previous behaviour immediately after the conversion whereas in the case in question the convert had only resumed his previous behaviour after a significant amount of time had passed.

Rav Goren's position would seem to be validated by the arch-enemy of the Chief Rabbinate- the Satmar Rov (see for example Divrei Yoel 131). In Divrei Yoel 90 (I will try to provide an exact quote later) he writes that he believes that the coversion mioght be rendered invalid even if the convert is "Chozer L'Suro - L'BaSof" implying that even if time passes the conversion could still be nullified.

על מחילת משלוח מנות

רמ"א או"ח סימן תרצה "ואם שולח מנות לרעהו והוא אינו רוצה לקבלם או מוחל לו יצא"

The Chasam Sofer writes (Shu"t 196) that it would appear from this that the Rema agrees to the Manos Halevi who explains that the main reason for the Mitzva of Mishloach Manos is in order to increase the general goodwill and unity in order to counter Hamans accusation that the Jews are a "scattered nation" (implying that they lack in unity and therefore can be easily overcome) as opposed to the reasoning of the Terumas HaDeshen that it is in order to make sure that everyone has what to eat for the Seudah for in this case his friend refuses to accept so the purpose of ensuring food for the Seudah is not fulfilled but the purpose of unity is for is it not written "It is the thought that counts". The Chasam Sofer wonders on what basis the Rema chose the reasoning of the Manot Halevi over that of the Terumat HaDeshen.

My master and teacher the great Gaon R' Asher Weiss, May he live and be well, points to many difficulties with this interpretation. First, we have no reason to believe that the Rema ever saw the book of Alqabets (Manot Halevi) who was his contemporary. Second, even had he seen it, the very idea that the Rema would have based his Halachot on the book of vertlach of (who with all due respect was not quite on the level of the Terumat Hadeshen) Alqabets is unthinkable. In general the Rema focuses on the teachings of the Ashkenzim (such as the Terumas HaDeshen) and he would be unlikely to base himself the interpretation of Alqabets who was a Sephardi. Besides for all this, this isn't the correct explanation of the Passuk, according to the Peshat. The simple interpretation is that Haman was telling Achasverush that the destruction of the Jews would not cause a specific land to be devastated since they are spread out in many lands. Certainly within the seventy sides of the Torah, each side of which the Gra explains has 613 gates there is room for this explanation as well but it is not the plain meaning of the Passuk. (Note: that the Bach does make use of this Manot Halevi but it is difficult to explain this to be the understanding of the Rema.)

Further, one needs to explain an apparent redundancy in the Rema's language, he refers to his friend "not wanting to accept" and "forgiving" the gift. If one doesn't want to accept then obviously you are forgiving and so vice versa. What is the difference between these two categories?

The Mishna Berurah has already noted this difficulty:

מ"ב-או מוחל לו-ר"ל שאומר הריני כאלו התקבלתי

R' Asher suggests (based on this) that whereas a "Mechila" is a rejection in a friendly manner. "Thank you, but I have no need of it. I feel as thankful to you as if I had accepted it, a refusal to accept is a rejection, as if to say "why you are you sending me this nonesense, I have no need of it." Certainly, that type of response will not increase any friendship, so we see that the Manot Halevi's reasoning is claerly not very relevant. Rather, the reasoning of the Terumas HaDeshen is more relevant. The main thing is to make sure everyone has food available for the Seudah, as long as you checked up on your neighbour and made sure he had what to eat you have already fulfilled the Mitvah, even if he refuses to accept.

R' Yaakov Kamenetzky in his Emet L' Yaakov points out (in many places) that the Posekim write in the order of "לא זו אף זו". Accordng to R' Asher's explanation, "refusal to accept" is clearly a greater chiddush then Mechila would be and therefore should be mentioned last.

I'd like to suggest another possible explanation. I would suggest that the "not willing to accept" refers to a case where I actually prepared the Mishloach Manot but the other person refused to accept. In the case of Mechila, I did not even put together a Mishloach Manot, rather I met him the street and expressed a desire to send him Mishloach Manot to which he replied that he already has enough for the Seudah. The word Mechila implies forgiving an obligation (in this case my desire to fulfill my Mitzvoh through him) , rather then a specific object - V'Dok.

Revelation Restored?

I admit before I begin that I have not yet read Halivni's book, all I've found is this article so I may be missing something.

Halivni's thesis, as I understand it, is that Ezra had a less then perfect copy of the Torah (we can say that the periods of the bad kings caused difficulty in its transmission or something like that) at his disposal and that he made use of a certain level of editorial discretion in order to place it together.

I'd like to focus on one of his proofs, the baraita in Avot D' R' Nosson 34:4.
Marc Shapiro has already cited it here -http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/704648//The_Last_Word_in_Jewish_Theology?_Maimonidies pg. 200 and I'm to lazy to retype it.

I honestly don't think that this Baraita supports a theory that anywhere near as radical as that espoused by Halivni. If you look at the examples cited earlier in the Baraita, they are all relatively innocuous. In most cases, we have a passuk that isn't entirely clear and the dot is meant to stress that the sentence is to be understood in a certain manner, thus by Pesach when it refers to the a "far way" the dot tells you that it isn't very far but anything out of the Azarah counts as far, etc.

That being the case the conclusion should be understood likewise. Ezra had a perfectly whole text. What Moshe (so the Binyan Yehoshua understands it (She'Lo K'Dr. Shapiro), for what has Eliyahu to do with the text of the Torah.) means to ask is that given that the statement is unclear (far can be understood as being very far, Esav's kiss might be thought to be in earnest, etc.) he should have used the power of Tikkun Soferim vested within him (There is a nice overview of this at Seforim - here) in order to clarify the text. To which Ezra responds that rather then using the more radical method of Tikkun Soferim he chose to put the dots on the letters to signify that they should not be understood simply.

See the Binyan Yehoshua there who takes this approach. While there is still a certain level of radicalism even in this, it's a far cry from the great building that Halivni builds on top of this Baraita.

Nusach Acher - hopefully a bit clearer:

As I understand Halivni takes from this baraisa two things.

1.Ezra had an imperfect copy of the Torah.

2. He made use of his editorial skills to patch together the incomplete text he had.

I just don't think that the ten examples the Baraisa brings show anything near this. We have no reason to assume that the word "neshika" by Esav is a mistake. All the dot is signifying is that there is a deeper (Midrashic?) meaning. That applies to most of the cases. As I understand it the text at then end is merely saying that Ezra could have used the relatively minor power of Tikkun Soferim in order to clarify the texts. Maybe add or remove a word here or there. Certainly its still a Chiddush, but Halivni seems to be jumping the gun and from a few unclear pesukim he creates an text "maculated beyond repair"? From the ability to move a letter here or there he gives Ezra full editorial discretion.

Purim Torah - courtesy of Herodotus and Chacham Faur

Herodotus tells us that Persians “are extremely fond of wine;” indeed, “it is usual for them to be drunk,” particularly “when they are debating the most important issues.” They attach so much importance to inebriation that “any issues they debate when sober are reconsidered by them when they are drunk.”


Herodotus Histories, I, 133, p. 61. It is now clear why Esther had to arrange two separate drinking parties. Since she obtained permission from the king to invite Haman when the king was not inebriated (see Est. 5:4), it was not official. Therefore she organized the first party in order to receive permission from the king to invite Haman when the king was inebriated (see Est. 5:7-8). Once official permission was obtained, she organized a second drinking party to present accusation against Haman (see Est. 7:2-5). This is why, although the king had granted Haman permission to kill the Jews (see Est. 3:8-11), he was furious [1] when he learned that Haman wanted to proceed with his plan (see Est. 7:5-7), although permission was granted when he was sober. It is worth noting that the Shiites in Iran reject the tradition ascertaining that Mohamed had forbidden to drink wine.

See here.

[1] The Malbim has a different explanation I cited it here.

הרהורי עבירה קשים מעבירה

הרהורי עבירה קשים מעבירה (יומא כ"ט)- אולי מפני שכיון שכבר הרהור והתאוה בערה בו א"א לעכב עצמו והוא קצת בגדר אונס ואין להאשים לו כ"כ אבל הטענה עליו הוא שלא מנע עצמו מההרור שזה היה בידו